The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Car Guy

The New Dart, in Light of the Old

By on 1.11.13 @ 6:06AM

The new Dodge Dart is heavy, and it’s a bother.

Before I write a new car review, I like to do some background research — which helps provide context and hopefully makes the published review informative. Well, I found some interesting information while doing some background research on the new Dodge Dart. Actually, the information concerned the old Dodge Dart — last sold new in 1976.

That year, Dodge offered a high-mileage version of the Dart called the Dart Lite (the Plymouth Duster version was called Feather Duster). To be precise, it was an option package that included a specially tuned version of the famous “slant six” 225 cubic inch engine, teamed up with an overdriven four-speed manual and a mileage-minded 2.94:1 rear axle ratio (vs. the standard car’s 3.21:1 ratio). Also included were lightweight body parts such as an aluminum hood and trunk lid bracing — which cut about 200 pounds of deadweight off the already-lightweight car. The result was 36 MPG on the highway.

The package added $51 to the cost of a ‘76 Dart — which had a base price of about $3,300.

Now for some context:

The new Dodge Dart — a much smaller car, equipped with a much smaller four-cylinder engine — gets exactly the same 36 MPG on the highway as the ‘76 Dart Lite/Feather Duster. This is startling, given the new Dart has the benefit of almost four decades of engineering advances — including such things as a six-speed manual transmission, direct port fuel injection, and vastly better aerodynamics. Yet the 2013 car only manages to match the mileage of the 1976 car — a much larger car, with a much larger engine fed by a carburetor and without even an Atari-level computer running the show.

This is seriously sad. Tragic, even. It’s also a measure of how much progress hasn’t been made since the mid-1970s as regards vehicle design. Or rather, a measure of how much progress in engineering and design has been obviated, negated or otherwise rendered “net zero gain” (or loss) by government diktats. Everything from weight-adding “safety” diktats to thou-must-burn-corn-alcohol-laced fuel diktats (which have reduced the fuel efficiency of new cars by 3-4 MPG, on average, relative to what they’d otherwise achieve if they were fed 100 percent gasoline).

Consider:

The old Dart — a mid-sized car by modern standards — weighed about 2,700 lbs.

The new (2013) Dart — a compact-sized car — weighs 3,186 lbs.

That’s about 500 pounds of additional deadweight — in a car that’s more than a foot shorter overall than the old model (183.9 inches for the ‘13 vs. 196 inches for the ‘76) and which is FWD and four-cylinder powered vs. rear-drive and six-cylinder powered.

The new Dart also has a starting price of $15,995.

Let’s call it $16k to make the math easier — vs. $13,554 (and change) in inflation-adjusted terms for the 1976 Dart.

So, to sum up:

For about $2,441 more — the price of a new Dart vs. the cost-when-new of a ‘76 Dart — you get the exact same 36 MPG.

Ah, progress!

Page: 1 2  

About the Author

Eric Peters is an automotive columnist and author of Automotive Atrocities: The Cars You Love to Hate (Motor Books International) and a new book, Road Hogs.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (48) |

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.11.13 @ 7:32AM

Eric, you're onto to something.

But sometimes it's better not to see the man behind the curtain and simply wrap your arms around the insanity that permeates our society and is called progress.

pogybait| 1.11.13 @ 4:55PM

Yes, and we could also be driving one of those NHTSA safety cars that AMF, a firm whose specialties lie in industrial and leisure time products created under a contract under Jill Claybrook’s leadership.

R Martin| 1.11.13 @ 7:36AM

A friend from Australia sent me this today:

Billy

An old station hand named Billy was overseeing his herd in a remote pasture
in the outback when
suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced toward him out of a cloud of dust.

The driver, a young man in a Brioni® suit, Gucci® shoes, RayBan® sunglasses
and YSL® tie,
leaned out the window and asked the old man, "If I tell you exactly how many
cows and calves you
have in your herd, will you give me a calf?"

Billy looks at the young man, who obviously is a yuppie, then looks at his
peacefully grazing herd
and calmly answers, "Sure, why not?" More...

R Martin| 1.11.13 @ 7:37AM

The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell® notebook computer, connects it
to his Cingular RAZR
V3® cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up
a GPS satellite to get
an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite
that scans the area in an
ultra-high-resolution photo.

The yuppie then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop® and exports it
to an image
processing facility in Hamburg, Germany ....

Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot® that the image has
been processed and
the data stored. He then accesses an MS-SQL® database through an ODBC
connected Excel®
spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry® and, after a few minutes, receives
a response.

Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech,
miniaturized HP LaserJet® printer,
turns to Billy and says, "You have exactly 1,586 cows and calves." More...

R Martin| 1.11.13 @ 7:38AM

"That's right. Well, you'll be helpin yourself to one of me calves, then,
since you won it fair en
square." says Billy.

He watches the smartly dressed yuppie select one of the animals and looks on
with amusement as
the man gingerly picks it up & stuffs it into the boot of his car.

As the yuppie is carefully brushing the dust & hair off his
suit, Billy says, "Hey, if I can
tell you exactly what work you do & where you come from, will you give me
back my calf?"

The yuppie thinks about it for a second, wonderingwhat this wrinkled up
dirt encrusted uneducated
old man could possibly know? He grins and then says, "Okay, old fella,
why not? I'm a believer in
fair play."

"You're a politician & you work in Canberra." says the old timer.

"Wow! That's correct," says the yuppie, "but, tell me how on earth did you
guess that?"

"No guessing required." answered Billy "You showed up here even though
nobody called you; you
want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked.
You used millions of
dollars worth of equipment trying to show me how much smarter than me you
are; and you don't
know a thing about how working people make a living - or about cows, for
that matter. This is a
herd of sheep.

Now give me back my dog."

AND THAT FOLKS IS WHAT THE PROBLEM IS ALL ABOUT.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.11.13 @ 7:44AM

Speaking of wool, RM, was that you in the grey sweater at Bastiat last night?

R Martin| 1.11.13 @ 8:36AM

Tall, handsome, light grey--yes. Why didn't you say hello? BTW, Mr. Taylor was a particularly weak speaker and I was hoping his topic would focus more on economics. Hope you plan to attend next month.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.11.13 @ 8:48AM

I wasn't sure which you were, though I concluded later by the initials on the sign in sheet you were the only R M present. I was the guy in the blue jacket with the white shirt (I should have worn a "Free TLP" button).

Occam's Tool| 1.11.13 @ 7:51PM

Superb, sir.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.11.13 @ 7:41AM

In 1976, you had to wait until the upcoming January to get Jimmy Carter. In 2013, we've already had Obama for four years, and get to look forward to four more.

How progressive we have been.

CJW| 1.11.13 @ 8:01AM

If we had acontest of who is worse, Jimmy or Barry.....Who is more annoying, Michele or Rosalynd.... At least Jimmy took care of his brother, Billy, whereas Barry did nothing for poor George in Kenya.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.11.13 @ 8:18AM

To turn it back to the content of the article, I can picture Billy Carter speeding around the back roads drunk in a 1976 Dart (the heavier version, though) as Jimmy, in the cardigan at home with the thermostat turned down, fretted over the profits his brother was throwing to the evil oil companies by using the model with lower MPG (of course, it would later be revealed that Billy was filling his tank with Libyan 93 octane, rather than inferior American 87 octane unleaded of the variety that Jimmy would mandate).

If TLP does no contest today, we can head over to Flynn's article and opine on Billy Beer.

Who would have thought there could ever be nostalgia for the Carter Era?

CJW| 1.11.13 @ 8:29AM

Remember the SNL skit from the Carter era, Quien es muy macho, Jimmy or Barry?

Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.11.13 @ 8:35AM

That one doesn't ring a bell. Was it a Belushi?

R Martin| 1.11.13 @ 8:40AM

I think he means the one with Dan Aykroyd portraying Carter as a policy wonk.

CJW| 1.11.13 @ 8:44AM

RM
Went to the Bastiat site, and read some. Very good thanks.

CJW| 1.11.13 @ 8:42AM

I believe it was Bill Murray, not 100% sure. It alwasys started, Quien es muy macho, Ricardo Montalban or Fernando Lamas? Then he would change names.

JimH| 1.11.13 @ 3:14PM

Lloyd Bridges es mas macho.

CJW| 1.11.13 @ 4:47PM

You mean Mandlebaum, Mandlebaum!

c. j. acworth| 1.11.13 @ 8:09AM

All I know is that it is a Chrysler product, which means it has been bailed out TWICE on my dime. No sale, no matter what the milage!

Brother John| 1.11.13 @ 8:32AM

Ah, not the '76! It was the Aspen, the Dart's replacement, that was one of the dogs that drove Chrysler into bankruptcy. That, and their downsizing campaign was behind Ford and GM by a couple of years. In fact, the Dart's replacement was actually bigger.

c. j. acworth| 1.11.13 @ 10:36AM

I meant that Chrysler has been bailed out twice, not any particular model. I will never buy a Chrysler product, they have enough of my money already.

OP4| 1.11.13 @ 8:29AM

Gas mileage aside, I would be very hesitant to buy a re-badged Alf-Romeo with a mere 3yr/36k warranty.

Frank Drackman| 1.11.13 @ 9:56AM

Mr. Peters, you writing about cars is like Barney Frank writing about picking up chicks.
First of all, if you can't make enough money in this country to not care about how much gas costs, you're a loser, and deserve whatever POS you drive.
What about a comparison of 0-60 times, top speeds, braking, or for Mopar products
Time spent in Shop/Time on Road ratio...
Cause as someone who drove a 74' Impala, 76 Pinto, 78 LTD, 1976 was almost the absolute nadir(rhymes with Nader) of automobile performance. The Corvette had 210hp(the performance version)or 50 less than a modern day Honda Accord, choked through a single catalytic converter, 78 series tires that you wouldnt put on a childs wagon today, and a paint job that was guaranteed not to fade for ummm the first heavy rain.
Love these Classic hemmings auto auctions, with the clowns pushing the car on the stage, like you used to do when..
OK, that parts pretty accurate.
And I drive a classic every once in awhile, my 95 z28.
OK, performance is only average, just sitting in its worse than being waterboarded, but..................
its the only car I can listen to my foghat cassettes in...

Frank

SUBVET| 1.11.13 @ 11:22AM

Frank.........you need to drive a real car 1968 Plymouth GTX/Hemi....yes dk green paid $3,680.00 on street tires (f78/14 red line tires)13.90 et @105 /1320 ft. or a 1987 Buick GNX (6 cyl.) $21,000.00......(real sleeper) love to pull up to a light and dust those 5.0 mustangs off.

Or we could go back to my HS days when my 56 chevy was the quickest in school. Hand built 301 4/speed w/4:55 rr raito. (12.20 et /112 mph at San Fernando Drags. Light to light in 1963 even beat the 409's....while playing my 45's on my norelco record player (under the dash) going thru a vibrasonic system.

It's a shame we will never see those fun days ever again.....and all that on $1.65 hr. bagging groceries at HUGHES MKTS.

Frank Drackman| 1.11.13 @ 11:46AM

I just would have liked to drink at a "Whites Only" fountain...

SUBVET| 1.11.13 @ 4:37PM

Your not old enough............

Frank Drackman| 1.11.13 @ 10:16AM

OK, its slow in the OR so I did some of your work for you...
figures are for the 160 hp Naturally Aspirated, and the 160 hp Turbo, respectively

1/4 mile time 17.3, 16.2
0-60 9.9 , 8.2
60-0 122 ft, 129 ft
top speed who cares

I'll give it to you, the performance does suck, and the fact the 1976(you like it, you look up the numbers) was even worse just proves my point.

Frank

Occam's Tool| 1.11.13 @ 7:49PM

This is the Frank I have come to admire...

Denver Todd| 1.11.13 @ 10:31AM

My dad bought a Dodge Dart Western Sports Special back in the 70s, and it lasted forever, that engine was priceless. But what was really unique about our car was that my father decided that in order to equip it for camping, he paid someone to remove the rear seat and cut a hole to the trunk and install a flimsy plywood platform to sleep on. A car really isn't made for sleeping in, and we never did it, but what we did do was ride the roadways sitting on wood and augmented by a gallon of paint that spilled on the carpet below. For some reason my dad never considered the issue of missing seatbelts for those who enjoyed the view from the rear.

Brubaker| 1.11.13 @ 12:54PM

Eric, try this mental exercise: Imagine that you could purchase a brand new, straight from the factory 1976 Dart today for $13,554 (y0ur figure). Now, imagine that car sitting next to a 2013 Dart selling for $15,995.

Now, open your "dealership" to the public--and see which car sells first.

Your fixation on gas mileage is quite simply absurd. The 2013 model is a better car by any rational standard. Although a collector might prefer the 1976 version (unlikely in the case of a Dart), people who actually plan to drive the car, to work, to school or for shopping, will prefer the vastly superior 2013 model.

Bob K| 1.11.13 @ 7:14PM

I had a chance to buy a very low milage 74 Plymouth Gold Duster in great condition for $3000.00 in the early eighties. I still wish I had bought it and set it aside for a while.

Who Knows?| 1.11.13 @ 2:33PM

It’s always fun to wax nostalgic, especially if augmented with numerical facts about dollars, mpg, weight, on and on.

America is, of course, top dog in the application of technology to moving the body, with all the other car-producing countries, like Japan and Germany and Korea.

But, what about the places that are still getting up to speed, pun intended?

An India definitely doesn’t have to worry about American government standards, so they are producing autos sans so many “heavy” safeguards US companies must install.

I saw “Kandahar” the other night. It’s an Iranian movie from 2001, which was highly praised---and, very good, IMHO. At one point, the protagonist has to pretend to be the wife of a typical Afghan, who already has a couple of wives, as well as four children.

They all get into this three-wheeled “dune buggy-sized” machine, with dad and the driver in the front seat, and the other seven crammed into the back. Putt putt.

Talk about MPG, per person!

And, I bet the vehicle didn’t cost much, either.

The undeveloped part of the world will adapt to gas powered people-and-stuff movers in the cheapest way, so it goes---

Occam's Tool| 1.11.13 @ 7:50PM

Some day, I will talk about POS old cars and NZ...

Frekki| 1.11.13 @ 3:08PM

I was a mechanic back then and I have to tell you the 36 MPG was BS. 28 tops. With very careful driving. On the plus side though, you could fix that 76 with tools any good home mechanic owned. This new breed of cars (actually last 20 years) has been engineered to only be repaired by the dealer. I drive a 1981 Chevy, I can fix it with a screwdriver and ducktape. It also won't tell the government where I am and what speed I am going.

Bob K| 1.11.13 @ 6:57PM

I bought a 74 Dodge Dart used in 75 for $2400.00. It had 8800 miles on it. I sold it to a friend's father when it had 159,000 miles on it 5 years later for $400.00. The only things I had replaced were the carburetor-- twice--I ruined the first one using gas with corn alchohol in it. (Jimmah Carter said it was the thing to do!) I also replaced a starter and a fuel pump. None of these items cost more than 50 bucks.

They guy who bought it drove it for a long while around small coal towns in the Anthracite region of PA and got rid of it years later when it had over 200,000 miles on it. He said the slant 6 engine was still running real good but the body had rotted out.

Great car but it rode like a lumber wagon!

Bob K| 1.11.13 @ 7:06PM

I never got anywhere near 36mpg with it either! I got 26mpg on a long round trip on Interstate 80 to South Bend and back but that was the the best I got. Overall it was about 20mpg but we have lots of hills around where I live.

Rhoetus| 1.12.13 @ 2:03PM

My father owned a '72 Dodge Dart and drove it until the wheels fell off. I must say that it was the worst car I have ever driven. The design was poorly executed and cheaply made, the suspension was poorly designed therefore it handled terribly. As much as I didn't like my sister's '77 Ford Mustang II, the Dart was junk when new. No wonder Chrysler went bankrupt.

Rhoetus| 1.12.13 @ 2:03PM

My father owned a '72 Dodge Dart and drove it until the wheels fell off. I must say that it was the worst car I have ever driven. The design was poorly executed and cheaply made, the suspension was poorly designed therefore it handled terribly. As much as I didn't like my sister's '77 Ford Mustang II, the Dart was junk when new. No wonder Chrysler went bankrupt.

Rhoetus| 1.12.13 @ 2:03PM

My father owned a 1972 Dodge Dart and drove it until the wheels fell off. I must say that it was the worst car I have ever driven. The design was poorly executed and cheaply made, the suspension was poorly designed therefore it handled terribly. As much as I didn't like my sister's '77 Ford Mustang II, the Dart was junk when new. No wonder Chrysler went bankrupt.

Rhoetus| 1.12.13 @ 2:04PM

My father owned a 1972 Dodge Dart and drove it until the wheels fell off. I must say that it was the worst car I have ever driven. The design was poorly executed and cheaply made, the suspension was poorly designed therefore it handled terribly. As much as I didn't like my sister's '77 Ford Mustang II, the Dart was junk when new. No wonder Chrysler went bankrupt.

Rhoetus| 1.12.13 @ 2:05PM

My father owned a 1972 Dodge Dart and drove it until the wheels fell off. I must say that it was the worst car I have ever driven.

Rhoetus| 1.12.13 @ 2:05PM

My father owned a 1972 Dodge Dart and drove it until the wheels fell off. Junk!

RJ| 1.12.13 @ 3:48PM

Interesting article, Eric. Thanks. I wish the feds would lay off on some of the excessive regulation and let car guys design and build better cars. Of course, they to have added so many new systems to cars that much of the joy of driving has been lost. I really enjoyed driving my Dad's 65 Corvair Monza. Cars are better today, but it was a blast to drive. I also can't forget the Datson 240Z and the Opel GT, both maintenance queens, but fun to drive.

bopberrigan| 1.13.13 @ 5:08AM

I owned a 1949 Studebaker Champion that had overdrive and got 30 mpg. I have fond remembrances of that car, pocketbook wise.

Stan Redmond| 1.13.13 @ 2:46PM

No union car manufacturer has to worry about selling crap no one wants. The taxpayer will bail them out of their failures.

GobBluthe| 1.14.13 @ 12:53PM

""The new (2013) Dart — a compact-sized car — weighs 3,186 lbs."

Ive noticed how heavy new cars are. I think it must be all the safety equipment, like all the air bags and reinforced doors.

hrgfue | 1.15.13 @ 7:40PM

2013 Happy New Year,NFL,NBA,fashion kickoff for u

More Articles by Eric Peters

More Articles From Car Guy

Sayonara, Suzuki

November 30, 2012 | Eric Peters

85 MPH: Almost a Speed Limit

November 16, 2012 | Eric Peters

Nano Seconds

October 24, 2012 | Eric Peters

Goodbye, V-8s, the Engines That Could

August 24, 2012 | Eric Peters

Clover Conditioning

July 17, 2012 | Eric Peters

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/11/the-new-dart-in-light-of-the-o

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|80 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|111 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|48 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|89 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|48 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|13 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Purple Privacy Push Persists in House Drone Hearing

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.17.13

IRS Director: ‘Some People Call Me Maurice’

Kyle Peterson | 5.17.13

Laughing to Keep From Crying

Ross Kaminsky | 5.17.13

What Does Consequence-Free Sex Cost Us?

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

IRS Sued for Wrongly Seizing 60 Million Medical Records

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Pick Obama's Brain

Paul Kengor | 5.16.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Pray and Grow Rich

Christopher Orlet | 5.16.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.