Dodge Romeo Part 2: All-new Dodge Dart

December 14,2011

As Dodge has divorced one carmaker (Daimler-Benz) and remarried, this time to Fiat, so has its fortunes changed. Dodge has announced that its 2013 Dodge Dart compact will be based on the Alfa Romeo Guilietta. The Giulietta, hailed as an excellent front-drive hatchback, will provide a competitive platform for Dodge. The new Compact U.S. Wide architecture co-developed with Fiat will feature four-wheel independent suspension, MacPherson struts front and multi-link at the rear, with available 18-inch wheels.

As for the Dart nameplate, it is originally from a full-size sedan that Dodge made in the 1960s. It eventually became the moniker for a midsize and then a compact sedan.

The engine choices are naturally from Fiat as well: a 16-valve 2.0-liter inline-four, a 16-valve 2.4-liter Multi-Air four, both dubbed Tigershark; and a 1.4-liter MultiAir turbo. MultiAir is Fiat’s version of BMW’s Valvetronic—using the intake valves instead of a throttle plate to regulate the volume of air fed into the cylinder. The system improves both fuel efficiency (+7.5 percent) and low rpm torque (+15 percent).

If the Dart will look anything like the metal coming out of Alfa Romeo’s factories, it should look good. However, the styling will reportedly be distinctly Dodge. Dodge says that the design will feature Dodge’s trademark crosshair grille, with projector headlamps and accentuated fenders. Full-width LED “racetrack” taillamps and integrated dual exhaust—a la Dodge Charger—will be the main rear elements.

Dart will be built in America in Illinois. Dodge is investing $600 million to support the production of the Dart, et.al. This includes a circa-60,000 square meter body shop, new machinery and tooling.

Dodge Dart will debut at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit in January 2012.

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.