ccap41

It was a Platinum Suber Crew with 4WD.. I mean it was probably within 25lbs of the most it could possibly weigh with every option possible on it. ..in all fairness..lol To me the biggest shocker was the 16.9sec quarter of the diesel. I knew it wasn't going to be blowing doors off of anything and it is obviously designed more around daily driving and fuel economy but I didn't expect a (basically) 17 second quarter mile time. I mean a 1.0 Fiesta is quicker than that.. I genuinely am not trying to be a dick and make a "troll" post but it really did surprise me with that time.

I do find it odd they compared it to the 3.5 EB at all.. They had to have run a 2.7 by now to give those numbers. 21mpg from this truck tells a lot about the drivers..hooning the heck out of it. 16.9 second quarter mile time.. I love the diesel economy and I'm a pretty passive driver but that might be too slow. I'd still give it a fair chance if I were in the market for a truck because the economy can be that good. To the odd comparison.. 16mpg in the 3.5EB, 17mpg in their long term 3.6. 14.4sec quarter vs 16.0sec. For 1mpg..Not bad. (price is another thing to debate over though - the difference from base 3.6 to 3.5EB in cost).

I totally dig the midnight edition. But everybody that knows me knows I love blacked out vehicles.. I love that GM/Chevy has been doing that lately. I think the lack of chrome and now body colored panels/pieces cleans the look up a lot.

^ That's how I feel but.. it doesn't really matter..

Don't forget the Z06 has carbon ceramic brakes vs the traditional disks in the GT-R. Brakes are a huge aspect of confidence in attacking a track. Just more gray area to try to figure out. Have you gotten to see one of these in person yet? My local Chevy dealer had one and i went to look at it to oogle it and holy balls those brake rotors are massive! The rear tires at 335mm...

No AWD doesn't equal a win but it will give an amateur a more confident corner exit knowing the rear end isn't going to whip out. I can agree to disagree.. Funny this is where we ended up going from the original comparison test lol.

I think more importantly is that the GT-R is probably easier to go fast with. Ask an amateur to jump in a 650hp RWD car and race vs a 600(?)hp AWD car and it won't even be a competition. The GT-R will work its AWD magic. The Z06 has its own brand of track hero wizardry in the form of the eLSD and performance modes. Reviewers comment that it exits corners like AWD. If MT beat the Nismo by .7 seconds on a short track, you're talking about a couple full seconds difference from the standard GT-R. The Z/28 beat the GT-R around a track as well. While I agree.. But once you dial those modes back because the average joe can't handle it, it then becomes slower. The car won't allow you to go bonkers(same with the GT-R). But the GT-R is just going to be a more amateur drivable car at a decent pace. Like Frisky said " 1) Again, those times can't be duplicated by someone with even good driving skills, let alone the average owner. 2) The Z06 cannot sustain laps at that pace even if they could.(I think this would be a non issue for an amateur who can't/wont be running a true race pace.) 3) Most people will easily go faster in the GT-R, despite absolute capability. 4) Track events aren't pitting drivers against one another in a race anyway, so it's a moot point."

Hmm interesting.. Thanks for looking that up! I think my friend who really wants one would just get the AC. He'd be content with a raw and stripped down Wrangler. He's always wanted one but they hold their value so damn well he didn't want one with a bajillion miles for a good price or couldn't afford one with a reasonable amount of miles on it.

Do you know the difference in the Willy's Wheeler and the Willy's Wheeler W ? That looks freakin' sweet! I LOVE the red interior to top it off!

True to all that. And the C63 has the best interior, best turning circle, largest trunk and somehow the best EPA fuel economy rating, best passing power. I also would skip the carbon brakes and save $5,400. The Nissan GT-R can hammer a Corvette in a 0-60 sprint and beat it on a race track, yet I doubt the Corvette fans here would buy a GT-R just because it is has a good Nurburgring time and video game launch control. Cadillac has put the performance in the ATS-V, but all three of these cars are basically the same (imagine if the Lexus IS-F was in that test, it would be have been embarrassed). But the same issues the base ATS has with interior space, interior trim, CUE, etc are all still there. Really I think all 3 of these cars are $5-10,000 over priced, the base models of all these are like $35,000 and these cars are near $80,000. One point of contention: a $100k Z06 would DESTROY a $100k GT-R on a track. In fact, Motor Trend ran a 1:25.00 at willow springs with a Z06 manual and a 1:25.7 with a $150,000 GT-R Nismo. That's a stretch. First off, because the average owner isn't going to come anywhere near to duplicating that time as they would the GT-R's, and because the Z06 can only do it for one or two laps, anyway. I think more importantly is that the GT-R is probably easier to go fast with. Ask an amateur to jump in a 650hp RWD car and race vs a 600(?)hp AWD car and it won't even be a competition. The GT-R will work its AWD magic.

Alright I can get on board with them redoing the interiors.. I just haven't heard anything from any comparison in a handful of years which leads me to believe they still are the same basic Compass and Patriot of 8ish years ago.. The Wrangler is its own thing. Whatever they keep doing or lack of doing is working. I don't rag that at all. They have a gold mind and they're doing exactly what the people want. That is awesome that there are lift kits for them..but that in and of itself says they are dated.. That pic is about exactly what one of my best friends wants. Simple, 2 door, black wheels.. He wants his to be a manual. And he says he will just drive everywhere with the doors off. lol

Who knows? I still think GM should turn the Canyonado into a nice Jimblazer Like.

You are just all over the place with that post.. First, The Compass and Patriot may be fine vehicles but they are also of the cheapest, plasticy-est vehicles left on the road today. Part of that is that your 07 Patriot and todays '15 Patriot are basically the same thing. 8 years isn't winning people over. I will coninue to dismiss those two are they just aren't good vehicles in the 2015 market. The standard has gone way up in the past 5 or so years and these haven't been realy updated in that time frame. The DSG is one of the best out there. Because they didn't half ass their car.. They built an award winning car. Dodge did not. I don't recall dissing the Dodge trans other than comparing it to the DSG which you praised. I realise Ford is still using 6spds. And the ST(252hp/270tq) still achieves better mileage than a Dart GT at 184hp/174tq. I realize there is a decent price difference but it still is just a better engine/drivetrain setup. Does the Dart currently have the ZF 8spd? If so, great for them! That's something they need. See this is why I said your post was all over the place.. You're comparing the Dart to the Golf(which VW also has the Jetta classified as a "compact" car as well). So VW has both the Golf and Jetta in the compact car segment. The Sonic and Fiesta aren't even in the same category as the Dart or previously mentioned Golf. You're comparing out of class cars. The CR-V has won awards. I believe just last year it was the SUV of the year by MT. No sales aren't everything, That's been discussed countless times but sales in the smaller less emotional segments are usually a very good indication of a better overall vehicle whether it be packaging or what you get per $ spent. It came out as a 2013 model year. What is there to think about? It came out mediocre.. Is it coming out with a refresh next year?

^ Top of the line AWD at 35k is about where the market is on these smaller CUVs though(which is expensive). But I couldn't live with a CUV of this size(not saying it is huge but it isn't CX-3 sized either) and only having 175hp/195tq. I know it is probably adequate but at 35k there should be a more performance oriented option like a few of the other CUVs offer.

Whose Audi is that? What powertrain is in it? Great pic! I think that's his brother's Audi and I think it has the 2.0t. Pretty car. And Stew's Dakota looks nice and cleaned it itself! Nice pic Stew!

^ that's what I'm trying to say(most of that at least. I do not know any real financials..) Honestly, I like the Dart. I would consider it if I was in this market. But that's in part because I will give the D3 a good chance and opportunity before going overseas. But that doesn't mean that it is truly in the top of its class or ever has been. I was disappointed when it came out and read the reviews on it. Nobody fell in love with it like I had hoped. It came out mid pack.. And in this segment it is probably the most competitive segment out there as almost everybody has something in this class. I mean I listed sales and there were 15 cars if you include the ILX and Verano. Take them out and it's still 13 cars to compete with. I don't know any other segment that has that many competitors. So to stand out is tough.

Well, the tech it had still wasn't selling.. And "excellent ride" is just an opinion which(not factual) the buying public disagrees with. What exactly makes it better than the Corolla? I honestly do not know. But I doubt it is an overall better package than the Corolla just based on magazine comparisons where the Dart just isn't getting very high regards. Didn't the Dart have "EcoBoost" problems with not achieving close to its EPA numbers in testing as well? As for having a lame 1.4T at launch.. well that is what people are getting at here that FCA in general has problems and launching a car(pre FCA, I know) with a lame engine is a major issue and should NEVER happen and now the transmission issues with the brand new Cherokee as well. "Despite MultiAir II valvetrain magic, the 3293-pound Dart ranked last, both with EPA (26 combined) and Real MPG (27)"(2.4L engine at the 2014 Big Test of Compact cars. It did tie for second in the "features/amenities" category. And only one model year after being brand new it took 7th out of 7 in MT's Big Test of Compact cars. If you break down every car in this category there just isn't a really good reason to buy the Dart over anything else in its class in an objective manner. Also, The highest "as tested" price was $25,600. As an example, the Dart they used was $25,125 and it was a GT(GT starts at $21,645 and the base price is $16,495). And none of those are stripper models, pretty much loaded to the gills. The big brother SUVs to all of these start around 20-22k and move up to 35k. I built a Dart Limited and clicked every box including sticker packages and it was $27,895. That's a pretty basic CUV.. The Dar had no problems achieving or even beating it's MPG claims. the problem with the 1.4t was no torque and an uneven powerband. Also, 2 problems with that test, one autowriters drive the piss out of cars and 2, a 9 speed auto only in the heavier 200 with the same exact engine gets considerably OVER it's ratings? Makes no sense....... Wait, GT as different more aggressive gearing than other 2.4 Darts and as such is only rated around 30 on the Highway.......... Those CUVs I mentioned, all come pretty loaded at that price. Well, like I said, They decided to use the 1.4t having no tq and an uneven powerband.. Yes, auto journalists do run the piss out of the cars but they run the piss out of ALL of them, not just the Dart. And for having the most powerful engine it wasn't the quickest in any test either, all while achieving the worst mileage(both rating and their test). Like I said, It's just mid pack in almost every category and it sells like that. Nothing on Dodge's website says anything about the GT's gearing being different from the rest of the Dart lineup. It was rated the lowest of the group(mpg), which is a fail on their part. There shouldn't be any "compact" car in 2015 rated at only 31mpg highway that only makes 184hp. The Focus ST at 252hp/270tq is rated at 32highway/23city. The Golf GTI is 210hp and gets 34hwy/25city. What CUV is "pretty loaded" at less than 28k? And we're talking the stable mates to these which would be CX-5, Escape, CR-V, Tiguan, etc. look into it. You will see that non GTs are rated considerably higher, up o 36 MPG I believe, in the non GT models. And i also already said acceleration was not the quickest and handling not the best. Speed does not matter much. And the stablemates i was talking about were the Jeeps to the Dart. you get a decently loaded Patriot, Compass, or Renegade for mid/high 20k range. Look at Patriot sales. It is almost ridiculous that it still sells as well as it does and the while the Dart sells were growing (which had a goal of only 10k a month BTW), the new Renegade sales appear to be eating into Dart sales. Oh, Show me a Focus ST that get's it's MPG and the GTi runs VW's excellent DSG to help achieve those MPG. Well where do I look into it at? It isn't on their own website.. You and I both know the Patriot and Compass are jokes at this point.. They offer nothing but the Jeep logo on the hood. The Renegade is a class smaller than the Dart would be. The Renegade is smaller than the Escape, CR-V, CX-5. It is CX-3 and HR-V territory. Well 10k a month would be 120k a year and at this rate they will fall well short of that. And why would 10k a month be a goal? Why such a low goal? As of June it was on pace for just under 100k a year. The C/D long term Focus St got 26mpg in their hands over 40k miles(journalists' hands..(rated 23/32) . So it realistically achieved its ratings. And you're excusing the GTI on getting its mileage because of its great transmission..that isn't their fault Dodge didn't try hard enough on their own. THAT'S MY POINT. It is just a mid pack car and nothing more. The GTI had a great trans because they spend the time and money on that great trans. Dodge didn't with the Dart.

I found this hilarous actually. I went on vacation and came back and I thought my phone just was being a dick. Come to find out that it had to be turned off?!?! That's today's society.. Gotta make everybody happy because one person unhappy... I turned it off because I was going on vacation myself and wanted to stop the misuse of the voting system. I just wanted to have a relaxing vacation. Yes...very understandable indeed... However...the misuse of the system constitutes of Wings crying to you about the downvoting... In other words... Sure...not all his posts and threads are bad and crappy....some of it is quite informative... OK...for every good thread and post he makes....he has 3 crappy ones... 3 to 1 ratio. So....who cares even if his good posts get downvoted? He is a man-child... Most of his posts are crap. He gets what he deserves... Continue having a fab vacation. And Im sorry If Im causing you a headache as we speak. Its just that I like to speak my mind and give you my opinion on things. My opinion may be far from reality too, but its how I view things... And...correct me if you need to and guide me through my imperfections. I mean that sincerely. I always tried to be honest with those. I never abused it just because I was grumpy with somebody. Now if said person is a fanboy and irrational or hypocritical of their own posts.. If somebody spewed of fanboyism (that's about it really because "fanboyism" kind of covers it).. -1. Good, thought out explanation or opinion on any topic at all(even i I don't agree but it's a legitimate thought out post)..+1

I turned it off because I was going on vacation myself and wanted to stop the misuse of the voting system. I just wanted to have a relaxing vacation. Understandable, So where'd you go for vacation?? Boulder Colorado. Awesome! I've never been to Colorado but I've always wanted to go there. It just looks so damn pretty. Oh yeah, F150 sales.. Up for the month over month.. down for the year. I'm not worried that they will be up by the end of the year.

I turned it off because I was going on vacation myself and wanted to stop the misuse of the voting system. I just wanted to have a relaxing vacation. Understandable, So where'd you go for vacation??

It doesn't nip my opinion in the bud, it just casts the weirdest f@#king light on your forum attitude. Your Ford shilling is undeniable, EVERYONE sees it. I don't care if you drive a Dodge Caravan and love it to pieces in real life, what you post online for everyone to see is some of the most egomaniacal trolling I've ever encountered. *Drops Mic*

Much like Olds and other posters, I have nothing against Ford (or FCA for that matter), I generally like their products. You just tend to bring out the worst in everyone, not sure how you still can't see that after repeated bans at MT. Ahhh yes, the ban card is played as a way to ignore my point about hypocrisy. Wings....its not only a ban from MT Forums... You cried to the mods once....they up voted my down votes... You cried to the mods twice...they fixed your downvotes a second time... You cried to the mods thrice...they removed th downvote system... I found this hilarous actually. I went on vacation and came back and I thought my phone just was being a dick. Come to find out that it had to be turned off?!?! That's today's society.. Gotta make everybody happy because one person unhappy...

Well, the tech it had still wasn't selling.. And "excellent ride" is just an opinion which(not factual) the buying public disagrees with. What exactly makes it better than the Corolla? I honestly do not know. But I doubt it is an overall better package than the Corolla just based on magazine comparisons where the Dart just isn't getting very high regards. Didn't the Dart have "EcoBoost" problems with not achieving close to its EPA numbers in testing as well? As for having a lame 1.4T at launch.. well that is what people are getting at here that FCA in general has problems and launching a car(pre FCA, I know) with a lame engine is a major issue and should NEVER happen and now the transmission issues with the brand new Cherokee as well. "Despite MultiAir II valvetrain magic, the 3293-pound Dart ranked last, both with EPA (26 combined) and Real MPG (27)"(2.4L engine at the 2014 Big Test of Compact cars. It did tie for second in the "features/amenities" category. And only one model year after being brand new it took 7th out of 7 in MT's Big Test of Compact cars. If you break down every car in this category there just isn't a really good reason to buy the Dart over anything else in its class in an objective manner. Also, The highest "as tested" price was $25,600. As an example, the Dart they used was $25,125 and it was a GT(GT starts at $21,645 and the base price is $16,495). And none of those are stripper models, pretty much loaded to the gills. The big brother SUVs to all of these start around 20-22k and move up to 35k. I built a Dart Limited and clicked every box including sticker packages and it was $27,895. That's a pretty basic CUV.. The Dar had no problems achieving or even beating it's MPG claims. the problem with the 1.4t was no torque and an uneven powerband. Also, 2 problems with that test, one autowriters drive the piss out of cars and 2, a 9 speed auto only in the heavier 200 with the same exact engine gets considerably OVER it's ratings? Makes no sense....... Wait, GT as different more aggressive gearing than other 2.4 Darts and as such is only rated around 30 on the Highway.......... Those CUVs I mentioned, all come pretty loaded at that price. Well, like I said, They decided to use the 1.4t having no tq and an uneven powerband.. Yes, auto journalists do run the piss out of the cars but they run the piss out of ALL of them, not just the Dart. And for having the most powerful engine it wasn't the quickest in any test either, all while achieving the worst mileage(both rating and their test). Like I said, It's just mid pack in almost every category and it sells like that. Nothing on Dodge's website says anything about the GT's gearing being different from the rest of the Dart lineup. It was rated the lowest of the group(mpg), which is a fail on their part. There shouldn't be any "compact" car in 2015 rated at only 31mpg highway that only makes 184hp. The Focus ST at 252hp/270tq is rated at 32highway/23city. The Golf GTI is 210hp and gets 34hwy/25city. What CUV is "pretty loaded" at less than 28k? And we're talking the stable mates to these which would be CX-5, Escape, CR-V, Tiguan, etc.

My test with the Volt was in winter time and it was fantastic. Just schlepping around town and plugging it in at night I got something like 700mpg since I never used the gas. I have a garage, so plugging it in wasn't an issue... pull in, close the door, pop the plug cover, plug it in, go inside. The great thing (possibly my favorite thing) about the Volt was the ability to turn it on remotely and have it pre-heat itself off of house current even with the garage door closed. Whoa. That's awesome. I really like the idea of te plug-in hybrid design. I like it more than any other hybrid drivetrain out there, as of now at least.

I completely agree. I don't see next year's numbers looking quite as good because almost everybody's numbers are up right now