Dodge's President and CEO Sees 2.4L Being The Dominant Engine In The Dart

Any firm numbers on this engine for HPO/Torque?

Any firm numbers on this engine for HPO/Torque?

184 horsepower and 174 pound-feet of torque

So then I still am missing something here as I have to assume this is going to be one of these awesome OHC engines.

We have pushrod v8 and v6 engines that produce respectable HP and equal or greater Torque.

Yet we get to OHC engines and there is always great HP but a lack of Torque that is at least equal.

We know Torque is what gets you moving so why is this engine not able to have 174 HP and 184 pound-feet of Torque. I do not see how these heavier OHC engines are better than a push rod design.

To me this is a very non-impressive engine.

I would assume it's OHC, I can't imagine someone developing a new pushrod (OHV) 4 cyl in 2013..

I would assume it's OHC, I can't imagine someone developing a new pushrod (OHV) 4 cyl in 2013..

Oops, thanks I was thinking OHC not OHV, but still I question OHC engines as I do not see them being that great.

Makes sense. Dart weighs practically as much as some midsize family sedans with large naturally aspirated four-cylinder engines. The 1.4 Multiair turbo in the current Dart is a terrible engine, with crude NVH and horrific turbo lag.

That is chunky, indeed same weight give or take 100lbs as a lot of midsizers like the Altima, Accord, Mazda6.

I would assume it's OHC, I can't imagine someone developing a new pushrod (OHV) 4 cyl in 2013..

Oops, thanks I was thinking OHC not OHV, but still I question OHC engines as I do not see them being that great.

OHC engines are easily superior for inline engines. V engines is where the benefits become a lot less clear.

Makes sense. Dart weighs practically as much as some midsize family sedans with large naturally aspirated four-cylinder engines. The 1.4 Multiair turbo in the current Dart is a terrible engine, with crude NVH and horrific turbo lag.

I find it interesting you considered it "horrific" turbo lag. I mean this as a serious question: Have you driven many turbo cars? I've owned a half dozen and driven a few more including the Dart (w/ manual) during a test drive event. Maybe my memory is bad since it was right around when they launched (May 2012?) but I didn't think the lag was all that bad, especially for a very small displacement motor. The worst lag on any of the turbo cars I owned was my 2005 Saab 9-2X Aero (aka Subaru WRX). Now THAT had horrible turbo lag. My 1990 Plymouth Laser RS-T had some pretty serious lag as well.

Makes sense. Dart weighs practically as much as some midsize family sedans with large naturally aspirated four-cylinder engines. The 1.4 Multiair turbo in the current Dart is a terrible engine, with crude NVH and horrific turbo lag.

I find it interesting you considered it "horrific" turbo lag. I mean this as a serious question: Have you driven many turbo cars? I've owned a half dozen and driven a few more including the Dart (w/ manual) during a test drive event. Maybe my memory is bad since it was right around when they launched (May 2012?) but I didn't think the lag was all that bad, especially for a very small displacement motor. The worst lag on any of the turbo cars I owned was my 2005 Saab 9-2X Aero (aka Subaru WRX). Now THAT had horrible turbo lag. My 1990 Plymouth Laser RS-T had some pretty serious lag as well.

I've driven many turbo cars--my previous car was a VW with a 1.8 turbo. I found the 1.4 Multiair in the Dart to feel completely dead off-boost. The engine would bog down and take a second or two to gather itself if I didn't give it a decent amount of revs from a stop. In my experience, you have the drive the car pretty hard to get anywhere, and in the process, fuel economy suffers. I much prefer the normally aspirated, DI 2.0-liter in my Focus, which has a more linear power delivery and better overall drivability despite having one fewer gear.

I also found the gearbox in the Dart to feel loose and imprecise... not as satisfying to use as the Focus's.

Makes sense. Dart weighs practically as much as some midsize family sedans with large naturally aspirated four-cylinder engines. The 1.4 Multiair turbo in the current Dart is a terrible engine, with crude NVH and horrific turbo lag.

I find it interesting you considered it "horrific" turbo lag. I mean this as a serious question: Have you driven many turbo cars? I've owned a half dozen and driven a few more including the Dart (w/ manual) during a test drive event. Maybe my memory is bad since it was right around when they launched (May 2012?) but I didn't think the lag was all that bad, especially for a very small displacement motor. The worst lag on any of the turbo cars I owned was my 2005 Saab 9-2X Aero (aka Subaru WRX). Now THAT had horrible turbo lag. My 1990 Plymouth Laser RS-T had some pretty serious lag as well.

I've driven many turbo cars--my previous car was a VW with a 1.8 turbo. I found the 1.4 Multiair in the Dart to feel completely dead off-boost. The engine would bog down and take a second or two to gather itself if I didn't give it a decent amount of revs from a stop. In my experience, you have the drive the car pretty hard to get anywhere, and in the process, fuel economy suffers. I much prefer the normally aspirated, DI 2.0-liter in my Focus, which has a more linear power delivery and better overall drivability despite having one fewer gear.

I also found the gearbox in the Dart to feel loose and imprecise... not as satisfying to use as the Focus's.

I agree with most of your observations. I was just surprised by your "horrific turbo lag" comment as I didn't really get that same impression. I can understand you thinking it felt dead off boost. It is only a low compression 1.4L.afterall but I recall that it spooled at a pretty low RPM. Either way, if I were going to get a Dart, I would get the 2.4L as well and that is coming from someone that loves turbo motors.

How does the Dart 1.4L compare to the Cruze 1.4L?

This is a little bait and switch. Release the car with the higher mpg motor, and then gradually ramp up the percentage of the motor you think more people will buy / want. The 1.4 remains for advertising and the fuel thrifty.

Sad to take a good looking car and not have a proper family of engines at the start. The people who actually know cars and can tell a delayed turbo lag engine will be the ones talking about it and being negative, this is NOT what you want at launch.

They should have had a complete line to make sure you had good press from the get go.