Looks awful right? This is a 1966 Dodge Dart. They were decent little 4-door sedans. Nothing special though. Just a car. Many who remembered this car were far from elated, or even cared at all, when Dodge announced that they were going to release a new version of the Dart in America last year.
The 2012 Dart was targeted at younger people - those who had no memory of the lame old Dart. The CEO of Dodge-Chrysler said before its release, "Whoever’s buying [The Dart] doesn’t have an historical memory of our segment predecessors... It’s almost virgin territory when you’re talking to young buyers now.”
Dodge did a great job, I think, in targeting this market through funny ads that featured cool guy extraordinaire, Tom Brady, and financing programs that allow you to register parts of the car like a wedding registry.
In spite of its looks and a good marketing campaign though, the new Dart did not sell well in 2012. And I'll tell you why.
First of all, its positioning. Dodge-Chrysler Group is now owned by Fiat Motors, which means really nothing. (The end consumer doesn't usually see a change in mid-range cars when these type of mergers take place.) This means that, while the Dart's success in the small car market is crucial to the success of Dodge, its success is being hindered by its position in that market. You would find the Dart directly between the Fiat 500 and the Chrysler 200, both of which seem to be preferable by the small car buyers of 2012.
Another reason the Dart did not succeed in its initial year was not the fact that the first 5000 sold only had manual transmission. (Dodge's CEO actually tried to use that as a possible reason for poor sales) The reason that the Dart didn't do so great last year was the fact that people don't expect a small car from Dodge-Chrysler, because of their almost total reliance on large cars; trucks, vans, and SUV's. 70% of their vehicle sales last year were trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles.
What does this mean for the Dart? It means that it may just take a few years to catch on. It is a good little car, without a doubt, and it looks stunning. I think that people are not perceptive of the fact that Dodge can make a good, small car. When they think Dodge, they think big. Dodge will just have to be diligent marketers so they can become competitive in the small car market, like they want.
We will just have to give it another full year to see if the Fiat dream is going to come true, and if Dodge can sustain its survival through a revival of the Dart.
I actually like the old Dart. If I'm not mistaken, they did have a quick version with a Mopar V8. Also, you wouldn't find this car with Fiat 500's. The new Dart is based off of the Alfa Romeo Gullietta (owned by Fiat as well, I think). Hey, another selling point for Dodge, it has European chassis!
ReplyDeleteYou're right, there was a faster Dart, and I didn't mean to insinuate that there were no good original Dart models. It is true though that most of the Darts that people actually bought were slow, family cars.
DeleteAlso, the Dart is positioned right above the Fiat 500 in the size department. It is a small car, but it isn't as tiny as the 500. They are totally different cars - the Dart being the one Americans are more likely to buy because it doesn't look like in a child's wagon.
But the Dart is the same basic size as the Chrysler 200. So if you meant to say that it's positioned between the Fiat 500 and the Chrysler 300, then you'd be right.
DeleteI understand what you're saying. in terms of weight and size, The Dart is basically the same as the 200. The 200 outweighs the Dart by about a Greenwood resident on average across all models, and is only roughly an inch taller and wider.
DeletePerhaps what I meant to say is that the new Dodge Dart is larger than the Fiat 500, and is the cheaper alternative to a slightly larger small car, the Chrysler 200. The 200 is $5000 more expensive for its internal "luxury".
Thank you for checking me. Sincerely.