Dodge Dart and Gen X'ers - Don't kid yourself that the car is aimed at the Gen X'ers alone, there are many other demographic targets as well. The 70+ crowd liked the PT-Cruiser and are longing for a car that gets 40 MPG and is a good, "get around" car. The 45 - 60 crowd remembers the Dart as a reasonably priced, dependable (and at the time fuel efficient) vehicle that you could not kill unless you poured sugar in the gas tank. Some folks are looking for options (the Dart is full of them, and in some cases more than the segment competition). So will Gen X'ers buy it - we'll see. With the price in the mid-teens to mid-twenties it is somewhat "affordable" in today's marketplace. I guess Alpha Romeo just doesn't add any spice to the platform at all. Here's what some of the reviews say:

http://www.americanownews.com/story/16514193/all-new-2013-do...

http://www.suntimes.com/business/9906625-420/story.html

The American Auto Companies - Let's dissect that one a bit.

Ford - Rightly so did not take a government backed loan guarantee. They should give their corporate economist a hefty raise for forecasting. In the words of the Ford Chair - if the climate remained as it was for another six months, we would have had to have had aid. Ford mortgaged everything (to the hilt) and was highly leveraged (not drowning in cash buddy!). If the climate had persisted, there might not be a Ford either.

Chrysler - Not exactly "government motors" as the slang goes. It was 8% backed by US Government load guarantees and 2% backed by the Canadian Government loan guarantees. Most was either the UAW Pension Fund Trust (although I think the preferred bondholders should have gotten their money before the current administrations "UAW buddies" did - talk about political payback!) The bottom line: Chrysler paid the loans back three years early and leads the USA (and most imports) in gains in market share and sales. Hopefully, this time, the management can keep them on track and the unions have a vested interest in keeping their demands "reasonable" as differs from the past 30 years. Fortunately Chrysler probably has the best relationship of the big three with the UAW.

GM - 65% owned by the US taxpayer. They have some good stock still, and contrary to most "insipid comments by detractors" has had some good product. Buick (though not primarily targeted at Gen X'ers) has been in the top five in quality for the last 18 years. Cadillac - still has some hot vehicles and a good name. Chevy Truck - still is a market leader. Will we ever get all our money out of that one - we'll have to wait and see - I hope so.

The American Car Companies and high legacy costs - yep - they had them. Much the same as public unions do in many states and localities that are struggling to pay for "sweetheart" deals made 30 years ago. The Imports (which everyone just lauds - shall we even mention Toyota recalls! and their 6 cylinder engines that needed replacing at 60K due to engine sludging!) did learn a great deal from us Americans (most notably William E. Demmings and Joseph Juran) who brought statistical process control to Japan and the Asians when the US folks would not listen. And they had no legacy union costs to deal with. If you will note, most of their manufacturing is in "right to work" states with little or no union representation, and therefore, lower labor costs. Put that in the context of yen to dollar differentials in the monetary realm, and you do have quite an advantage. They do make good vehicles, but alas, they had to get their governments to help them out too during the 2008 - 2009 crash.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/business/23auto.html?pagew...

http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2008/12/toyota-loses-17.h...

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/22/news/companies/toyota/

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-20-auto-dealersh...

The REAL reason the auto companies (worldwide) took a nose dive in 2008 was the tightening of the credit markets, not their failure to produce "hybrids" or miss the boat in sales (remember Americans were buying SUVs, trucks and minivans during 2006 -2007. No, the credit crunch actually started in earnest in 1992 (under the Clinton Administration and both houses of Congress under Democratic control) with the pressure (on private banks primarily) to increase their share of loans in "redline" districts. This is called government intrusion into the marketplace under the guise of "social justice" or "social fairness". Throughout the 1990's it continued and was even forecast by, what, none other than the New York Times and other money watchers. Then enter Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae who purchased those "questionable portfolios" and started bundling them into marketable securities by the truckload (no pun intended) to Wall Street and other financial institutions. Yes, Wall Street added their "greed and avarice" to the market. You can only lend to people who cannot pay for the homes in the first place (what's wrong with renting and saving until you can afford it - my parents did and so did generations before them), before the house of cards comes crashing down. When 98% of all automobile transactions require financing of some type, when you cut off the faucet, you will hurt everybody. That is the real culprit that few talk about becasue they are so taken up with the "sound byte" and "op-ed" mentality that forms their opinions. So, bottom line: the government intrusion into the marketplace and the government supplying "troubled" paper to the marketplace played a major role in the auto companies problems. We won't even take a lot of time to discuss the Japanese government’s role in "propping up" their auto companies over the last 20 years or so - it isn't even worth it because it is so obvious. Oh, one last thing before we blame it all on the previous administration (which had its faults as well). In 2003 and 2006 the Bush adminsitration tried to gain more oversight over Fannie and Freddie (the Congressional Record shows this), but were stymied in their attempts to bring some sanity to the GSEs by none other than the House and Senate Banking and finance committees - this is public record!).

Normally, I am a free market guy - just let the chips fall where they may. However, I actually agree with the Obama Administration's decision to help two of the "Big 3). Why, because the auto companies did NOT do this to themselves (as many easily allude to but their allusions are illusions!) - the US Goverment actually did it to them (and the housing industry to boot). We could attempt to calculate the US loss of jobs and related industries, but it would have meant millions of jobs lost. There are around 17,500 new car dealerships in the US (many dualled with domestic and foreign nameplates) which employ an average of about 25 families each (some large ones around 150). So, let's see - that's 437,500 direct employees. Then there are the local vendors (water doctors, office suppliers, non- OEM parts houses, sign companies, medical services providers, TV and radio stations, newspapers, internet suppliers, computer suppliers, - oh you get the picture. This would have probably added another 500,000 jobs lost. Then we can talk about the auto OEM parts suppliers whose ranks are in the hundreds of thousands (Magna, Johnson Controls, and the many smaller suppliers) which would have been taken out (oh, and Ford could not have survived without those suppliers so add Ford too). Then we can add the 300,000 jobs in the US that work for the auto companies and we begin to see millions of jobs lost. Couple this with the shutting down of plants and what it does to the local economies of hundreds of cities and towns, and we are talking several millions of jobs lost on top of the 2.2 million net losses of jobs since 2009. You begin to see why the government (which caused much of the debacle to begin with) took the stance it did. It is easy to sit in the bleachers and tell the coach what they are doing wrong - it is so tempting.

All that to say, the Dart many not tantalize your particular gaze sir, but there are many that it does tantalize - we'll wait to see who is correct and only time will tell.

As far as "stale" nameplates, doesn't "Civic" just excite the dickens out of you? Perhaps "Corolla" does it for you. Good cars, but not necessarily "sexy" - just dependable (kind of like the Dart was known for)!