Staying On Target: 1964 Dodge Dart vs 2013 Dodge Dart

It must be tough naming cars. You have a whole history of old names, some of which have been retired, and recycling one of them must feel a lot easier than coming up with something new. But if you choose a name for a car that customers don’t feel is worthy of that name, you’ll hear about it. Today we’re going to look at two cars a half a century apart with the same name, and pretty much the same mission.

I was worried yesterday about putting up a non-drivable car against one that’s ready to go. When I’ve done that in the past, the running and driving car invariably wins, unless the non-runner is something extraordinary. Apparently, a first-generation Honda Civic doesn’t cut it. The much newer Honda Fit absolutely clobbered it.

The ad for the Fit is gone, so the market must have felt the same. And I have to agree. I’m having crap luck with my own project cars recently, so the idea of taking on another makes me want to run in the other direction as well, as adorable as those old Civics are. Besides, I remember test-driving a Fit when they were new, and really liking it.

I remember back in the mid 1990s when a friend of mine who worked at a Chevrolet dealership told me excitedly, “They’re bringing back the Malibu!” Then I saw the car. No, they weren’t bringing back the Malibu; they were bringing back the Malibu name. But if you think about it, the purpose of the 1970s Chevy Malibu was very much the same as the 1990s one: basic, honest transportation for four or five people and some stuff in the trunk. Yes, some of the old ones had big engines, and others had big engines installed in them after the fact, but that wasn’t really the point of the car. It was meant to be a simple workhorse.

That’s why when Dodge brought back the Dart nameplate for 2013, I didn’t get riled up about it like some people did. You can’t get upset about the new Dart (or Malibu) not being rear-wheel-drive with a V8 and a straight axle, because no cars are like that anymore. Technology moves on, but the primary mission of the car remains the same. So let’s check out a 60s Dart, and then one from nearly fifty years later, and see just how similar, and how different, they really are.

1964 Dodge Dart 270 – $3,000

Engine/drivetrain: 225 cubic inch OHV inline 6, three-speed automatic, RWD

Location: Sacramento, CA

Odometer reading: 54,000 miles (probably rolled over)

Operational status: Runs and drives well

The Dart name was first used in 1960, on the cheapest version of Dodge’s full-size line. In 1962, it got smaller, then in 1963 smaller again, sharing its platform with the Plymouth Valiant. The two cars would get more and more similar from that point forward, until the final 1976 models were basically identical except for the grille. But back in 1964, the Dart and Valiant had distinct personalities and styling. This is the Dart 270, the mid-tier model.

The fabled Slant Six was part of the Dart recipe from the beginning. In 1964, both 170 and 225 cubic inch versions were available; I’m making an educated guess that this one is the 225, since the ad doesn’t specify. It’s backed by Chrysler’s excellent Torqueflite automatic, with pushbutton controls. You can see the buttons on the left side of the dash in the photo above. The pushbutton system was cable-operated, which I didn’t realize until I started researching it. I always assumed it was vacuum-controlled. This car runs and drives well, and has current registration.

It’s amazing how simple these old interiors are compared to modern cars: a long straight bench seat, no seatbelts, and thanks to the pushbutton transmission, not even a shift lever to get in the way. It’s in good condition, though it’s impossible to say how much of it is original, or how many times it’s been redone over the years.

Outside, it’s straight, but very faded. So faded, in fact, that it’s a totally different color on one side than it is on the other. You can see the original color in the door jambs in the photo above. There is a little rust here and there, but it looks like it’s just surface rust. The paint is beyond saving, so your options are a repaint, or live with it as-is and embrace the patina.

2013 Dodge Dart SXT – $3,500

Engine/drivetrain: 2.0-liter DOHC inline 4, six-speed automatic, FWD

Location: Albuquerque, NM

Odometer reading: 101,000 miles

Operational status: Runs and drives well

The Dart gave way to the Aspen, which was followed by the Aries, then the Spirit, then the Stratus, then the Avenger, and then back to Dart again. Apparently Dodge can only make small sedans that start with A, S, or D. The new Dart was one of the first models introduced after Fiat bought Chrysler, and in some markets it was even sold as a Fiat. Despite its European connection, the Dart was built in Chrysler’s Belvidere assembly plant in Illinois – meaning this Dart and the one above could possibly have come from the same factory.

The Dart was available with a couple of different engines; this one has Chrysler’s version of the Global Engine Alliance four-cylinder, displacing 2.0 liters. You could get it with a manual or an automatic, both with six forward gears. Here’s where you’re probably hoping I tell you this one has the manual, but alas, no. The seller says it runs and drives great, though, and it only has 101,000 miles on it.

This is the SXT model, which was Dodge’s “base model with some extra stuff” trim level for years. Might still be, actually. It has all the stuff you’d want anyway, so there’s not really any reason to go for the GT model unless you want the bigger engine. It’s in good condition, but it looks like it might need a little cleaning. Maybe you can use that as a negotiating point.

It’s a great color; Dodge offered some good ones for the Dart, as should always be the case for inexpensive cars. The low end of the market is no place for subdued earth tones. I see a couple of dents in the hood in one photo, which might be hail damage, but if so, it’s minor and probably ignorable. Apart from that, it looks great, and again, you can use any flaws you do find to talk down the price.

There you have it: two Darts from two different decades. They share nothing but the name and seem completely different, but are they really? They’re both compact four-door sedans, with basic, reliable drivetrains and some cool (for the time) features. The only difference is fifty years of technological advances. So do they make ’em like they used to? Or do they make ’em better? I leave that up to you.