Hmmm, Chrysler 200

[Joe Handley]

http://www.allpar.com/cars/chrysler/200.html

[Jordan White]

Go Chrysler, slap a new front end on the Sebring and give it a new name.

[Jamez]

Most people that slam the Sebring/Avenger have no idea the Mistsubishi Evo is built on the same platform.

You may want to check your facts on that one.....

[Joe Handley]

IIRC, Mark did work for Chrysler at one time in the recent past, I'd say that makes his info is pretty good if that's so

[Harry P.]

I guess it's how you spin it:

After DaimlerChrysler and Mitsubishi went their separate ways in 2004, DaimlerChrysler made substantial changes to the platform. The modified GS platform is now called JS platform by DCX for mid-size cars and PM/MK for compact cars. Chrysler currently states that the Sebring and Avenger are not using the GS platform, though that was their starting point.

[TurboKitty]

I think the new body panels and a name change are good improvements, but the 200 is offered with the same horrible 2.4 4 cyl that is available in the outgoing Sebring. One of the worst parts of the Sebring is the ugly roofline, and the 200 consists of an improvement of everything else, except the roof. It looks good from the front, and good from the back, but from the side, IMO it is just as ugly as the Sebring is. One good thing is that it will be available with the new Pentastar V6, which has been getting praise. The platform is, I guess you can say, a watered down version of the Mitsubishi Lancer's platform. Chrysler simply did not refine it as much as Mitsubishi did. If they had, then the Sebring/Caliber/Avenger would have probably gotten much better initial reviews. People can't see the chassis though, they see the exterior first. That's what everyone else is gonna see most of the time, so why Chrysler made them so darn ugly is beyond me. With a little bit of effort, they could have penned a more attractive, yet functional, roofline that would have made the car look less atrocious white still addressing head room, leg room, etc. Same with the front/sides/rear. Now that the 200 has addressed those issues, it still looks like a Sebring, but is more attractive to look at, and the new front/rear take attention away from the roof.

The 200C concept was far more attractive, in every way:

Edited October 16, 2010 by MB_ChargerChick

[Harry P.]

Sure it's different...

Tear one apart. You tell me.

Hey, I'm just quoting from the very same article you cited.

Like I said... it all depends on who's spin you want to believe.

[Jamez]

I guess it's how you spin it:

After DaimlerChrysler and Mitsubishi went their separate ways in 2004, DaimlerChrysler made substantial changes to the platform. The modified GS platform is now called JS platform by DCX for mid-size cars and PM/MK for compact cars. Chrysler currently states that the Sebring and Avenger are not using the GS platform, though that was their starting point.

5" in wheel base alone is enough to call it a different platform

Sure it's different...

Tear one apart. You tell me.

I have worked on both several times in my line of work, they are very much different.

There may be similarities, but I would never call a vehicle that has had "substancial" changes made, the same.

[Joe Handley]

I think the new body panels and a name change are good improvements, but the 200 is offered with the same horrible 2.4 4 cyl that is available in the outgoing Sebring. One of the worst parts of the Sebring is the ugly roofline, and the 200 consists of an improvement of everything else, except the roof. It looks good from the front, and good from the back, but from the side, IMO it is just as ugly as the Sebring is. One good thing is that it will be available with the new Pentastar V6, which has been getting praise. The platform is, I guess you can say, a watered down version of the Mitsubishi Lancer's platform. Chrysler simply did not refine it as much as Mitsubishi did. If they had, then the Sebring/Caliber/Avenger would have probably gotten much better initial reviews. People can't see the chassis though, they see the exterior first. That's what everyone else is gonna see most of the time, so why Chrysler made them so darn ugly is beyond me. With a little bit of effort, they could have penned a more attractive, yet functional, roofline that would have made the car look less atrocious white still addressing head room, leg room, etc. Same with the front/sides/rear. Now that the 200 has addressed those issues, it still looks like a Sebring, but is more attractive to look at, and the new front/rear take attention away from the roof.

The 200C concept was far more attractive, in every way:

I'll be honest Michelle, I like the roof line on this car, it finally fits with the rest of the car as well as the long nose, short tail appearance. If the Sebring was styled more like this instead of that hideous Crossfire like styling (espcially those stupid hood ribs!)it has. In some ways the over all silhouette kinda reminds me of my old Lebaron GTS, minus the hatch back.....

5" in wheel base alone is enough to call it a different platform

I can't quite agree with that Jamez, the above mentioned Lebaron GTS and the Shadow I owned were different lengths, widths, and behaved differently, but they had many parts underneath that were pretty much directly interchangeable as well as a number of under hood parts even though they were 3 years apart in age with different EFI and induction systems?

[Jamez]

Lebaron and New Yorker were the same

Shadow and Sundace were the same

Lebaron and Shadow were not the same.

Though it is true that many parts interchanged between them, the platform did not.

People also argue that the PT cruiser and the neon were build on the same platform, and they do not share a single similarity in floor pan.

Believe what you want, everyone is entitled to there own interpretation of a term. In this case.. "platform"

They way I interpret it is as above, but if it has been modified from that form, then it is "based on" such and such a platform, not "the same" platform

[Joe Handley]

Lebaron and New Yorker were the same

Shadow and Sundace were the same

Lebaron and Shadow were not the same.

Must be semantics then, to me all of those are the same car underneath as well as the Aries/Reliant, Daytona/Lazer, Acclaim/Spirit/Lebaron, and Lebaron Convertible with a few tweaks here and there to work for the differences in the size and class of the car. Really no different than the Fox Body Mustang/LTD/Fairmont/Zephyr, T-Bird/Cougar/Mark 7, or the mid size Mopars, Chargers, and to some extent Challenger/Cuda are the same car underneath.

Edited October 17, 2010 by Joe Handley

[charlie8575]

I must be one of the few that find the Sebring attractive. I actually rather like the roof.

I was reading somewhere that the 200 is one of the cars based on the Fiat chassis? Is that true or are they just doing this as a stop-gap until that car is ready?

Michelle, were those pictures the show car or is that a production model?

Actually, that leads to my next question- when is this thing going to be up for sale?

Charlie Larkin

[TurboKitty]

I must be one of the few that find the Sebring attractive. I actually rather like the roof.

I was reading somewhere that the 200 is one of the cars based on the Fiat chassis? Is that true or are they just doing this as a stop-gap until that car is ready?

Michelle, were those pictures the show car or is that a production model?

Actually, that leads to my next question- when is this thing going to be up for sale?

Charlie Larkin

The 200C pictures in my post are those of last year's concept car. Concept cars are usually styling exercises, whereas production versions (if they're even made), are made to include features that are necessary for daily use, as well as to accommodate the various sizes of people (fat, skinny, tall, short, and everything in between). The concept 200C was to be for people who wanted something slightly more affordable than a 300C. The production version is basically a facelifted Sebring. As far as the Fiat chassis, I don't believe the 200 has it. I think the soonest we'll see a Fiat chassis in production here is with the Fiat 500 that is already out, or will be released very soon. The 200 will probably go on sale by the end of the year, or early next year I think, not positive on that.

[Agent G]

That said Michelle, I believe someone missed the mark in regards to the Sebring's ergonomics. We have five of them in the fleet, and they are quite serviceable for our purposes, however I find it to be a very uncomfortable car to drive. The console pushes into my right knee in such a way as to make anything but a short trip agony. It seems very narrow side to side but the front seat passenger has ample legroom.

I guess if I wasn't so fat it would be an ok car huh?

G

[Harold]

Under the heading of "A Rose By Any Other Name", at least they got rid of that Sebring hood (imagine trying to keep that mess clean) and the deep side sculpturing. My stepdad is a retired Chrysler engineer and they currently have one of those Calibers (it looks like a metallic blue armadillo) and if Chrysler hasn't stepped up their quality control since then, the 200 will be something else for me to avoid when they start showing up as cheap used cars in a few years. I wish them luck.

[Joe Handley]

That said Michelle, I believe someone missed the mark in regards to the Sebring's ergonomics. We have five of them in the fleet, and they are quite serviceable for our purposes, however I find it to be a very uncomfortable car to drive. The console pushes into my right knee in such a way as to make anything but a short trip agony. It seems very narrow side to side but the front seat passenger has ample legroom.

I guess if I wasn't so fat it would be an ok car huh?

G

I haven't sat in one of those yet, but being not so small myself, I'd probably be in trouble too then. I have issues with my leg and the 4wd shifter on my Jeep when it's in the Full Time position.

Under the heading of "A Rose By Any Other Name", at least they got rid of that Sebring hood (imagine trying to keep that mess clean) and the deep side sculpturing. My stepdad is a retired Chrysler engineer and they currently have one of those Calibers (it looks like a metallic blue armadillo) and if Chrysler hasn't stepped up their quality control since then, the 200 will be something else for me to avoid when they start showing up as cheap used cars in a few years. I wish them luck.

Yea, My folks have an '06 Town and Country while my Sister has an 'O6 Charger SE and with less than 40k on it's clock, the T&C has required more repairs than the higher mileage Charger or even my '98 Cherokee with over 140k And then there's the handling, it's doesn't handle nearly as well as my Jeep or the Charger and it's less maneuverable, stable, and can't corner was well as the '87 Chevy Beauville G20 it replaced

[Jamez]

My stepdad is a retired Chrysler engineer and they currently have one of those Calibers (it looks like a metallic blue armadillo) and if Chrysler hasn't stepped up their quality control since then, the 200 will be something else for me to avoid when they start showing up as cheap used cars in a few years. I wish them luck.

I have to say, what I have seen come through my shop since the introduction of the caliber, has been leaps and bounds better that what they were producing in the late 90's and early 2000's. They really stepped it up at that model changup. But they have nothing on the gains Ford has made.

[Darin Bastedo]

Back at you...

Fact Check

That article also claims that My 2008 Jeep Patriot is based on the same platform. I just had suspension work done on it, while there is a lot of interchangable parts with the avenger / Sebring there is none with the lancer. it shares no suspension, engine or drive train parts. that would lead me to believe that while the engineers may have started with that platform, the end product is very different. Thus your thesis that if you love the lancer, you should love the sebring hold no water. Even if the basic platform was the same, the different engine and different suspension tuning can make a huge difference in the impression one has of the car.

Just drive an Audi TT, and a Volkswagen New Beetle and you will see the differences two cars built on the same platform can have.

Edited October 18, 2010 by Darin Bastedo

[Chuck Most]

5" in wheel base alone is enough to call it a different platform

What about the old E-body Mopars, the '70-'74 Barracuda and Challenger? Same 'platform', different wheelbase? Granted, only a 2" difference, but still a difference. Or a modern Ford Expedition, which is available in two wheelbase lengths, or the old Scout II (100" or 118"). And even among various platforms, all the hard parts being completely interchangeable isn't always a given- quite a few parts won't directly interchange between Ford's various 'Fox Body' platforms.

I think the 'platform' thing may have more to do with who engineered the chassis, and when, than what intechanges between the vehicles the plaform underpins, at least in today's context.

[Agent G]

I haven't sat in one of those yet, but being not so small myself, I'd probably be in trouble too then. I have issues with my leg and the 4wd shifter on my Jeep when it's in the Full Time position.

Joe you will then have difficulty with the Sebring. I'm tellling you it seems narrow in there.

Ok, maybe I'm biased as I drive a luxoboat, but darnnit, this is an uncomfortable car. Believe it or not, Mrs. G's Civic is much more comfortable. We took it on a 1700 mile roadtrip and I had no issues.

G

[Joe Handley]

Joe you will then have difficulty with the Sebring. I'm tellling you it seems narrow in there.

G

ONe thing that has really surprised me is the difference between the Caliber, HHR, and PT Cruiser. I can't seem to fit in the HHR no matter how much I try, the Caliber is tight and almost claustrophobic, yet the PT Cruiser is just as, if not roomier than my larger Cherokee is

[charlie8575]

ONe thing that has really surprised me is the difference between the Caliber, HHR, and PT Cruiser. I can't seem to fit in the HHR no matter how much I try, the Caliber is tight and almost claustrophobic, yet the PT Cruiser is just as, if not roomier than my larger Cherokee is

It all has to do with space efficiency. The shape of the car and how much junk you build into it, as well as the shape of said junk. That contributes to how much usable space is in the car. If a car is shaped well and doesn't have humongous and/or oddly-shaped consoles, badly-designed seats and all the other drawbacks a disturbingly large number of modern cars seem to have, the less space they have inside them that's usable.

Charlie Larkin

[Agent G]

It all has to do with space efficiency. The shape of the car and how much junk you build into it, as well as the shape of said junk. That contributes to how much usable space is in the car. If a car is shaped well and doesn't have humongous and/or oddly-shaped consoles, badly-designed seats and all the other drawbacks a disturbingly large number of modern cars seem to have, the less space they have inside them that's usable.

Charlie Larkin

This very statement was found to be brutally true with the introduction of the "new" Impala in 2000. We bought a hundred of them based on the interior dimensions. On paper the darn thing is only 1" less wide than a CVPI and has 3/4" less headroom.

Add police equipment and you suddenly realize the "usable" space is quite rapidly taken up. Some of us older wide body coppers kept our Fords for quite a while. Of course we did the same with the demise of the 9C1 Caprice too...........

G