Not fact. Car companies change. Look at GM.

 

OK, friend............good luck with your prediction.

 

I'd have to agree with most "fail" predictions.

this is on the cusp on the next sonata release as well.

 

Pretty funny, Mike.
All ranting aside, though, to be fair, I've never been a fan of Chrysler and perhaps it's unfair of me to be so strongly opinionated about them. Believe me, though, I have my reasons.

 

But you are failing to mention any of the great cars they currently make i.e JGC, RAM, 300, Durango, Charger etc.. You are cherry picking bad cars to make your point. The new car and the old car only share a name unlike the first gen 200 and sebring which were the same car but different names.

The focus used to be **** now its a good car
The cavalier used to be **** but the cruze is a good car
The impala was crap the new one is a good car

See a trend? Just because you have a history of making poor cars doesn't mean you can't build something good. I know that the above cars are from other makers but you should reserve your judgement until you have some seat time because once again your claims are baseless.

 

Actually, I agree with you on the lousy history of their products....and I learned the hard way myself, by buying some. The only really solid cars they ever did in my lifetime were the tank-like ones they did in the early/mid 60s. Except for having lousy non-power drum brakes that were prone to quick, excessive fade (you learned to downshift going down steep hills), they were otherwise virtually bulletproof. But that faded in the late 60s, and with few exceptions, they did done sloppily-engineered/built vehicles all the way up till the recent buyout. Even since the buyout, there have still been some leftover reliability problems (witness the Jeep Grand Cherokee). But, even that is improving. And, just as important, IMO, just sitting in the interior of a new Chrysler product or test-driving it is now a much more pleasant experience than just a few years ago. It is harder now to simply dismiss them as rental-grade products.

 

Largely agreed. My folks had a 90' Dynasty which was a POS that ate transmissions for breakfast and electronics for brunch.

But our 98 Town & Country had relatively few issues by the time we got rid of it at 180,000 miles. Still saw it around quite a bit afterwards.

And the 06 300C? It has high miles but is in very good shape. A few minor issues that aren't difficult to fix. Loving that hemi. There's something to be said about the simplicity of that OHV motor too. Did a water pump on it and it would have taken way longer if it were under a timing cover like on the 1UZ. My only complaint with that car is the visibility with that roofline is terrible, front or back. I drove through a red light in New York when we picked it up because of that.

 

current modern day american car offerings are actually very undervalued. U really get a lot for the money.

the steel on the body feels strong and sturdy. the doors feel like how a car door should feel. Not a flimsy piece of panel. A close relative has a 2013 300 and I'm very impressed.

it's nice that the 200 will share these aluminum traits but the look is just very lacking. the rear is cool but the front end looks like it has no chin and no jaw line. A proportional long front end gives it a nice facial jawline and facial chin. This front end looks like it has a double chin, missing a china and zero jawline.

 

I see now that we were discussing slightly different things. I agree hatchbacks are a good option as a supplement to sedans but not as the only available body style (subcompacts notwithstanding). The Jetta, Impreza sedan (from what I understand from their forums), and Corolla outsell their hatch counterparts. The subcompact class seems to do just fine with hatches but they're dorky to start with and are smaller than the Dart.

Do I think a hatch would've been a wise area for Chrysler to invest resources? No, given they haven't gotten their base engine/transmissions out yet. It is worth noting there was supposed to be a hatchback Chrysler 100 but it was canceled.

It's using Fiat's gear so I'm going to put the blame on them. Fiat designed/budgeted that engine/transmission for the Euro market though where its characteristics are considered acceptable. When Americans ask for an automatic, they want something that feels like an auto with no compromises.

The Dart R/T was rightly delayed/canceled imo, because it does nothing to help the fuel economy #'s and would push the price further into Chrysler 200 territory. The Jetta GLI competitive bracket is actually quite small- I'm satisifed with the Dart GT's upgrades. This is all just my opinion of course.

I don't think the buyers of the Avenger judging it based on impressiveness. The Avenger was heavily discounted and point blank, it allowed customers to buy a car for the same price or for cheaper than the Dart.

While this is true, you can't deny that the compact car class is ultra competitive. The Dart simply has more downsides than many of it competitors. Why compromise when all of these cars are essentially the same price?

 

Yeah offering a V6 is a good thing. This whole 4-cyl Turbo thing is overrated. These little 4-cyl consume as much or more fuel than their V6 equivalents while being much less reliable, refined and they're also not as fast.

 

Lol this is so wrong I don't know where to start.

Show me proof that turbo 4 consumes more fiel than an equivalent v6
Show me reliability ratings
And show me performance figures

If you make blanket statements the burden of proof is on you buddy.

 

One obvious example of a vehicle that went from a turbo 4 to a V6 is the Acura RDX AWD.

1st gen:
Turbo 4
- 240 hp
- 17/22 mpg

2nd gen:
V6
- 273 hp
- 19/27 mpg

No doubt the V6 will be more reliable for the long haul too.

No turbo lag, smoother, quieter. ..

 

Thats one example and those gains are due the car getting a 6spd rather than the old 5spd

Look at the difference between a Fusion V6 and 2l ecoboost, same goes with the sonata v6 and 2.0t

 

unlike you I don't worship what manufacturers and marketing departments dribble out.

But here is your proof

http://m.motortrend.com/roadtests/se...el_comparison/

 

Numbers in the states are released by the epa not by the marketing division.

No where in that article was it mentioned that it didn't meet its fuel economy rating or its advertised 0-60

In fact it leads the pack in fuel economy. Yes the Camry is the fastest but fuel economy isnt there compared to the Sonota. The ford fusion 2.0t gets 33mpg and sprints to 60 in 6.6 which which is more than adequete.

Also keep in mind that these cars are down hp compared to the Camry. If they had the same hp figures as the Camry but different 0-60 times than you might have a point.

So I ask you to stop with the hasty blanket statements, your not fooling anyone.