Official Next Gen Chrysler 200 Thread
#167
Lexus Fanatic
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
With that, based on the fact that Chrysler has, in the past, built junk that can't compete, my opinion stands. The 200 will be a complete failure, just like the previous one. It will end up in rental fleets because that will be the only way they'll sell. Let's just call it my prediction,
![](http://blog-imgs-34.fc2.com/n/e/w/news020/18d2aa69.jpg)
#169
Pole Position
#170
Formerly Bad Co
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
No, my opinions are based on facts. Is it a fallacy that in the past, Chrysler has built junk cars that never competed in their segment? With that, based on the fact that Chrysler has, in the past, built junk that can't compete, my opinion stands. The 200 will be a complete failure, just like the previous one. It will end up in rental fleets because that will be the only way they'll sell. Let's just call it my prediction, just as I had predicted with the Dart.
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.
#171
Lexus Fanatic
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
Last edited by mmarshall; 04-08-14 at 12:14 PM.
#172
Lexus Test Driver
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
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.
#173
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
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.
#174
Lead Lap
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Well, that's the official line that the marketers and auto-press pundits have been giving us..... hatchbacks just don't cut it here in America. But look at how well the Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe, Ford Focus/Fiesta, Chevy Sonic, Nissan Versa, Subaru Impreza, VW Golf, and other compact hatchbacks have done here....not to mention the sales-success of the Dart's own hatchback predecessor, the caliber (despite its poor quality). The Dart, of course, competes in that class......a class where people ARE buying the competing hatchbacks.
![Stick Out Tongue](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
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.
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 haven't done an actual review of the Avenger, as I have on the Dart. But, just sitting on the lot or showroom, I don't find it a very impressive car. The Dart, IMO, substantially beats it in fit/finish, interior trim, and general build-solidness. Unless one wants the extra power of the Avenger R/T and its 3.6L V6, I personally see little reason to buy one over a Dart....even if premium gas is an issue.
Opinions of just what is and what isn't mediocrity, though, differ. If you go by much of what we hear from the auto press and enthusiast magazines (somewhat overdone, of course), their idea of "mediocrity" seems to be anything that doesn't go or handle like a Porsche 911.
#175
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: NSW
Posts: 1,019
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Blame the government for at least part of that. The upcoming CAFE standards are causing more and more automakers to substitute turbo-fours for quieter, more refined V6s. Fortunately, though, the new 200 does have the 3.6L V6 option....a good move, IMO, on Chrysler's part. One of the (admittedly) few complaints I have about my Verano (and its Buick Regal/Encore brothers) is that Buick omitted a small V6 for less-desirable fours and turbo-fours.
#176
Formerly Bad Co
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
#177
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 7,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
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. ..
#178
Formerly Bad Co
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Look at the difference between a Fusion V6 and 2l ecoboost, same goes with the sonata v6 and 2.0t
#179
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: NSW
Posts: 1,019
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
But here is your proof
http://m.motortrend.com/roadtests/se...el_comparison/
#180
Formerly Bad Co
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
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/
But here is your proof
http://m.motortrend.com/roadtests/se...el_comparison/
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.