mmarshall

What's terrible about it? Millions of car-buyers have depended on it for many decades. And it is still one of the best sources for automotive reliability. I have also found that many (not all) of their conclusions in the area of car-reviews agree with mine...but that is not the only reason I respect it.


I myself mentioned all four of those in my own comparison. And, besides those four, there are others as well including the Altima. and a number of other cars that are not direct, but lose comparisons. The 200 is a difficult size to fit in precisely in traditional sedan-classes.

Motorweek's, John Davis is no slouch. He's a nice guy, knows his stuff, and, though we aren't close friends, I talk and chat with him occasionally at auto shows and other local automotive functions. I have a lot of respect for him.

TangoRed

Are we? I keep seeing new cars NOT have spare tires...and if they do its just a temp. This has been especially prolific amongst luxury cars. Zig zag shifters are long gone too. Hood props...can't say I've ever paid enough attention to comment.

mmarshall

Zig-zag console-shifters are still used by Toyota, Lexus, and Mazda. Might be used by some other carmakers, too....I don't remember all of them right off-hand.

True, real spare tires aren't coming back yet in a flood...just a trickle, and then as an extra-cost option. But more new vehicles are available with them today than just a couple of years ago, and they still remain on many off-road-capable vehicles (where they never left).

Hood props....I agree, they're hard to predict or number. Subaru, for instance, keeps adding and taking them back on a number of redesigns. And you find quirks and oddities, like some entry-level compacts having nice struts, while 50K SUVs like the Ford Explorer Limited make you fiddle with a prop-rod.

bagwell

I think this new 200 should be labelled a Dodge....I know they have the Dart, but I hate the Chrysler name/emblem, and IMO, Dodge seems somewhat sportier.

Toys4RJill

Either or it really makes no difference. Dodge and Chrysler an not premium brands and there is no chance that they are luxury brands.

mmarshall

I agree on Dodge, but Chrysler is considered the corporation's premium brand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_(division)

Toys4RJill

Chrysler also on their corporate websites lists the Camry, Cruze, Fusion, Accord as direct competitors to the 200C. Nothing is said about a Verano, or perhaps Audi. So if Chrysler doesn't think their 200C is a premium car, then wiki must be wrong. FYI wiki is not legit and should never ever be used or quoted as a source.

TangoRed

Right. I mean the CEO has already said Chrysler is a mainstream brand, there shouldn't be any confusion still.

mmarshall

Size-wise, it actually fits in between the Cruze and Malibu....but is more plush and refined than either. But all of those competitors, BTW, are great cars....though I found both the new Camry and Accord stiffer-riding than their predecessors. And, as far as I'm concerned, the 200's new interior beats all of them. The Fusion, though not as plush inside as the 200C, is an excellent-driving car with Germanic feel, and an extremely worthy competitor.....if I was buying ANYTHING from Ford, that would probably be my choice.

Much of what is printed on auto manufacturer web-sites is advertising, not serious descriptions. I wouldn't judge a premium or basic-line vehicle solely from what is or isn't written on the sites. I myself usually use the web-sites only for two reasons....First, to find the nearest dealership (if I don't already know it), and Second, for reference to a specific vehicle's trim-levels, standard/optional equipment, specs, and prices.

I don't totally agree on that. If wiki info was not legit, then Julian Assange would not be in the trouble he's in for the classified data that he leaked. I myself have found that wiki has very few errors when it comes to auto-stats.

Let me ask you something. Have you actually driven a new 200? Or are you basing your opinions solely on what others have written about it...or your own preconceived ideas of what it is and isn't? Hoovey posts a lot of good (even excellent) autoblog reviews, including this one. But, like in an airplane (I'm a licensed pilot) there is nothing like seat time to verify what a car is really like. I'm reasonably sure that when you bought your Corolla, you throughly inspected it and test-drove it before you signed on the dotted line.

Toys4RJill

mmarshall, you are wrong again. The manufacturer and what THEY think is more valid than wiki.

You are making an error thinking that Chyrsler as a brand is premium.

mmarshall

OK...we will simply disagree. As in the debate thread, I'm not going to drag things out with the same stuff over and over.

TangoRed

I can't for the life of me understand how you're drawing these conclusions. The 200 is not in between those cars. It is actually ever so slightly larger than the Malibu.

Chrysler 200 Length. 192.3in.
Chrysler 200 Width: 73.6in.

Chevy Malibu Length: 191.5
Chevy Malibu Width: 73in.

For what's it's worth, I did take a 200S for a spin a few days ago. I can certify it's a great competitor to my friend's Honda Accord EX-L V6 I drove last weekend (DD duty ). They're similarly refined, although I liked the 200's interior better. The Accord is definitely more spacious though.

mmarshall

Wasn't just referring to exterior dimensions. Bumper-to-bumper tape-measures, IMO, tell only part of the story. But....physically, your point is taken....sorry, I should have stated it a little clearer.

Thanks. I appreciate a response based on some actual seat time behind the wheel. I pretty much came to the same conclusion, though the Accord, as with most Honda products, feels even more solidly-screwed-together than the much-improved Chrysler. The 200, though much-improved, still had a couple of loose ends.

Toys4RJill

Good research, I didn't look at the dimensions, I only quickly looked at the comparison on the Chrysler.com website. At what Chrysler would want shoppers to compare it to.

The 200C is a direct competitor to the Malibu, Camry, Accord, Sonata. Am I forgetting any mainstream cars?

mmarshall

I'd add the Nissan Altima, Ford Fusion, and the Kia Optima, though the 200 is plusher inside than any of these. The Optima, though, is well-built, uses good materials for the price, and has a well-done chassis for handling, though it rides noticeably stiffer than the 200 with 17" wheels/tires. The Fusion has a superb Germanic feel to its road manners.

I was very impressed with the new Optima, BTW, when it debuted as few years ago, and almost bought one. IMO, it beats its corporate brother Sonata.

I also think there is at least come competition with the Regal, but you will probably disagree. And, given the Regal's low U.S.-market sales, one might not be able to really call it a mainstream product.