By on December 13, 2013

200-night

 

The folks at Allpar have discovered an undisguised Chrysler 200 driving around sans camo. Looking like a cross between a Dart and a Chevrolet Impala, the 200 will use the same CUSW architecture as the Dart and Jeep Cherokee, along with the 2.4L 4-cylinder and Pentastar V6 engines.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

114 Comments on “2015 Chrysler 200 Revealed...”


  • avatar
    Hummer

    Not bad, reminds me of Kia/VW.

    Though when I first read the title I read 300 and was a little shocked at first, at least til I reread.

    I have a feeling this isn’t going to be similarly priced to the current gen. XXX, actually on second look it is kinda big.

    I really like te rear end, not fat and overbearing like every other car today, think maxima, vette, focus, everything…

    • 0 avatar
      Jan Bayus

      If it wants to compete, it will be priced exactly the same. With KIA and the rest of them in the same market, it is going to be a tough sell for GM and their mid-sized offerings. This looks very competitive with the Fusion and the rest. I am not a MOPAR guy, always have been GM, but this is looks like a car I would buy.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Nice, but generic…

    Then again, that’s what the market seems to want these days.

  • avatar
    Conslaw

    Looks halfway between the current Maxima and the 2nd generation Dodge Intrepid. (I really liked the looks of the Intrepid.)

  • avatar

    I LOVE IT. “Generic” is OK if the price is right.

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      Through out the years, there has always been a “generic” styling paradigm that car makers strive to adhere to. Fins in the late 50′s. “coke bottle” sides in the 60′s, rolling Gothic castle with opera windows in the 70′s etc.
      Car makers don’t want to stray too far from the mainstream.
      It appears currently that the “generic” is trending back towards the jelly bean rather than the box, and signature LED DRLs.
      There also is a general repeating cycle from boxy & angular, to curvy jelly bean.
      Sheet metal is fashion.
      All of that said, The 200 is a rather attractive jelly bean.

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        I’ve always said that I’d love to see someone take a mid-’80s GM G-Body sedan (Cutlass, Regal) and “project” it to today, inside (with airbags, etc.) and outside, and yet make its roots recognizable, via the magic of Photochop.

        (At least you could see out of those, unlike most of today’s cars with shoulder-high beltlines and gun-slit windows.)

  • avatar
    bball40dtw

    Is the giant plastic c-pillar triangle that was stamped with a fake chrome “200″ gone? Let us rejoice.

  • avatar
    Vojta Dobeš

    Looks kinda nice. Reminds me of LH Mopars.

    But, didn’t they talk about 200 getting the RWD platform? This obviously isn’t the case..

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      I think billfrombuckhead was talking about either the next Dart or 200 going RWD. However, he is a Mopar propagandist. Derek compared him to Baghdad Bob, the Iraqi Information Minister during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

      • 0 avatar
        SC5door

        He was talking about the next Avenger, not the 200.

        We already knew the 200 was going to be FWD.

        • 0 avatar
          billfrombuckhead

          The Avenger replacement is going to be rear wheel drive based on the updated Alfa Romeo Guilia platform. This new 200 is based on the front wheel drive based Guilia that was rejected.

          Look for the 200 to be the best launch in Mopar history with the Pentastar V6 9 speed breaking JapanInc appliance fanboi hearts from coast to coast.

          • 0 avatar
            th009

            Assuming there actually are some new Alfa Romeo models some day.

          • 0 avatar
            84Cressida

            Yeah okay, if it’s anything else like the previous103338935848344 times Chrysler has tried to build a car that didn’t suck at everything, the only hearts that will be broken will be those foolish enough to buy one and legions of unsuspecting familes on their annual trip to Disney World.

        • 0 avatar
          Vojta Dobeš

          Oh, I didn’t realize they’re going to separate the two… although it makes sense, with Avenger purported to be “sportier” model.

  • avatar
    Onus

    Is that amber signals in the rear? If so HECK yeah!

    Chrysler has been lazy with amber signals as of late. Like the Grand Cherokee, 200, 300, avenger.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      I don’t think it’s lazy, more consumer demand, orange plastic on a pretty black SRT8 charger would look especially tacky.

      • 0 avatar
        whynot

        Fortunately automakers have long come up with ways to have amber turn signals without orange plastic.

        They are not doing it because they are lazy though, they are not doing it because they are cheap.

        • 0 avatar
          Onus

          Cheap too. They really are inter related.

          Chrysler has been both lazy and cheap as of late specifically. They used to design really good dual standards tail lights (ece and dot) even when they had cheap interiors. Even the caliber had them!

          It takes a little more work to do so but, its better. In cases like the Grand Cherokee i just don’t understand why they did what they did when all previous versions generations did the same.

          Instead they made separate dot / ece taillights and the dot has two reverse lights on each lamp since having 1 of the 2 reverse lights be a turn signal was way too difficult even though that’s how it is outside of the US.

          Don’t even get me started with gm where they love to have separate bulbs but they make the lens red. Great job saving 2 cents after spending dollars and only 90% completing the job.

          Honestly gm, BMW, and Audi are probably the worst red turn signal offenders next to pickup trucks.

          Ford seems to change every decade.

          Chrysler used to be big on amber.

          Foreign brand cars that aren’t German nearly always use amber too.

          • 0 avatar
            84Cressida

            I’m so glad so many of you have noticed this. It irritates me to no end seeing cars that use the brake lights as turn signals. They’re almost always American cars. Instead of mandating 19 airbags in a car, NHTSA needs to make this illegal.

          • 0 avatar
            Kyree S. Williams

            I think this thread is quite ridiculous. For one thing, the CHMSL is the only real indicator that someone has stopped, since the illuminated-at-night taillamps have to grow brighter to indicate braking, and the person behind you may not be able to differentiate the brighter illumination from the dim one. So it won’t confuse someone if you use the brake lights for turn-signal duty. The bottom line is that it would take a real dunderhead not to determine that a blinking light, be it red or amber, is a clear indication of someone using his/her turn signal. Often times, red turn signals are more noticeable because they are bigger and offer an immediate interruption to the light that was previously there, rather than being an additional amber light source that gets lost in the red of the tail-lamp. Chrysler is particularly good at making its tail-lamps easy to interpret, IMO.

        • 0 avatar
          snakebit

          Lens color is not based on whether it goes well with each color, it should be based on what it tells the drivers around that car, and amber is almost universal in indicating that this car is about to change direction, and as a driver in another car, I want that information. That’s why I don’t want lamps for direction indicators lumped in with tail and stop lamps, any more than I want cars with smoked/dimmed lamps.

          • 0 avatar

            I will agree that I liked the tail light scheme on my 2006 SRT over my 2012.

          • 0 avatar
            Lorenzo

            Actually, it doesn’t matter, since most people don’t use turn signals until they’re already turning, and not at all when changing lanes. I always do the latter, but have been cut off a lot. It seems that signaling your intentions is treated by other motorists like a yellow light.

        • 0 avatar
          jz78817

          It’s not “cheap” to decline to do something that’s not required and nobody is asking for.

          and yes, a handful of whiners on car blogs who watch too much Top Gear counts as “nobody.”

        • 0 avatar
          ttacgreg

          Is orange plastic any less or more obnoxious than red?
          Are the somehow acceptable on the front of the vehicle, but not the rear?

    • 0 avatar
      RetroGrouch

      Red turn signals reek of 60s and 70s cheap American crap when 2 light bulb elements did the work of 3 functions (driving, turn, brake). Proper cars have separate elements for each with amber turn signals.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        Yes, because we know how much money GM sunk into those U-Body minivans.

        Hypnotoad

        Driver of the worst used car you can buy today as my weatherbeater, apparently has “proper” separate elements for brake and turn signal – rear, and different elements for driving, turn/DRL up front.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    Well, it’s about time! That appears to be one fine-looking car, one I’d like to drive. Perhaps one will be at our upcoming auto show in February. I hope so! After all, anything aside from the current 200 is an improvement, strictly speaking about styling.

    Chrysler is slowly coming back on my radar, again.

    • 0 avatar
      geozinger

      Hey Zackman! My thoughts exactly. When I first saw the photo, even before I read the headline, I thought: That’s really nice. Who cleaned up the styling of the Honda Accord?

      Funny how we all see so many different cars in this one. I wonder what that says about us as a group?

      Like you, Mopar is coming back on my radar again, too.

  • avatar
    TheEndlessEnigma

    Looks like a bigger Dart.

  • avatar
    Carlos Danger

    I see more “Fusart” (Dartion?), anyway, Fusion/Dart. Much better then the current model (what wouldn’t be), but it hardly justifies all the “world class”, “standing ovation” and “game changing” rhetoric that has been spouted about it.

  • avatar
    thegamper

    My first thought was that it appeared similar in side profile to a Sonata, maybe a little VW CC. Not a bad looking car at all, but not a sexy beast either. Regardless of what details eventually come out, at least they appear to finally have a competitive “looking” midsize offering. Hopefully they dont cheap out on interior. This looks to be top trim.

  • avatar
    Garak

    It looks like a VW Bora with Saab 9-3′s nose and a kit of LED taillights. Inoffensive and bland, but manages to avoid the bloated frog aesthetic common in today’s vehicles, and possibly even has decent visibility to the rear.

  • avatar
    AlternateReality

    Looks good, but quality had better be a damn sight better than Fiasler has managed with this platform so far. No reason to be optimistic there.

    It’s also a crying shame (and yet another sign, at least to me, of halfhearted effort) that Fiasler couldn’t manage to figure out how to integrate the DLO without sticking that plastic tack-on to the A-pillar.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    I really like it. Good choice of drivetrains, too. Maybe it will be the win that the Dart isn’t, although they’d better improve upon the terrible gauges.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      While I love the look of the Dart, it was a disappointment when driven, and long-term reviews have been middling at best. I hope this new 200 won’t deceive me in the same way.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      C&D had a few more photos, and it looks like the awful gauge trend at Mopar continues in this new 200 – except this one has blue highlights instead of red.

      • 0 avatar
        SC5door

        Awful compared to what?

        The center screen provides a ton of information, and is easy to read. Gauges are simple but have a very easy to read font.

        • 0 avatar
          SCE to AUX

          The Dart’s gauges are coarse and Tron-like. It wouldn’t be so hard to make them elegant like the Volvo S60.

          http://www.automotiveaddicts.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/2013-dodge-dart-limited-gauge-cluster.jpg

          http://farm1.static.flickr.com/170/487083573_834ef9d47f.jpg

  • avatar
    justinx

    More Altima than Fusion, but with a strange Civic like front end.

  • avatar
    Halftruth

    I dont care for it.. just make it a hatch already if you are going to make the deck lid 6 inches deep. The 200 concept from 10 or so years ago on allpar is nice looking. I would like to see that one realized.

  • avatar
    Acd

    Looks like a big Dart. I’m looking forward to driving it with a V6.

  • avatar
    NoGoYo

    Not a bad looking car…guessing they’re giving this one the 3.2 Pentastar and saving the 3.6 for the bigger cars and the trucks, but what do I know.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      That makes sense; I was wondering about that. Could be a very nice-driving car.

      • 0 avatar
        NoGoYo

        Having the 3.2 version be just for the Cherokee seems rather silly, but the 200 would be a great fit and the slightly smaller Pentastar in a small-ish car would likely turn in pretty good MPG numbers.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      I was wondering about that myself. I don’t understand the rationale of downsizing the 3.6 to 3.2 displacement when the 3.6 is a pretty darn good little engine, and production is humming.

      We own a 3.6 in my wife’s 2012 Grand Cherokee and it will easily cruise at 105mph on US80 on that long stretch adjacent to the Great Salt Lake.

      The Garmin confirmed that the speedo was accurate.

      • 0 avatar
        NoGoYo

        I don’t get it either, the Cherokee could fit the 3.6 if it can fit a 3.2, I doubt the 3.2 is much smaller of an engine in terms of dimensions.

        It’s just like the old Chrysler 3.2 based off the 3.5 V6. Kind of unnecessary.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        The 3.2, while dimensionally similar/identical to the 3.6, might exist for fuel economy reasons.

        Being a midsize car, Chrysler probably figures they don’t need the extra 20 HP, and a 10% reduction in displacement will help with CAFE.

        • 0 avatar
          NoGoYo

          Ah, CAFE. The ruiner of all dreams.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          You’re probably right. But it seems an added expense in a time when minimizing expenses and maximizing profits is the rule.

          It seems easier and less expense to detune an engine for horsepower and then use the on-board engine management system to tune for maximizing fuel economy.

          Drifters and racers have been doing this electronically for many years, although in reverse, i.e tuning engines for max crankshaft hp without regard to fuel economy.

    • 0 avatar
      billfrombuckhead

      Rumor has it that the 200 will use the 3.6L Pentastar 9 speed just to humiliate the JapanInc and crosstown competition. All wheel drive is also on the way.

      Next question is when does the diesel variant come out?

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        bill, you’re a riot. I’d be proud of this car as well, but I think I’d keep myself a bit more modest lest someone point out: “It took Chrysler how many f-ing years to create a competitive midsizer?”

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    I tend to like sedans with some angles and creases, but this looks rather nice. With Chrysler’s recent push towards higher quality interiors, this could be a very attractive car.

    Hooray for sticking with larger displacement NA engines instead of turbos, although they probably forfeited any chance of winning Ward’s Top 10 Randomly Selected Engines award. Given the Dart’s performance with the 1.4t, they were probably wise to use the Tigershark instead.

  • avatar
    Z71_Silvy

    Knockout. Nice to see GM and Chrysler still have talented designers.

  • avatar
    cargogh

    Nice. The A7 reminded me of an old Charger. This is good.

  • avatar
    willbodine

    Not bad. But just about anything would be an improvement.

  • avatar
    OldandSlow

    It looks better than the current 200 – but Chrysler is still a sub brand that slots below Cadillac.

  • avatar
    Atum

    That site doesn’t need to make a huge advertisement across the picture. Just make the picture public domain and give it to everyone.

  • avatar
    2kriss2kross

    I see the last generation Mazda 6 in the greenhouse and the rear. Not a bad looking car though.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    IS this a rebadged Dart? Looks good.

  • avatar
    Lie2me

    A rebadged Dart, that’s exactly what it is… not that there’s anything wrong with that, but that’s what it is

    • 0 avatar
      Z71_Silvy

      Couldn’t be more wrong.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      That’s really not exactly what it is, though. Rebadging means only the badges are different. In this case, while it will share some componentry and design with the Dart, it’s dimenstionally different, doesn’t have the same powertrains, or even one square inch of exterior sheet metal.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        Although other powertrains will be available the Dart and the 200 will share the 2.4L 4

      • 0 avatar
        tooloud10

        Yes, I agree. I would assume they’ll have different wheelbases and dimensions inside, too. The cars having the same architecture doesn’t mean it’s just a “rebadge”. All manufacturers have consolidated their platforms lately–they’re rarely engineering an entire new platform for every new car they build–that is, if they need a competitive midsize car immediately, they could do a lot worse than to use the architecture from the well-reviewed car that sits below it. I believe the Dart is already considered to be a midsize car itself.

  • avatar
    gearhead77

    A bit bland, but at least pulled together, unlike the current car. I see Dart obviously, but a bit of MKS(MKZ?) in the roofline. Audi in the tail. Given the strides Chrysler has made post-Fiat, I’d actually consider one if I’d ever shop for a midsize sedan again. But I’d rather go with the 300 if I’m shopping Chrysler, going with a gently used one over one of these.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      The 300 in any variation or edition is a real nice ride. Still, the 200 could be a competitor in this space but it all depends on price point.

      More than likely the Camry will continue as best seller in both the primary and secondary markets simply because of the value it represents for the bucks.

      Although I am not interested in midsize sedans, if Fiatsler could offer the 200 with the same standard equipment as the Camry LE and a 295-305hp Pentastar V6 for around $25K, I bet there would be a lot of takers.

      That certainly would fit what I would look for were I to buy a midsize sedan.

      • 0 avatar
        billfrombuckhead

        This new Mopar punches the Camry appliance square in it’s beige face. They are basically giving the public a Lexus ES competitor for a Camry price. That’s why the 3.6L will be the star. Hooking the well liked Pentastar up with the most advanced transmission on the planet (count on this car getting every bit of use out of the ZF 9 speed) on top the Alfa intended suspension will make this car the enthusiasts darling in this class.

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          Since enthusiasts don’t make up the bulk of the midsize sedan market, being the “darling” isn’t going to help it post competitive sales. It needs to do all that other boring crap that family sedans are expected to do. For instance, if it is built off the Dart platform, it had better have a larger backseat than the Dart or it is going be one of those awkward “in-between” sizes. Sales numbers and enthusiast appeal are two different things in this segment.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Can’t “boring family sedan” be accomplished without being, um, boring? I mean, Ford Fusion

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            Lie2me,
            Sure, that would be ideal. I’m not arguing that they can’t be both interesting and useful, I’m arguing that in a conservative segment like this, “interesting” isn’t enough to sell them if they don’t do the useful bit as well. Bill’s excited about the powertrain, but that won’t be enough to sell this car in volume if it doesn’t nail the core midsize attributes. Which tend to be boring.

        • 0 avatar
          AlternateReality

          billy boy, you are absolutely, utterly, hopelessly delusional if you think a UAW-assembled, Dart-based Fiat mongrel could hope to compete with even a Camry, let alone the Lexus variant.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            I think they can give Camry a run for their money if they offer all the same equipment as the Camry LE, put a V6 in it and price it around $25K.

            When Hyundai did that with their Sonata a few years back, people were willing to spring for it. In fact, sales were hot until CAFE forced Hyundai to go with a GDI and TGDI four-bangers instead of that V6.

            I’m not a fan of a midsize sedan with anything smaller that a V6 in it. I know that is the trend these days but if I were to ever buy a midsize sedan, a V6 would be my choice. And AWD.

            In a large sedan and truck, a V8 is the way to go IMO. And AWD.

            If I were to buy a manly SUV, Suburban, Sequoia and Armada would be my choice, with a V8. And AWD.

            Everything else is just girlie, no matter what it’s got under the hood.

  • avatar
    pb35

    I see a bit of M37 in the profile (or Q29 or whatever the hell they are calling it these days). As the owner of a 2012 Charger I would consider one of these if I was in the market for a small car with a big engine.

  • avatar
    Ian Anderson

    Nice looking car. Get it on the dealer lots with a Pentastar for ~$25K and it’ll sell like hotcakes. Glad to hear Mopar is still churning out cars with naturally aspirated V6′s over buzzy turbo four-cylinders (I’ll admit I’m spoiled by roaring pushrod V6′s and V8′s).

  • avatar
    Johnster

    It’s a bit bland and generic looking. The real test will be how it’s priced and how it drives. An improved interior would sure help. The V-6 engine in this class is refreshing, unique and should be a strong selling point.

    I just wonder how they will price it. Traditionally Chryslers have been marketed as being a step above the usual medium-priced cars, although that sure was not the case the previous 200. Do they see it as a Camry/Accord/Altima/Fusion/Malibu competitor?

    Or are they going to try to go further upscale and price it along the lines of the Buick Regal or Lincoln MKZ?

  • avatar
    jz78817

    I see the profile of a B-17 Stratofortress, with hints of a ’93 F-150 in the rear while the front evokes the 1931 Cord.

    hey, it’s no worse than the rest of the crazy stuff people are saying in this thread…

  • avatar
    Ryoku75

    Nice to see the Chrysler 400 make a comeback, take a subpar model, change a few styling cues, and suddenly its a whole new car!

  • avatar
    MRF 95 T-Bird

    Not bad. I see a lot of Mazda 6 in it. Hopefully it will be as fun and sporting to drive with less beige-ness than a Camry or Altima. At least they will have something competitive in the mid-sized family car class.

  • avatar
    Volt 230

    Just like the previous model, this one is also based off a smaller platform and once again it won’t be as good as the competition which is NOT based on any compact architecture. This is a very important segment to come up short against the competition.

  • avatar
    JD321

    I see a lot of Freightliner M2 106 in it.

  • avatar
    nickoo

    The odds of me buying a FWD midsizer are near zero, but for what this is, I think it looks great! Clearly an evolution of the last cloud cars, which IMHO were beautifully done, especially the last intrepid. I hope it does well in the market, gotta keep turning out high volume vehicles to keep making the lower volume ones like the charger.

  • avatar
    chicagoland

    Seems like the outgoing Sebring/200 have been around since K cars! Never thought I’d live long enough to see new generation, just joking!


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States