TTAC recently placed Chrysler on suicide watch for the easily correctable fact that vast empty spaces and dealers’ lots are stuffed with Chrysler/Dodge cars, trucks, minivans and SUV’s that no one wants to buy. The new Sebring is a far deadlier proposition: a car headed straight for rental car Hell. For a few bills less than our semi-loaded (half cocked?) Sebring tester, you can buy a base Chrysler 300, which, according to Mr. Mehta, has “reinvigorated American car design.” The new Sebring is less invigorating than Vicodin. In fact, I reckon the model only exists because car rental customers are still willin’ to take what they get.
Viewed head on, the Sebring’s got a lot of Aspen and a bit of Crossfire and none of the underworld zazz that made the gangsta 300 such a hit. The Sebring’s nose isn’t particularly hideous, but the side view sure is. In profile, the Sebring is flat-out Frankensteinian. I can’t believe this abomination got out of Ralph Gilles’s lab alive. (Where’s a pitchfork when you need one?) From the doors back, the Sebring appears to be suffering from dwarfism. The strakes, while not plastic, are as ungainly as anything crapifying a Pontiac. And the Sebring’s top line was created via machete; it’s an ugly, deforming slash.
The Sebring is based upon the fetching Airflite concept car, a machine that betrayed its right-wheel driveness via a long hood and fenders. Just as DCX trashed the drop-dead gorgeous Crossfire concept car by mandating it be built on a truncated cast-off SLK chassis, the graceful proportions of the Airflite have been murdered by its Mitsubishi underpinnings. Here’s the knife in the back: the Mercedes C-Class is due for a refresh. If Dr. Z had based the Sebring on the old C, it would not have become a nightmarish eyesore. But he didn’t so it is.
A friend of mine goes numb with boredom whenever I discuss cars. She simply doesn’t care (and therefore drives a Saturn). After four seconds seated in the Sebring’s passenger seat she pronounced: “This feels like a rental car.” I’ll skip the obvious (don’t touch anything save the heated/cooled cupholder) and get to the glaringly obvious. The steering wheel features wings made out of the same plastic as your kid’s toy sword, angled so that reflected sunlight blinds any driver condemned to seat time in this clueless car. The ugly, even harder plastic sheet glued to the back of the seats makes sitting in the puny rear that much more miserable. This from an automaker owned by Mercedes? For shame.
The top-shelf $25k Sebring Limited is fitted with a SOHC 24V V6 producing 235hp and 232 ft.-lbs. of twist. That’s enough grunt to motivate the Sebring from zero to 60mph in… wait for it… 7.7 seconds. While not slow per se, the stat’s not competitive. A similarly priced 260hp Nissan Altima does the deed in 6.6 seconds. The 244hp Honda Accord takes 7 seconds flat. As for the Sebring’s engine note noise, well, if Angus and Malcolm Young and Bon Scott hadn’t written a song called “Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap,” they would’ve jumped out of this car suitably inspired.
Aside from the Sebring’s grabby stoppers, middling acceleration is the car’s dynamic strong point. The handling puts the abyss in abysmal. There’s so much torque steer that it’s a constant battle just to keep the car pointed in a straight line. Even a minor stab at the go-pedal triggers the tiller’s disapproval. Turns are just plain awful. Moving left and right is a multi-step affair. First, turn the wheel. Second, wait for the vehicle to fully lurch over onto one of the front springs. Finally, sit in terror as the weight is unloaded and the car leans all the way back in the other direction, maybe (or maybe not) aiming where you pointed it.
Improbably enough, the ride is even worse. With the Sebring’s short wheelbase and lousy suspension, bumps aren’t just felt, but profoundly understood. A choppy stretch of pavement can induce sensory hallucination; I swear a tiny man with a jackhammer was attacking my kidneys. And the pizza box thick (and flat) seats lend no support whatsoever. I will testify under oath that the engineers responsible have never driven a car in their lives.
I don’t get it. DCX must be trying to kill Chrysler. They’ve faced-up to the fact that the monster profits once found in lardo SUVs have dried up and decided to move on. Sunny Von Bulow knows what happens next.
Do I sound insane? Paranoid? Delusional? I cannot think of another remotely credible reason why any carmaker, knowing full well that the Camry and Accord are out there, would bring such a tired dog to market. Seriously, how profitable can rental cars be?
[Chrysler provided the vehicle, insurance and a tank of gas.]
179 Comments on “Review: 2007 Chrysler Sebring...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
To be fair to Chrysler, at least rental car sales are sales, which is something that the majority of their lineup doesn’t have. Would you rather lose $1000 selling a rental car, or lose $20000 on a car rotting away in a vast, formerly empty space?
Most of today’s auto styling is not daring or bold. Most of it is lifted from other carmaker’s designs. I understand this; it’s a no brain (and cost saving – don’t forget those beans we’re counting!!) shortcut to getting a car out into the market. BUT, Chrysler somehow gathered all the wrong styling cues and jammed it into one poor wretched car. If the joke writers on Saturday Night Live built a car for one of their skits, it would look like this!
Seriously, how profitable can rental cars be?
As we all know, not very. Its too bad that DCX doesn’t build this car overseas; at least that way the ship could be capsized and scuttled. DCX would probably make more from the insurance loss than selling into the rental fleets.
I had hoped that the early mule pictures I saw of this car were wrong, that DCX could not create such an odd looking car when this is the market they have to have a hit in. This is the bread and butter part of the line after all. Your review seals its fate in the driving dynamics department.
I owned a 1995 Chrysler Cirrus, bought as a commuter car to slog in and out of Boston. After 4 years and 80,000 miles, the car was used up completely. It was never a good car, but I made it in and out of town most of the time. After the initial sales it seemed that most of them were seen coming out of rental car lots; it seems that the new Sebring is destined for the same fate. Didn’t Chrysler learn anything in 10+ years?
Just what DCX needs…another half-baked, unloved, unwanted model at a time when they’re drowning in inventories of unsold units. And at the same time, there’s a rumor that dealers in some parts of the country can’t get enough of certain models that actually ARE selling; Caliber and Wrangler are most often mentioned, as is – believe it or not – the Compass. Perhaps one day we’ll live in a more perfect world, where DCX’s assembly plants will be flexible enough to shift production to high-demand models, and there will be a waiting list for “automotive Vicodin” such as the Sebring.
I’m with Postman:
This car just looks like they cut and pasted “interesting” design cues and ended up with a (badly) modded Saturn Ion.
I don’t know about DCX killing Chrysler on purpose, but Chryslers’ design has definitely gone down the tubes since the merger (the 300 included).
Looks like Chrysler will be gaining alot of market share… in the rental car market.
It’s just ugly. What were they thinking?
I agree Jonny – i thought this car was particularly funny lookin when i saw the pics of it at its intro. I suspect that I could be paid enough to stand there with a big proud smile on my face like these folks, but i’d need the throw up later.
Wow… A retro to early 80s structural integrity.
With GM and Ford attempting to pull out of the rental car market, maybe Chrysler is just taking advantage of the opening market opportunity. Good news is that one will be able to purchase a 1 year old/low mileage Sebring for about $10K that will heat and cool beverages.
What a disaster. From first glance its a disaster, there’s no “getting used to it” its not an “acquired taste.” How long have Accord and Camry been on the market now? Chrysler can’t entry isn’t even close to where those cars were 10 years ago.
K.
The real tradgedy of this sebring mess is that this would be the car to give chrysler traction in the mass appeal auto business. You take ford five hundred, chevy impala, and this thing (sebring), and you get a pattern here.
It is all but impossible to equal (let alone pass) the Japanese and lately the koreans with mass appeal (read 20some thousand dollar cars) with a new american model replete with a new moniker. The competition is fine tuned with perhaps thirty years of tweaking of both designs and engineering.
Notice: They are still called , camrys, accords, civics, altimas, passats, jettas, etc. The reason is they are truly updated and improved versions of the last model run. When you do this you build on success and quietly replace what was not so perfect. ie. the staid and bland look of toyotas is now becoming racier. You take a now standout body design and couple it to a very mature and advanced mechanical underpinning and you have a winner.
Notice, toyota didn't do instant new with the 2007 camry. They soldiered on with the "bland" camry through the 80's and early 90's when ford was eating their lunch with the taurus. (that was before the nasa space team came in and made the taurus a car no martian could be without). And still toyota tweaked and improved (no spacecraft here) until we finally get to 2007 and voila they are poised to be number one (again). Their real competition is not ford or gm or chrysler, no it is huyndai with better and better stuff for less money. Some auto companies were in the toyota class room these last years others well theres golf.
When I’ve mentioned the new/upcoming model to people, I usually get the expected “I rented one once, it sucked” comment. I have, too. Yes, it sucked. But I figured it was in name only–I mean, DCX has improved their lineup quite a bit in the past 5 years, right? Apparently not. And ugly, to boot. Plus, to me, the name evokes the 4-seater convertible that only sold because it was the only 4-seat convertible with real space in the back.
I guess it’s just bad luck these days to name your car after an endurance race. Remember the late 80s Pontiac LeMans?
As an American, at first I felt a little bit bad about how far our domestic car makers had stumbled behind the global competition. I got over that in about as much time as it takes to begin wretching upon first sight of this “car.”
Like Thomas Friedman has said, the world is indeed flat. If this is the best that the stuffed shirts in Detroit (and Germany) can do, then we should hustle these jokers off to the slaughterhouse sooner rather than later.
Every time I see product like this get squirted out of one of the 2.5’s morose assembly plants, I ask myself, if the company I work for put forth this kind of effort on behalf of our customers, where would we be? I know I would be on the unemployment line.
With the Sebring’s short wheelbase and lousy suspension, bumps aren’t just felt, but profoundly understood
That is brilliance.
It is interesting that the TV ads for this car don’t really show the whole car, just little pieces, like hood or headlights. Maybe the ad agency folks recognized that showing the whole car would invoke a massive gag reflex on the part of TV viewers. By only seeing pieces you get the idea that it might just be an attractive car. Then when you see the real thing, or even still photos, you realize that DCX continues to use design school dropouts to draft the lines for their entire product line.
I’ve had the misfortune to rent the various Stratus/Sebring models and they are among the most underwhelming of vehicles with no redeeming qualiites. I suspect this one would be the same. And how a 235 hp car with 232 lbs of twist takes nearly 8 seconds to reach 60 is something I don’t understand. One can only imagine how slow the stock 173 bhp model is.
The real tragedy is that some clueless bastard will buy this as personal transport over something which might be a lot better to own for simmilar cashish.
What part of this car is the best of American & German engineering?
I know why DCX built this ghastly car. The Aspen needed some company, a friend which wont show up the Aspen’s short comings.
Are you all nuts? Is this some old episode of “Green Acres”?!
I’m refering to the statement that 7.7 second 0-60 time is not good. Have cars really gotten so fast that this is not adequate?
I realize this cars has other issues (ugly inside and out, poor handling) but criticizing 7.7 second 0-60 time seems, well, spoiled.
(yes I do drive a slow car now).
thx_zetec
7.7 is not slow, per se….but it’s slow for today’s V-6 equipped class, especially in an “all-new” car.
OTOH, maybe they detuned it a bit knowing that it would be overly-flogged as a rental if it were any quicker. You definitely don’t want to be the maker of the fastest rental car out there, assuming you want to car to come back in one piece.
thx_zetec:
dont be sayin bad things about Green Acres. Its currently my FAV TV show!
And Oliver had HUGE Lincoln convertible! Probably with a 500 cu in engine in it!
My father, who up until early last year drove a 93 Accord (still works fine, he just bought a Corolla), ended up renting the earlier Sebring (I think it was a ‘03). Now, I drive a 2000 Neon, which has the distinction of being the fastest depreciating car in history (in $CAD, bought for $22K, was worth $4k after 2 years, $2k after 4 years), which he has borrowed on occassion. He claimed the Sebring was the worst car he had ever driven. Now, it was a rental, so it had probably been beat to hell by other drivers, but that’s still pretty damning.
From the sounds of it, Chrysler hasn’t come very far. Anyone taking bets on whether Kerkorian will be offering to buy Chrysler soon? Out of all of the domestics, they seem to have the most vibrant brand identity, so it shouldn’t take a genius to make them profitable.
It could be worse. It could sport a bowtie.
This “thing” of a car was engineered with Mitsubishi – at the time when DCX was yanking the rug out from under Mitsubishi! As in, “go away and die, bitch.”
Has to make you wonder how much effort Mitsubishi troops put into the DCX engineering side of the thing, if they did at all, and what neophytes and slackers DCX put into place to finish the job?
I guess results not only count, but speak volumes, eh?
As for the “styling”, why did they have the hire the Aztek “styling” team straight from GM? GAAAAAAK!
Now, let’s not forget that DCX has treated all other companies which they’ve worked with so badly that Hyundai asked to buy back the 10% that DCX had bought, as well.
Instead of this thing, can you imagine a reskinned Hyundai Sonata with the quality of the original, built in Hyundai’s plant on contract to Chrysler, or even in Mitsubishi’s Normal, Illinois plant on contract to Chrysler? Using the Global 2.4 – 4 engine (the company is 1/3 owned by Mitsu, Hyundai and DCX and is in Michigan – a new operation). Using the Hyundai 3.3 alloy V6? (Yeah, it’s built in the US, by Hyundai).
Or, as someone else wrote, base it on the outgoing C-class?
Or how about a reverse-licensed SsangYong Chairman as the intermediate, but with DCX engines, all built in the states? After all, the Chairman is based upon old Mercedes tech.
See http://www.globalautoindex.com/model.plt?no=3398&ass= and click on the photos to enlarge them, click on the various specification versions on the left to bring up a box with specs (you can also change them to non-metric).
Sharing parts suppliers from South Korea would have brought the price down, and US assembly (body pressings, fab, NICE interiors, glass, engines, drivelines) would have given 75% or better US content.
Anything but this rolling abortion of a car, please.
Corporate suicide, indeed.
The worst new car available in North America since the introduction of the Ion. And…it’s uglier.
Seriously, how profitable can rental cars be?
Obviously, they’re not. But that’s only half the story. In a time like this, it’s enough for a troubled car maker to produce a lot of output that doesn’t lose money.
If you know that you’re not ready to beat Toyota, why not go the cheap way all the way? Produce as many cars as you can sell without losing money and occupy your employees that otherwise would either produce SUVs that noone wants or get payed for nothing.
Of course this is not a long term strategy, but it would explain why this car was rushed into production. Still, it is no excuse for the styling.
The only bright spot might be the CC. That car at least looks better.
Or the Avenger, but that car will be even cheaper…
I have to say I have to agree with thx_zetec, 235hp is now the standard blah motor. Upwards and onwards I guess it is. But how fast do you drive now in the USA?
When I lived there I got by on a 85 hp Subie, then a 100 hp Suzuki (swift) and finally a 140hp Nissan SE-R, which I thought was the hot stuff. In europe I am currently running a 150hp Alfa. And it seems to be faster than most of my co-motorists. At least we have to merge with 85 mph (speed limit, not average) traffic.
Back to the topic, I dont doubt that the Sebring is craptacular in the handling department, but I am sure it has enough engine to get johnny handmedown in trouble with the family car.
The dash shown above looks almost identical to the current Subaru Legacy dash. The layout seems to match almost down to the centimeter.
The new Sebring brings me closer to the conclusion that the visual design of the 300 was stumbled upon by pure dumb luck.
As for the Sebring’s engine note noise, well, if Angus and Malcolm Young and Bon Scott hadn’t written a song called “Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap,” they would’ve jumped out of this car suitably inspired.
Getting Bon Scott to jump out of anything would be a neat trick! More likely that the Sebring (and DCX) will be joining him six feet under (just save Jeep, please!).
After coming back from a trip to Germany where I rented two cars and drove an E class and a B class Benz of a relative, one has to wonder about DCX. First the A class (small hatchback) benz is very popular and a good car. A taxi operator is switching his opels to A classes because of the (extra 100,000 miles of longenvity you get from a benz he claims). The Ford diesel minivan I rented with a turbo diesel was excellent. It took the mountain roads with a full load with aplomb. So Ford makes good small cars in Europe, and Mercedes makes good small cars in Europe, then why do we get the crude semi-engineered abortions in the U.S.? Is it really true the Japanese have plants in the big three styling/engineering departments to sabotage the products? Probably not, but like the poisoned KGB guy, it couldn’t look any more like that. I’ll venture an out for Benz, trash the chrysler name (or is that an oxymoron) and use the US plants to build the full line of Benz products. At least we are then even with the Europeans. We also get to drive three pointed stars for $20,000. on up.
virages
The American auto market has been locked up in a mostly-unnecessary horsepower war for several years now. Doesn’t really make much sense, but many mass-market cars use bhp as the key selling point in their advertising (Nissan, I’m looking at you). OTOH, there are plenty of cars on the other end of the spectrum, sold without touting some high, peak hp number. For example (ironically), Nissan just brought us the Renault Versa, the first French car to be sold in the US in quite a while. But I’m veering off topic–the constant horsepower quoting and one-upmanship is mostly just used to sell cars.
The dash shown above looks almost identical to the current Subaru Legacy dash. The layout seems to match almost down to the centimeter.
If only DCX had used the Subaru’s high-quality materials. The Legacy’s interior is a half-class above the (US) Accord and Camry.
virages: “But how fast do you drive now in the USA?”
I ask the same question all the time … I think Americans’ answer to the question of “how much power is enough” is:
1) enough so I can effortlessly accelerate uphill with the automatic, the AC on high, and four passengers in the car, without hearing the engine rev, or
2) more than the other guy.
I have never owned a car with more than 200 hp, and unless I suddenly develop a need to tow a boat around, I can’t really imagine why I would need to. Every now and then I think about buying something like a V-8 Mustang and wonder how much fun I’d really have with blistering straight-line acceleration after the novelty wore off. The hands-down most fun car I’ve ever owned was an 83 VW GTI with 90 hp.
It could be worse, they could’ve built the Chrysler Imperial concept from last year.
*shudder*
MW:
The hands-down most fun car I’ve ever owned was an 83 VW GTI with 90 hp.
If only someone (other than lotus) would get back to building 2000lb sporty cars :(
I just returned from Orlando, Florida and can attest to the sucess of the new Sebring sales to the likes of Budget, Thrifty, Alamo, et al.
They look as bad in person as they do in pictures.
Heh, the Chrysler Sebring, a car so bleh, that the comments area devolves into pining over what we all want, fun light weight sporty cars. z31 for the sub 2000lbs fun car, there is the Smart Roadster, oh wait they don’t make that anymore.
But even for family cars, pull the weight down and you get a sharper handling car that doesn’t need such a big engine to get it moving. That said, the extra steel should go into passenger protection.
And get those “clean diesels” into the american cars lickedy-split! Americans love their torque more than HP. And at least they will use less gas. Blutec Chrysler 300 anyone?
For what it’s worth, I bought a new car in October, and most of the cars I seriously considered had approximately 200 hp (Acura TSX, Audi A3 2.0T, Saab 9-3 2.0T, VW Jetta GLI, Volvo S40 T5). All of them felt like they had “enough” power – certainly enough to merge onto the freeway with passengers, and more than enough to get into trouble on my daily commute.
Because horsepower was not an issue, I was free to choose based on other factors: agility and handling, ride comfort, interior comfort, materials quality, luxury goodies, and expected reliability. I have to wonder if the major combatants in the horsepower wars would rather not have people comparing these factors.
If only someone (other than lotus) would get back to building 2000lb sporty cars :(
We had a Smart Roadster in our family. While it only featured 82 hp, it was definately the most fun car I’ve ever driven. It weighted only 800kg and with the mid engine it was perfectly balanced.
1 major problem though: The transmission! I’ve never seen such a slow automatic tranny. After some time you get used to it and know when it shifts. But you really need to adopt your driving style to the tranny if you want the fun thats possible in this car. A friend of mine explained to me why that is. I don’t remember the details, but basically it’s because the gearbox is so small and light. That’s the only thing where a little more weight, combined with a manual tranny would have made the car better overall.
Well, so far it is a pretty unanimous pig-pile on the Sebring. Just because it will be fun to find something appealing about this car to keep the thread running, I will go and drive one today.
If I find anything nice to write, I’ll write about it here but so far all I can say about the car is well, nothing. It does absolutely nothing for me.
I rented several versions of the previous Sebring model (and the one before that, it was the Cirrus/Stratus I think) and they were OK transport. Nothing exciting but predictable. Honestly, I don’t know what else people want or expect in a rental. They are appliances.
However, on the notion that these will make great used cars, I would agree. It seems the last gen Sebring is a popular used unit with good reliability. Easy to buy and not a burden to own.
That is the ugliest car I have ever seen, Aztec included…
To all you weirdo horsepower haters, put a sock in it.
I did say right in the review that acceleration was the Sebring’s best virtue (and it had good brakes).
However, Chrysler (as opposed to Dodge) is supposed to be (somehow) upmarket.
In the car game upmarket works like this; you are either more luxurious than the other guy, or you offer more power than the other guy.
The Sebring doesn’t have any luxury. So, it then needs to be more powerful. It isn’t.
Why does it exist? Why did Chrysler build this car?
also — the Accord with the six-speed manual hits 60 in 5.9 seconds. Which is almost fast enough.
Is it too early to nominate the Sebring for the 2007 TWAT awards?
The photos in this thread are NOT indicative of the car. The person at Chrysler that put out these initial press release photos should be fired, they were horrible. The car in person is much nicer than any photo that I have seen of it. I have seen several around town recently, I’ve seen one in Navy that was really sharp. It has a presence that DCX marketers have not captured on film.
Additionally, Sebring sales were UP 16% in Nov 06 over the previous model’s Nov 05 sales. That wasn’t even a full month of availability either.
I know DCX bashing is a popular sport these days, thought I would interject a fact or two into the dicussion.
Here’s a fact — I had one of these in front of my house for a week.
It is hideous. Beyond ugly. It is deformed. Worst proportions ever.
Moreover, I seriously contemplated not driving it any more after just four days. Worst driving modern car.
Another “fact,” is that those poor people who bought the Sebring will never buy another one — unless they are utter morons.
Though, I have a feeling sales are up because Budget, Hertz, etc. is buying, not humans.
and… the car this new one is replacing is OLD. 16% up is nothing to cluck about.
To restate — UGLY!
1.) Regarding the last caption, it’s Seppuku, not Suppuku
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku
2.)Damn, even if I chipped my 1.8t VW, it still wouldn’t be quick enough to qualify as “not dog slow” with this crowd. So now the bar is below 6 seconds?
Happily, I do a great deal of my urban commuting on a 50cc moped-scooter. I still beat most people away from lights, regardless of what they are driving, because nobody is paying attention. Cars that drive themselves can’t come fast enough for most of these folks.
3.) Regarding the “nobody makes fun/light cars anymore” posts…after yesterdays disgusting PR blitz regarding how small cars will instantly kill you if you think about owning one, nobody is going to try to sell light cars in the US without reactive body armor and millions of airbags.
In the car game upmarket works like this; you are either more luxurious than the other guy, or you offer more power than the other guy.
Don’t forget “style” in that list, Jonny. That was the 300’s saving grace (for those who appreciate it), which the Sebring has none of.
My goodness, when I saw one in the showroom I started cussing almost immediately. I can’t believe that–in this day and age–Chrysler would roll out a steaming pile of crap and expect retail customers to buy it.
I wish Mr. LaSorda the best of luck: cutting $1000 in costs from this unit is quite the challenge.
While we’re at the correction game, the 174hp 4 cyl in the base model is the “world engine”, not the engine that Jonny tested.
I did say right in the review that acceleration was the Sebring’s best virtue (and it had good brakes).
The rental car version has a 190hp V6 and rear drums. Pathetic.
The most important sales attribute of this car won’t be power, handling, comfort, resale, etc. It will be its ability to hold negative trade-in equity at the time of purchase.
In other words, I don’t think the car’s client base will change at all. It’s also known as “the Pontiac sales model”
yeah in my experience horsepower is sort of irrelevant to fun. The most fun cars I have owned or driven have not alot of horsepower. The fact that this car has 190 hp should be enough for its intended use, and users.
0-60 is irrelevant, unless u really enjoy speeding from one light to the next. Which may be ur idea of fun, i dunno.
This car however, does not answer any questions. There does not seem to be any reason for it, except to fill a niche. And it is butt ugly.
One look told me it is a design monstrosity, and now you tell me the dynamics are crap as well. It must be that DCX death wish.
As I said before, not since the 1959 Chevrolet has there been such evidence that the front end designers never even met the rear end stylists, let alone worked with em…sheesh!
yeah in my experience horsepower is sort of irrelevant to fun. The most fun cars I have owned or driven have not alot of horsepower. The fact that this car has 190 hp should be enough for its intended use, and users.
It gets pretty relevant when V6 Toyota Camrys, Honda Accords, Nissan Altimas, etc absolutely blow your doors off.
Truth is, we have a modern-day horsepower war. Six forward gears and 250+hp available for $25k or less is becoming the norm. If you’re missing that formula you are behind the pack.
Virages: The average fast lane speeds on Southern California freeways today are usually greater than those on the motorways in the South of England. You would not want to find yourself in an 85 hp Subie on the Ventura freeway at 2:00 pm. As to the Sebring, it’s just another collection of design cues on a shared platform. Ugly as dirt, but the fact that Pontiac sold more than one Aztek should give some hope to the poor Chrysler dealers.