By Jonny Lieberman
December 20, 2006 -
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.]
Subscribe to New Content Alerts
Back to Top
End of Comments
More Reviews
December 20th, 2006 at 7:56 am
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?
December 20th, 2006 at 7:57 am
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!
December 20th, 2006 at 8:15 am
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?
December 20th, 2006 at 8:24 am
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 8:28 am
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 8:32 am
It’s just ugly. What were they thinking?
December 20th, 2006 at 8:33 am
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 8:57 am
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 9:12 am
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 9:21 am
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 9:24 am
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?
December 20th, 2006 at 9:40 am
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 9:52 am
With the Sebring’s short wheelbase and lousy suspension, bumps aren’t just felt, but profoundly understood
That is brilliance.
December 20th, 2006 at 9:57 am
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 10:08 am
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 10:09 am
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).
December 20th, 2006 at 10:12 am
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 10:15 am
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!
December 20th, 2006 at 10:19 am
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 10:39 am
It could be worse. It could sport a bowtie.
December 20th, 2006 at 10:40 am
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 10:43 am
The worst new car available in North America since the introduction of the Ion. And…it’s uglier.
December 20th, 2006 at 10:44 am
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…
December 20th, 2006 at 10:47 am
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 10:48 am
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 10:49 am
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!).
December 20th, 2006 at 10:51 am
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 10:57 am
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 11:13 am
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 11:13 am
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 11:15 am
It could be worse, they could’ve built the Chrysler Imperial concept from last year.
*shudder*
December 20th, 2006 at 11:19 am
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 :(
December 20th, 2006 at 11:27 am
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 11:33 am
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?
December 20th, 2006 at 11:39 am
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 11:42 am
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 11:43 am
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
That is the ugliest car I have ever seen, Aztec included…
December 20th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Is it too early to nominate the Sebring for the 2007 TWAT awards?
December 20th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
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!
December 20th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
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”
December 20th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
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!
December 20th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
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.
December 20th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
“It’s just ugly. What were they thinking?”
Some ideas:
“By 2010, every car will have a nose like a snow shovel and ridges down its hood!”
“Just how cheaply can we produce a mid-sized car?”
“What styling cues should we make the new Chrylser hallmark? …I got nuthin.”
This is beyond hideous, it’s downright Machiavellian in its conception. DCX must really have lost respect for US buyers.
If you’re going to make a car strictly for the rental car market, have the guts to paint them all yellow with “car” written in bold black letters on the doors.
December 20th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
1. Shouldn’t this be the Chrysler “Murder” Watch? I think the D will still be around for awhile. Just not the C.
2. Great transportation value in 3 years, 45K in mileage for about $3800. 1st year out of college girl elementary school teacher car.
3. Alamo does need tons of cars every year and somebody has to build them.
4. When last year’s Malibu is your competition, why work too hard?
5. Whatever you think of Piech, one of my favorite (and possibly apocryphal) stories about him is that sometime in the early ’90s he was looking at a mock up of an Audi interior, and hated it so much he took an ax to it and completely destroyed it telling his designers to go back and start all over again. Shouldn’t somebody at Chrysler done this to the Sebring design about 18 months ago?
December 20th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Group think at its finest/worst. The Emperor’s new mid-size sedan. Something like that.
In fact, I feel a rant coming on.
December 20th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
There are some advantages.. being ugly, you have no qualms thrashing this car for all it’s worth as a rental.. even denting it adds character.
December 20th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
No doubt the car is ugly, but it, like the Ford 500, is the result of this “globalization” kick, where you take a platform that is not really a good fit, and try to make it something it should not be.
Ford took a Volvo and created an underwhelming product - Chrysler is doing the same with a Mitsubishi. When will the home team use it’s own farm system, rather than try the “free agency” route?
On the horsepower, where I drive there is so much traffic that there is almost no place to use excessive horsepower, though I do like speeding up to avoid letting the arrogant drivers over who try to cut in the front of line at an exit ramp. I don’t really care if they hit me or not, and I love collecting the one finger salutes.
Owning big rear wheel drive body-on-frame Detroit iron is great for that purpose, but the Sebring is not even close to being a real American car.
December 20th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
As an empoyee of a Detroit competitor, this car, this review, and these posts warm the cockles of my heart.
As a car enthusiast, I am a sad and blubbering mess.
I have very conflicted insides.
December 20th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Sajeev Mehta:
perhaps i am behind the pack. Horsepower simply does not add to my motoring pleasure as much as tight suspensions, peaky engines and a good shifter.
Horsepower needs to be “adequete” as the Roller people used to say.
I have had my share of high horse power american and european cars. Small displacement light tossable cars are simply more fun for me to drive.
My 100 hp VW can cruise all day at 95 mph. Even at that speed, there are those that go faster. How fast can or should one go? I dunno, but in Jersey or Pa its like a 500 dollar ticket AND points.
i think i go fast enough. If i want to launch a sprint, i drop a gear of two and zoom.
all this fun and 30 mpg. so i can have even more fun!
December 20th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
virages: “But how fast do you drive now in the USA?”
They often have speed traps by my house and so when I get home my wife will sometimes ask if I got a ticket on the way home. My response is “Honey, I don’t speed, I just go 0-30 really fast!”. ;-)
December 20th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
I’ve been pulled over for going 0-30 really fast.
Pricks, the lot of them.
I am not going to drop this horsepower thing — if you don’t like horsepower, guess what? Buy the base model car. However, this was the hopped up over $25K “Limited” version of the Sebring. It is brand new, and it cannot compete with the competition.
That is pathetic.
December 20th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
HP is fine, but it’s torque I want. I’d much rather have a screamer with a top speed of 85, than a moderately quick car that tops out at 155+. Luckily, the first category can be basically accomplished in tandem with great gas mileage with a really good turbodiesel. Threadjacked!
December 20th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
well i dont like base models of most cars cause you never seem to get good anything else either. So a base say, sebring, since were talking about it here, has a small lathargic engine, louse handling, slow steering and boaty ride.
On the other hand, a base Mini can be had with all sorts of suspension tweaks AND a small cool engine. And a classy interior.
A bad car with a big engine is still a bad car. Case in point, this one with a 235 hp engine, is crappy.
December 20th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
It is way more awful than just crappy.
I didn’t even mention the gear-box, did I?
Oh man… beyond bad.
December 20th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
I don’t care so much about 0-60, but the Sebring’s moderate 0-60 time tells me it’s probably not going to be so good at passing on a two-lane with short straights, either. Or how it is in the 55 to 85 range, a common real world acceleration requirement. And that’s a much more important measure.
December 20th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Noley — it is not as good as the competition.
December 20th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
For 25k I could get a Ford Five Hundred with a s-load of newer technology (just an underwhelming engine), strong chassis and a footlball field of room. Or I can get an Accord EX-L with navigation. In 1998 this Chrysler perhaps stood a chance, but no way now.
Last weekend I went by the C-J dealer to see what was new in town. A few new Wranglers, 20+ Cruisers, 20+ 300’s, 15+ Aspens, 10+ minivans, 10+ Pacificas, and too many Compasses, Sebrings, Grand Cherokees, Libertys and Commanders to count. Hundreds, total. Times are a hurtin’ for a C-J dealership.
There was a couple there looking over a Compass as a surprise Xmas present for their HS daughter. After a few minutes with me (I’m like an automotive missionary, saving one person at a time…), they decided to wait for the Patriot next month. Wise move.
December 20th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
>>>From the sounds of it, Chrysler hasn’t come very far. Anyone taking bets on whether Kerkorian will be offering to buy Chrysler soon?
Nothing yet, and if he doesn’t hurry up, Kevorkian will be there to put it out of its misery.
December 20th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
A British magazine’s summary of the prior generation Sebring convertible said (paraphrased) “it has absolutely no business being over here” (in the UK/Europe).
The trashed it’s handling (if that euphamism may be used), lack of economy, fit and finish (if you can call them that).
I was under some sort of impression from years and decades of watching the auto industry, that it’s a good idea to actually improve the cars from one generation to the next….
silly me. I guess this is why I don’t work at DCX, Ford, or General Messup (mustn’t leave out VW). To crib a famous movie line, apprently I DO have a brain.
Call me sicko but after being stupid enough to actually have purchased a 1999 Neon, I really want some revenge on the dealer that sold it to me (when I did go back and bought a Hyundai from the same dealer, I said “oh, are you STILL selling those Neons?!” as if they were mentally challenged to do so - because - they WERE).
I should go down to the dealer with my wife’s Hyundai, and dicker a “sucker deal” on a new Sebring sedan, ask them about all the accessories, let them lowball me on the trade (upside down would be great), ask about the extra warrantee “since 7/70 is now gone - oh well” then go “ok now it’s time for the test drive” then come back, tear up their paperwork and walk out.
Heh heh. Yeah, I know, I need help. But, I’m getting better, I no longer have the “GM-Ford-Chrysler” syndrome where I keep buying one brand, getting screwed, go the the next, getting screwed, and the next, around in a circle.
I’ve escaped to Toyota heaven, may try Honda, no more Hyundai’s though (average doesn’t cut it after having a Prius - plus conventional cars are no longer on my shopping list, along with GM, Ford, DCX and VW not being there either).
December 20th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Hmmm. Is there an echo in here, or is this the International Macaw Convention?
Let me see if I understand this correctly - operating from a basic premise that DCX has a not-so-secret motive to sabotage its own brand, the new Sebring has been brought to market for only one purpose, and that is to expedite its demise?
Jonny - if I am incorrect in this please let me know.
If I am correct, this assumption is hardly an objective basis to pin a new vehicle review.
Now every review (5-6 last count) for the 2007 Sebring that I have read indicates that it is a measurable improvement over the previous model. No, it is not ready to go head to head with Accord or Camry, but no reviewer out and out trashed this car as it was here. Now this of and by itself is not cause for alarm, nor is it enough to question the sincerity of TTAC’s experience with this vehicle. Yet it makes me wonder.
Having said that I have not personally seen the vehicle up close so I can only go by photos. IMHO there is nothing bland or generic about the design of this vehicle, either inside or out. It cuts rather nicely in my estimation, and keep in mind the Touring Edition can be had for somewhere around $22K, which is starter Accord and Camry territory last time I checked.
I personally would have liked something close to the Nassau concept vehicle seen here…
http://www.thecarconnection.com/zoom-image.asp?/images/gallery/11381_EFFFYKIDQKSIQ.jpg
But if DCX can incrementally improve its vehicles then that is still moving forward. Forward is always better than backward or standing still.
December 20th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
perhaps i am behind the pack. Horsepower simply does not add to my motoring pleasure as much as tight suspensions, peaky engines and a good shifter.
Jersey: you make it sound like HP and driving dynamics are mutually exclusive. How much you wanna bet the Honda Accord JL mentioned in the article is not only faster but handles way better?
Even if an Accord is a few thousand more, you can bet its gonna sell like hotcakes, as always.
December 20th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
The Sebring is an example of why Plymouth should not have been killed off. I used to own 1992 Plymouth Acclaim - bulletproof and practical. Replaced by the inferior Breeze/Cirrius, and then Plymouth was deep-sixed.
It’s a name badge - Plymouth would have the PT Cruiser and Sebring - rest would be Chryslers.
The worst part of the Acclaim was the crappy Mitsubishi v-6 engine - some things never change.
December 20th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Well, CarNut, now that you have discovered TTAC you’ll notice that you aren’t going to see “hacks pretending to test cars for advertising bucks from MegaCar Corp” because this is The TRUTH About Cars.
By the way, vis a vis my comments about not ever wanting another “conventional” (i.e. non-hybrid) car again, the radio guy just said “gas prices just went up 40 cents” (in northern Michigan, anyway).
So, “here we go again” (OPEC announced last week that they were cutting production).
Speaking of hybrids, wasn’t DCX supposed to do a hybrid Caliber? Yes. So, where is it?! (Not that I’d have been even remotely tempted - after all, if “they” cannot even build a conventional car which can keep a head-gasket for 60,000 miles - Neon - why would I trust them to build a super-complex hybrid?) Answer: NO WAY NO HOW.
December 20th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
But if DCX can incrementally improve its vehicles then that is still moving forward. Forward is always better than backward or standing still.
Carnut: its a good idea in theory, but sliding market share from global competition (mostly Japan) makes improvements on your previous model irrelevant unless it was a hot seller in the first place. And Chrysler hasn’t had a hot seller except for certain trucks. Even the 300 is a lukewarm entry considering the sales success of Camrys and Accords.
Chrysler doesn’t have time to do better than last year. That’s discounting the fact that the new Sebring is so ugly I’d rather buy a leftover 2006 model on looks alone.
The Ford 500 is starting to look downright appealing now.
December 20th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Yes Sajeev, perhaps the stakes are as high as you infer. But what you are asking for is a home run with every swing of the bat - this is not how Honda and Toyota moved up the food chain, nor is it how Hyundai (the real sleeper in my estimation - give them 5-7 years) is unceremoniously becoming a true segment player.
Glenn A - Not all car reviewers are hacks or paid stooges as you seem to believe. To me TTAC is merely another voice in the choir, not the voice of God. What is great about the web is that one can gain all kinds of perspectives to form a more rounded opinion.
December 20th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Carnut: no doubt, the stakes ARE high. Detroit is in crisis mode! Have you seen their financials lately? The following may be oversimplified, but…
No home run = no reason to lure loyal Toyota buyers into Chrysler showrooms.
December 20th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
I am now realizing that, much like that one girl in an advanced engineering class, the relative hotness of the Ford Fusion is undeniable.
December 20th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Sajeev Mehta:
Horsepower and driving dynamics ARE mutually exclusive, even in the middle of a horsepower war. If the Accord has a bigger engine, cool, but I would take better handling over a larger engine ANY day.
December 20th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
My point is you get them both in the Accord. They are not mutually exclusive…you can have them both.
December 20th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Hey Jonny,
Just curious about the audio/”infotainment” system as the Harman-designed MyGate was slated from the manufacturer to get a lot of engineering horsepower. I have not heard it or used it yet. Any comments?
Also, can the heated cup holder BBQ my wrists, or is it just weak-heat for fear of liability?
December 20th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Sebring sales must not be great as I have yet to see one here in Central Ohio.
December 20th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Nor an Aspen for that matter. Sonata’s abound however.
December 20th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
Can someone please email the comments section here to Dr. Z?
December 20th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
“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! ”
Except Jonny, that still NONE of those comments are facts. They are all clearly opinion. (Well except maybe that you didn’t want to drive it…) You’re certainly entitled to such and indeed, opinion is the basis of most car reviews. However, to call these facts is misleading.
Speaking of groupthink, it’s interesting to read these (and other) forums sometimes and see how an opinion piece can be echoed by so many posters/commenters, most of whom likely have very little or no experience with the car/issue at hand. I expect anyone coming to the Sebring’s defense here would quickly be shouted down (well it’s kinda happened above already) and ridiculed. It’s an interesting part of human nature that even when represented in something as anonymous as a blog/forum, peer pressure can still be a factor.
For what it’s worth, I don’t mind the Sebring’s styling, although that type of vehicle doesn’t really suit my needs. I haven’t driven it, so I can’t speak about my opinion on that, however if and when I do, I will be sure to base it on my own impressions/tastes/needs. I would encourage everyone to do the same.
December 20th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
People keep saying the Sebring is a lousy car and you should pay the extra few thousand for a Camry/Accord.
I paid $16.5k plus tax for my new Accord LX — is the Sebring really selling for $13K?
December 20th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
That is one butt-ugly car.
Did I hear Dr Z say, ‘Bend over America’ when he approved that design?
Thought so.
December 20th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Sajeev Mehta:
oh yeah, absolutely! if u can get them both and all other things being equal, cool!
December 20th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
z31:
Am-freakin’-en!
fellswoop:
I nearly cried when I saw that. I was in a foul mood all day today because of it. Bloody…!
Seriously, the more I think about it, the more I want to take a Lotus Elise on I-285 during rush hour with a vanity tag. The tag will read “BITEME.”
December 20th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Car Nut:
I’ll state a FACT once again. FACTS are hard to come by in this thread, by the looks of it.
Sales of Sebring were up 16% in Nov 06 as compared to previous model sales in Nov 05. 7582 Sebrings in 11/06, 6538 in 11/05. And Sebrings weren’t even in full availability during the month.
I am starting to see them around more and more in DFW and they are much better looking in person than in photos.
Let’s also remember that Sebring may be the least popular of the 3 new models to be based on this platform. Sebring Convertible (the segment leader), and new Dodge Avenger to replace lackluster Stratus. Avenger release was handled much better by DCX and initial response has been much more positive than Sebring. Potentially 20-25K cars per month on this platform, 250-300K per year, nothing to sneeze at, and a big improvement for DCX.
December 20th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
Another also ran entry from the 2.5. Hmmm, is there a pattern here?
Our 2003 V-6 Accord shows hardly any indication of torque steer from it’s 244 HP engine, certainly far less than I experienced on the 1996 Cadillac Seville I once owned. It is possible to nearly eliminate torque steer on FWD cars with very careful engineering.
The idea that Sebring will be an almost-as-good-as car for a cheaper price than an Accord, Camry or Sonata just doesn’t cut it. Then there is the question of resale value ….
December 20th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
Uh… I put “fact” in quotes because… you should know why.
By benchmark for torque steer is a late 90s Maxima — when they bumped the displacement up to 3.5-Liters (260hp) yet did nothing to the chassis. The engine completely overpowered everything.
The Sebring was worse.
SuperAROD — get thyself to the ophthalmologist.
December 20th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
These things are actually out already? I usually see new products as soon as they are released, among the droves of cospicuous consuming suburbanites. 4-door Wranglers everywhere. Several Nitros on the road so far. But I haven’t even seen so much as a TV commercial for the Sebring, let alone one in person. I’ll reserve styling judgment until that point, but it’s looking very Ion-esque.
December 20th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Like all automotive iconoclasts, Sebring is destined for greatness. My only quibble is with the rather generic tail, which I keep confusing for a Toyota. But the glorious silhouette recalls earlier individualists like Gremlin and Pacer and Marlin and Aztek and the fabulous bustleback Seville. Where Sebring surpasses its forebears is in its sublime dashboard, which brilliantly evokes the bewinged Chrysler logo. Magnificent.
Long after today’s humble Accords and Camrys have done their ten thousand score miles and shuffled off to the community college parking lot, Sebrings will be revered and collected and obsessed over. What with Crossfire and Charger and Compass and now Sebring, it seems that the spirit of AMC has been fully channeled and resurrected. The roadscape is enriched.
December 20th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
This car is so ugly and unnecessary it actually makes me angry.
Considering the price and power of this car, I’m totally puzzled why anyone would buy this when the 300 is standing next to it.
The same is true for the upcoming Avenger vs. the existing Charger.
Why couldn’t they just strip down the 300?
Throw away the console, CD player - take it all down to a car with only AMFM stereo and power windows - build it with only the base 2.7 engine and limit options to a precious few to reduce build time and complexity.
Name it “Newport” and slap a $18,900 sticker on it.
“NEWPORT: The stylish full size car you buy at the price of a boring mid size car!”
December 20th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
I would rather have a Korean car than most of the rubbish being ejaculated from the big 2.5. I never thought I’d say that! When the chinese cars arrive I assume the sebring and its ilk may give them a run for their money?
December 20th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
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.
This confirms that somebody really is trying to kill Chrysler. This is beyond moronic incompetence. It’s downright malicious.
December 20th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
I have a hunch the outgoing C platform will find its way to the Chrysler lineup -but they won’t give such a product the kiss of death by naming it the Sebring.
Give it a year or two, in the great Chysler tradition, we’ll have new model names to keep the buying public guessing as to what we’re really getting.
December 20th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Many of you need to look up the definition of “hyperbole” and cut this car some serious aesthetic slack. I understand the almost vitriolic dislike of all thing 2.5 here, but each vehicle should be granted the opportunity of being viewed in its own light. There are many seriously deformed and cars out there, but this is not one of them. My prediction is that it will eaily rise to at least 125K unit sales annually. I am sitting here mourning the loss of objectivity in this forum.
December 20th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
CarNut:
There are many seriously deformed and cars out there, but this is not one of them.
Yes it is.
You might look up the definition of “butt ugly”.
December 20th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
CarNut:
Personally, I appreciate the dissenting opinion (as should anyone in a forum of discussion) and agree with most of your sentiments on the car. 125K seems like an agreeable estimate to me, and I also am not offended by the car’s styling inside or out, nor do I find it particularly appealing.
That being said, I think “mourning the loss of objectivity in this forum” is over the top.
Like you said, the best thing about the web is reading a collection of opinions and then forming your own.
The reviewers at TTAC are without a doubt “automotive elitists,” and who can blame them? They constantly drive the finest automobiles available and thus, when they get behind the wheel of something much blander, a Chrysler Sebring for example, the review may seem overly harsh. Still, it is the honest opinion from that perspective, and that’s really all you can ask for.
Personally, I just drove a 98′ Toyota Tercel CE with 190,000 miles all the way from Penn to Michigan; a 500 mile 8 hour ride that is absolutely brutal. (This is a true story. I am not exaggerating any details to make my experience seem worse than it was… I really did drive a Tercel under those conditions. Swear to God.)
If you put me behind the wheel of a Chrysler Sebring I would probably praise it’s “luxurious interior, smooth ride, and strong acceleration.”
But if this car really does sell for 25K in the real world marketplace, I can’t imagine there would be many buyers at that ultra-competitive range. But if it sold new, for 13K-15K as some in this forum have suggested? Without driving the car, that would seem like a very good value buy for someone on a budget.
December 20th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
Is it my imagination, or does it look like the hood of this thing is made by taking the rejected pickup bed ribbed sections and cutting a hood out of them? From the looks of the photos the photographer tried really hard to find flattering angles and to use bright reflected light to hide the ribs in the hood.
I’m sure glad that wasn’t my photo assignment! I can just imagine the groans when the senior class in professional advertising photograhy found out that their final assignment was to make the 2007 Sebring look appealing!
December 20th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
I have had a good time reading these comments. I wanted to participate but we had production problems at work and I didn’t have the time. Some observations:
This entire suicide watch article is a car review. I not sure that’s appropriate. If the article had been about how the Sebring was designed (mis-designed?) and how the execs let this happen then I think it would have some merit. But in it’s present form I think it should be a car review. What’s Chrysler Suicide Watch 5 going to be - a review of the Aspen?
The Sebring is ugly in my opinion because the proportions are off. You may not like the front grill and headlights or the taillights but I don’t see how they viewed in isolation from the rest of the car are more ugly than say the beak on the Camry (what hell was Toyota thinking!?!?) or it’s tailights. The Accord is not much better. But they have got proportions right.
The car does not photograph well. I have seen one in person while driving to work. It passed by me in the left lane before I could look at it in the rearview mirror. When I saw the tailights I thought it was a Toyota (because ToyoCo to me = ugly or bland). Then I noticed the Chyrsler emblem. Please understand, it didn’t look cheap. It actually looked substantial, it just looked like a Toyota as in not exciting. I have a feeling that if everyone of us were able to view the car in person that many, not all, of us might not lust after it but we wouldn’t be repulsed by it either.
The convertible does look alot better in the pics. And the Dodge Avenger looks even better. Those two alone should allow DCX to sell 200 grand for 2 or 3 years, enough to keep the plant in Sterling Heights MI running near full capacity.
Many of you are comparing this car to the Impala and the 500. This should be compared to the Malibu and the Fusion since that is the segment it’s in. But I guess it’s ok to compare the bland styling to the Impala and 500.
Since this segment has soooo many boring and bland cars (how about we call it the appliance segment instead of the C segment) did it occur to any of you that this car was not designed to set a new benchmark in design or style? It does seem to be full of all kinds of thoughtful goodies like the heated and chilled cupholders and the music entertainment system. Aren’t those the kind of things that are important to consumers in this segment? Yea, some of us want to go zoom zoom but if that was the end all and be all why can’t Mazda sell more 6’s than Malibu’s, let alone Camry’s/Accords? What if the public finds value in what this car offers for the price? That’s not our cup of tea, but it sells a hell of lot of cars. I still remember how awful looking the Caprice was when they redesigned it (anyone remember the “Shamu the whale” car?). And yet they sold a ton of them because the majority of buyers for that car had other things as a priority than styling.
Finally, what if DCX improves the car over the next couple of years? What if they tune the engine for 15 to 20 more ponies and more torque? What if they improve the interior materials? A freshening of the front and/or rear. Better suspension parts (maybe the SRT treatment). What if DCX commited itself to this car like ToyoCo and Honda do when they don’t quite hit the mark. Wouldn’t that be nice for a change?
December 20th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
Chrysler has had it’s greatest successes with “love it or hate it” designs. The 300 and the mid-90’s Ram are the best examples. But somewhere along the lines on this car they got the “hate it” right and neglected the “love it.”
Other theory: “Hey, this 300 is a real success. What styling cues should we use on our new midsize car? I know…! Let’s make it a cross between a Crossfire and a Pacifica! Let’s make sure it looks nothing like it’s successful older brother!”
December 20th, 2006 at 11:35 pm
I’ve been reading TTAC for 2 years now. Mostly because of the reviewers’ writing. With the addition of the comments section a lot of readers have demonstrated excellent opinions and writing skills.
A lot of readers (myself included) have similar opinons - that doesn’t mean they are wrong. The new Sebring is ugly (even in person) and based on Jonny’s review, an overall disaster. In 2006, there is no reason for this car to look like this. This is not a valid entry from a company controlled by Mercedes with competition like the Camry and Accord.
K.
December 20th, 2006 at 11:52 pm
I am very skeptical of the claim the car is going to sell 125k units a year, and if it gets to anything close to that, it will be the result of rental and other fleet sales exclusively.
In fact, if anyone wants to bet on that, email me (justinberkowitz@yahoo.com). If you are right and the Sebring/Avenger sells more than 125k in the US, I will FedEx you a crisp $5 bill.
December 21st, 2006 at 12:26 am
OK, having actually seen and driven a new ‘07 Sebring (with the four), I must say that I came away quite impressed. Pictures, as it’s been suggested before, really don’t do this car justice and it is MUCH more interesting to look at (what with all the details) than the previous Sebring. Seems like every time I looked at it, I “discovered” something new that I hadn’t noticed before. I like that in a car.
At the time, trading in my wife’s ‘02 Stratus SE four-banger, which was itself a fairly sporty driving car in rental car clothing, but the new Sebring is even better. I used to drive the Stratus on long road trips for the gas mileage (I could regularly top 30 MPG even at 70-75 MPH) and ended up really enjoying it, which was unexpected. My one complaint was the lowness (I’m 6 feet tall), and the new model solved that.
I ended up buying a Grand Caravan, but not because I didn’t like the Sebring. We have four kids and the fact is, we need the room the van offers, although if they were ever to cook up a Sebring wagon with a rear-facing third seat, I could see myself in one. And make it Inferno Red.
In closing: I think our humble reviewer went into this review wanting to hate the car, and let that color his judgment. For those of us who like our cars to be different, the Sebring is a good choice, whether anyone else likes it or not.
December 21st, 2006 at 12:58 am
Replying to SherbornSean:
People keep saying the Sebring is a lousy car and you should pay the extra few thousand for a Camry/Accord.
I paid $16.5k plus tax for my new Accord LX — is the Sebring really selling for $13K?
Exactly. Many believe that big 2.5 cars are cheap enough to cover their crappiness. However, the firesales (or whatever fancy name) only give you discounts over their mad MSRPs, not competitors’ prices. When everything is considered, they still respresent worse value as new cars.
BTW, Intrepids of the late 90s were pretty good looking. And DCX stylings have been the worst out of the big 2.5 since then.
December 21st, 2006 at 1:23 am
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.?
In Europe, the Big 2.5 have to make good small cars, because the expectations and requirements of the average European motorist is much higher than their American counterparts. If they don’t, then they’re pretty much ****ed.
Here in the U.S., there is the belief among the Big 2.5 that small cars = small profits. And small cars are hence de-contented accordingly. You will never find the attractive trim and specs of the Euro-spec 1st gen Focus on it’s U.S. counterpart — the beancounters would not allow it and the corporate heads wouldn’t either. So the vast majority of the Big 2.5’s small car lineup is built to a price, not a standard. The Chevette, Neon, Cavalier, Vega, Pinto and Pacer all stand testament to that. Besides, wouldn’t you rather have a bigger car that has all that nice stuff inside?
And it’s little wonder why so many people love the Civic, Golf, Corolla and Mazda 3.
As for the abomination that is the Sebring, it should have never seen the light of day, period.
Now, I’ve read a lot of comments about horsepower and how much is too much or just plain adequate, I do have issues of my own, namely with cars that don’t have enough horsepower.
I currently own a late 80s’ Cadillac Brougham (the only RWD Caddy that was on sale at the time). 140Bhp from an Oldsmobile-sourced 307ci V8 moving over 5000lbs of old-school metal is a recipe for sluggishness. Add a 3sp/w OD transmission that sucks up to 20Bhp in the process of that motivation and the image is complete: a “luxury” car that makes overtaking and merging with traffic an adventure.
The Pontiac 6000 I used to wheel around in had only 100Bhp from it’s 2.8 V6. It merely “kept up” with traffic and made it useless for some overtaking measures. But at least it managed to move down the road with some measure of smoothness.
So I would like to have a car that could move down the road and overtake other cars without having to make it a harrowing adventure of “will it make it or won’t it?”. It doesn’t have to be the latest 300BHP dynowonder, but it has to actually move with some giddyyap about it.
BTW: the most fun I’ve had so far with a car was with the Volvo 760 Turbo I used to own. That was a spicy Swedish meatball!
December 21st, 2006 at 1:57 am
I’m not going to predict Sebring sedan sales stats, but I bet the exterior design gains pretty good acceptance. I like the latest Camry design better every time I see one. In some colors, it approaches elegance. It has the feel of a solid luxury car. Maybe the Sebring is no match design-wise for that, but I doubt that people will be careening off the road in disgust when they see one, despite the views of some TTAC post-ers. But then I’m not bothered by Bangles, and I love the Volvo S40, so maybe I’m politically incorrect.
December 21st, 2006 at 2:04 am
Said….
“Sajeev Mehta:
December 20th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
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.”
You are so wrong Steve. The 300 is a success because it is complete package…a package with a Hemi V8 option, RWD, good handling/braking/ride/safety…a package which no other 30K vehicle offers.
The styling brought the customer into the dealership to consider the 300, but the total package/price ratio sold the 300.
Unfortunately, while I will not dog the Sebring, it does not appear to offer anything significant over other vehicles in its class…unlike the 300.
I have said all alone that Chrysler/Dodge should offer their full and mid sized cars in RWD/AWD forms only. Leave the FWD to everyone else. That makes you the only player at that price point…your own niche.
Just think, even with its controversial styling, the Sebring would have been so much better RWD…
December 21st, 2006 at 2:20 am
To those who may think otherwise, this car WOULD NOT stand a chance, even if it were 1996. My old ‘97 Nissan Maxima SE would murder this car in every aspect, including acceleration, even with its “only” 190hp engine. In fact, the Max was actually quite fast - the engine never felt underpowered in any situation (I have a speeding ticket for 111mph in a 65 to prove it). It can’t be a good sign for the merger when your 2007 bread and butter model is hopelessly uncompetitive with competitor’s effort from 10 years ago…
December 21st, 2006 at 2:27 am
j_newkirk:
Going from a Stratus to a Sebring would be a step up, as the Stratus is just terrible.
But I did not want to hate this car — that is ridiculous and borderline libelous. I love cars. In fact I want to love all cars. I want to find that special something that gives a car some personality, some character, some soul.
See my review of the Ford Focus, one of the most miserable cars on the road. Awful in every way excpet… I discovered that it handles well. Really, really well. Shockingly well.
Or how about the Ford Fusion? I recommend the 4-banger 5-speed to most people who ask me what car they should buy. And I get asked a lot.
There is nothing good about the Sebring at all. Yes, I was predetermined to hate the way it looks — but only because I can see.
The interior is rotten. Pure rental. Twenty-years behind the times in terms of quality. And the seats on subways are more supportive.
Look — I can go on and on — handling, ride, etc — all terrible and worse than the competition.
I’m American. I want American cars to be the best in the world (even if they are owned by German overlords). Cars like the Sebring depress me to no end, because America is supposed to be the best — that’s our MO.
If you told me the Sebring was designed and built in Burma, I wouldn’t be surprised.
An awful car.
December 21st, 2006 at 3:46 am
Jonny: Good gosh, how did the Burmese get involved in this?
December 21st, 2006 at 5:13 am
To paraphrase Robert Christgau, “It ain’t that bad. But Lord, it sure ain’t that good.”
December 21st, 2006 at 8:20 am
The U.S. auto manufacturers are all about 100 years old. Look at their behavior. Could they all possibly have corporate Alzheimers disease?? It would explain a lot.
December 21st, 2006 at 8:46 am
What’s up with all the lines on the hood? Kind of pontiac-esque. I bet pontiac designers from the 80’s are look at that thinking they wish they had thought of it.
December 21st, 2006 at 10:54 am
I just saw one of these on the road this morning … wow, the pictures don’t do justice to that C-pillar area with the black paint slapped on in a crude attempt to carry the window line to a resolution. That is just inexcusably, stupidly bad design.
December 21st, 2006 at 11:21 am
ok maybe there is a little hyperbole here on occasion, sometimes