Comments on: Design Study: Chrysler Sebring

By: IgorSmirnov

IgorSmirnov — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 23:20:50 +0000

While I actually like the new Sebring, I’ve got to say that the hood looks like a ribbed condom…you know the Durex HerPleasure kind?

By: courtstone

courtstone — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 21:35:03 +0000

Thank you Jonny, the Accord is quite attractive. Worse yet, Chrysler actually expects this Sebring to compete with the Camry/Accord. And just think how well they designed the 300c…

By: TeeKay

TeeKay — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 21:43:50 +0000

Why? Why must such a venerable name of a track be monopolized by such a sh*tty product? Why? Is there no justice?

By: Jonny Lieberman

Jonny Lieberman — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:50:25 +0000

You know what? The Accord is not boring. More over, it is quite handsome, AND proportioned correctly.

As Koresh correctly pointed out, the front wheel openings are too close to the doors. I will add: this is by far the very worst part of the car. Just… astonishingly bad — microcars have proportions like that — but, they look “cute” because the rest of the vehicle is within that scale. This sad sucker is out of tune.

A woeful misfire by a company that should know better.

By: admin

admin — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:33:36 +0000

Rizo and Ronin
As an FYI, if you post a comment that has more than one link in it, the comment will be held for moderation. We do that to keep comment spammers from filling up the comments with junk. If you post a comment that has multiple links in it, please be patient. If it is a comment and not spam, we’ll approve it and let it through.

By: Michael Karesh

Michael Karesh — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:18:36 +0000

That pretty much sums it up.

By: Hutton

Hutton — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:05:45 +0000

CB6499,
This car vs. a Honda or a Toyota…. hmm, a that’s an interesting contest. Ugly vs. Boring. Everybody loses.

By: Michael Karesh

Michael Karesh — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 03:21:00 +0000

There’s little if anything European about the look of this car. Different I might grant if the Saturn ION and Nissan Sentra didn’t have similar shapes.

I thought the first-gen Sebring was a very attractive car. It had other weaknesses, the Mitsubishi V6 among them.

By: CB6499

CB6499 — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 02:45:15 +0000

You guys kill me, toyota doesn’t have any decent looking vehicles. Now that dcx has a somewhat european looking vehicle that will be a strong competitor in the midsize segment, you still trash it. This vehicle is much more appealing than any midsize car that Toyota and or Honda has on the road. This will be a hot seller and we will win another JD Power award for the high level of quality that Local 1700 is known for.

By: Ingvar

Ingvar — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:39:41 +0000

DCX can not compete head-on with their competitors, so they are playing the “being different” card with all the money they have available at stake. People will not buy the Sebring because it is a “better” car than a Toyota Camry, but because it is different from the Camry. It is the same strategy that Saab and Citroen used to have. It is not about “keeping up with the jonses”, but feeling different and unique for the same money as the Jonses. In that sense, the design doesn’t need to be beautiful or even make sense. It is enough if it is different, or preferred if quirky, eccentric or even ugly. Making change, being different is what it is all about.

And Chrysler did definitly read that TPS report.

By: Michael Karesh

Michael Karesh — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:51:18 +0000

Nah, they’ll let it soldier on in rental fleets for at least six. The front end will probably get minor revisions in two or three. Probably take out the grooves and change the headlights.

By: mastermik

mastermik — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:43:15 +0000

there is no car in the world that would look this car look better. even if you parked next to an aztec, they would just looked equally ugly. the Q7 is not attractive but its decent for an SUV. WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY CHRYSLER?? … they were doing so well with the 300… the magnum… the charger… even the caliber is decent (even thoguh they say its anything but cute). anyone wanna bet this car will be redesigned in 3 years?

By: Superstition6

Superstition6 — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:08:26 +0000

Okay, it’s not an attractive car. But it would be a beautiful car, parked next to a new Audi Q7! The Q7 is offered by the same Volks who gave the world the styling of the Ur-Quattro and Coup?? GT? Was ist in Ingolstadt geschehen?

By: vallux06

vallux06 — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:07:13 +0000

I heard, in Germany it will be marketed as the “Chrysler Ungalant”. Lol.
It looks a lot like the (Mitsubishi) mother!!! Another FWD that tries too hard to look like an RWD.

By: Michael Karesh

Michael Karesh — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:06:14 +0000

Grooves or a raised spine help stiffen the hood, so if someone sits on it it won’t dent as easily.

If you open the hood and look at the flange running its length on each side you’ll see a few detents. Those are to control how the hood buckles in a crash so it won’t get pushed through the windshield.

By: o_fizzle

o_fizzle — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:42:25 +0000

I agree with the poster who said that the new Camry is ugly. I think the Camry looked much better in pictures than in person. It has many unsightly bulges all around making the car look bigger and uglier than it should. I detest the protruding taillights (on the new Lexus IS too).

However, this Sebring is in a completely different class of fugliness. If it looks this horrid in pictures, I hate to think what it will look like in person.

By: mistercopacetic

mistercopacetic — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:01:48 +0000

Is there any practical purpose in having grooves in the hood? Some cars have a “spine” which I heard helps the hood crush safely in a crash. I’m guessing that’s mistaken.

By: Michael Karesh

Michael Karesh — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:52:56 +0000

All or nearly all of you are criticizing the car based on the photos. The car in the photos looks great compared to the one I’ve now seen twice on the road. Black is probably the worst color for the car. Why did they paint the initial cars black?

The front end would look just fine…on a minivan.

The press is going to roast this thing alive. Just wanted to get my two cents into the ring first…

By: Lesley

Lesley — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:06:06 +0000

Well. We have the Canadian press launch for it next week… thanks for building up anticipation!

By: Chadillac

Chadillac — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:30:32 +0000

Devil’s in the details. Looks very similar to the Airflite, yet utterly hideous.
Examples of total screw ups that throw the look off:

Headlights: Look at the link dolo54 provided. The headlighst are larger at center, smaller on the outside. Opposite on the Sebring. Took gorgeous headlights and killed them.
Taillights: Same story. What was wrong with the concept’s lights, guys?
Rear Deck: Did the concept have a rear deck? No….[Well, not much of one]
Windshield: Way too steeply raked for the design. Refer back to the upright windshield on the Airflite
Front Doors: Hmm, don’t remember those being right up at the wheels on the Airflite.
Vents: I really liked those vents on the concept. But alas…

If they had spent a little more time and money and not cut corners, I would be drooling over this right now. But as it stands, I’ll probably not set foot in one unless its on a rental car lot.

By: Ronin317

Ronin317 — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 20:41:04 +0000

HEY, IT WORKS!

Now I can’t remember what I wanted to type…great.

Regardless…how they got to that monster from the quite interesting Airflite Concept is beyond me. Although, I don’t exactly hate the front end, save for the lame hood. The rear half of the car is atrocious.

By: Michael Karesh

Michael Karesh — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 20:37:06 +0000

If a Honda, Toyota, or Nissan is ugly, I say so. In fact, there are quite a few people out there quite unhappy with me because I called the Honda Fit ugly.

I actually don’t mind the new Camry, though the front end is a bit bulbous. Perhaps because the previous one was so hideous in most trims, my expectations were very low.

Conversely, I expect a lot from Chrysler in terms of design. Tom Gale, where are you?

By: Turbokat

Turbokat — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 20:22:56 +0000

It so happens that beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. I absolutely abhorr the insipid design of Camrys, Hondas and Nissans and have no desire to own one…..ever! If Chrysler can, in fact, be faulted for design blunders, the 300, to me is a perfect example. The 300 looks like a cross between its late ’40’s ancestor and a sherman tank. While the sebring does seem like an attempt to copy the Asian design, it still manages to retain that Chrysler look.
Everyone seems to be so taken with Asian based machinery, they’d have totally embraced the Sebring if it had a Toyota, Honda or Nissan nameplate.
I too have read the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes.

By: Frank Williams

Frank Williams — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 20:11:25 +0000

If they’d called it the “Warthog” it would have been an insult to all A-10 Warthogs.

By: sitting@home

sitting@home — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 20:02:23 +0000

It’s marketing who spend millions to research car names, and they obviously thought there was money in the ‘Sebring’ name. If they’d have called it the ‘Chrysler Warthog’ then this editorial would never have existed because we’d all expect it to be ugly. You can still sell ugly cars if you market them correctly; just look at the PT cruiser.