Vellum Venom Vignette: Redesigned Chrysler 200?
TTAC commentator halftruth writes/draws:
I got taking a look at the Chrysler 200 recently and while I want to like it, I cant get past the little droop on the bottom of the tail lights. I took a couple of stabs to see what they would look like flat and perhaps they are too VW-ish, but I like them better this way..
What do you think? I did them quickly in paint but I think you get the point…thanks!
Normally I prefer less fussy tail light designs, but not when it comes to very tall and clumsy proportioned sedans. And when you think tall and clumsy sedans, the Chrysler Sebring-200 is one of the worst offenders on the planet. And not in that ironic hipster way like a Scion xD or xB or whatever…nor in that cheap and cheerful way like a penalty box Chevy Aveo or Nissan Versa. The Chrysler 200 is simply a poorly proportioned vehicle. And it needs all the help it can get.
My point is witnessed above, in the abomination that was the Chrysler Sebring. The Chrysler 200 needs those tail light flairs of modest style, it visually thins a plump sedan.
So I will disagree with you, even though I’m kicking myself for doing it! What say you, Best and Brightest???
Join the conversation
Latest Car ReviewsRead more
Latest Product ReviewsRead more
- Azfelix From certain angles the bonnet appears oversized with respect to the rest of the car - like a skinny teenager wearing a bulky sweater nicked from her older sister's wardrobe.
- Tassos This is way too god damned OLD, 21 years old to have all the necessary options you need TODAY. You need a 10 year old or less car. AND if you give us THIS POS, a 21 year old model, that is not even a LUXURY car, whoever pays $10k for a Golf, And I Do NOT care what anniversary it is (they are all UTTERLY INSIGNIFICANT) deserves to get this MOST UNRELIABLE AND COSTLY TO REPAIR OF ALL LOUSY ECONOBOXES< EVEN THE DOMESTICS AND THE KOREANS.
- Tassos As you say, Toyota confirmed this on TUESDAY. Today is WEDNESDAY. Why is everything on TTAC held back one or more days before you tell us the NEWS when it is NO MORE THE NEWS?
- MRF 95 T-Bird You can find a decent and far more stylish Audi TT or an S4 of a similar vintage for under $10k.
- RHD "In all situations, the grip of the tires (225/40R18 front, 225/35R18 rear) brings with it road noise."Are the rear tires actually smaller than the fronts??!! Adding just a bit of sidewall would take care of the bumps and rough ride. I'm not a fan of BMWs, personally, but this is a very enjoyable car. There are times when driving a convertible is pure bliss, and with a bit of power it's fun as well. (And certainly a better drive than a gussied-up, overpriced German taxicab!)
Late to the game, but..... The little squib of taillight in the trunk lid is the detail that bugs me.And so many cars are using this styling cliche, especially since Infiniti's M or G or whatever adopted it early last decade. It may have been a rip from Bangle BMWs. It makes no sense, follows no logical line, completes no cohesive design element. The new Camrys are the best examples of this and the worst offenders yet. Thankfully on the 200 there isn't that large an offense. The Sebring had,[in spite of the back up/turn signal busy-ness] at least a coherent tail light shape. They helped balance that big rear end as well. The 200 is a sideways "improvement".
This car and it's Dodge twin, the Avenger, are so oddly-styled that it really had me questioning if Chrysler designers were taking mescaline or something when they came up with them. I mean, really! The shapes of the Sebring/200 and Avenger are just bizarre, and do not translate well to the small size of the cars. Both are just ridiculously over-styled. I can certainly see why Chrysler needed the federal bailout. I cannot imagine anyone viewing these cars as being competitive in any way. I actually have a level of contempt for anyone that has bought the Sebring/200 or Avenger - how could anyone actually pay any hard-earned money on these embarrassments? Bizarre.