DC Car Examiner Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 This is a midlevel Touring with the 283-hp V6. Review here: http://www.examiner.com/autos-in-national/review-2011-chrysler-200-touring Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 I do feel its like the F student has finally gotten a D minus. But the Chrysler fans feel its as if the Down Syndrome child scored an "A".... :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Car Examiner Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 I do feel its like the F student has finally gotten a D minus. But the Chrysler fans feel its as if the Down Syndrome child scored an "A".... :rolleyes: It's definitely not well-rounded enough for an A. Chrysler poured its resources into making a couple of things excellent -- interior, ride quality -- but couldn't quite afford to make an overall world-beater. But doing those things well and not too much dismally is, I'd say, better than a D-minus, especially for the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 That was a surprisingly good review. You didn't mention what your new last place car is, or has it not changed? I've not seen one in person yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) Edit: I'm listening to the Autoblog podcast from this week....they were very impressed with the car. Not "impressed because of what it was previously", but genuinely impressed with the car as a whole. Edited February 18, 2011 by Intrepidatious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Nicely written review, DC Car Examiner. Did you get a chance to evaluate the headlamps? One positive highlight (pun intended) of the 2007-2010 Chrysler Sebring was that its headlamps provided very good performance. I wonder if the new bi-functional projector beam headlamps with HIR2 bulbs in the 200 are even better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Car Examiner Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 That was a surprisingly good review. You didn't mention what your new last place car is, or has it not changed? I've not seen one in person yet. I'd need to do another back-to-back comparison, but the 200 has definitely improved from last place. Probably the Accord or Altima, which are both okay-at-best products with strong enough reputations to demand high prices. Maybe the Galant if that even counts, though I've never actually bothered to drive one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Car Examiner Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 Nicely written review, DC Car Examiner. Did you get a chance to evaluate the headlamps? One positive highlight (pun intended) of the 2007-2010 Chrysler Sebring was that its headlamps provided very good performance. I wonder if the new bi-functional projector beam headlamps with HIR2 bulbs in the 200 are even better? Thanks! I try to do my test drives during the daytime whenever possible so I can take pictures, so I don't have anything to say about the headlights' brightness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Car Examiner Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 Edit: I'm listening to the Autoblog podcast from this week....they were very impressed with the car. Not "impressed because of what it was previously", but genuinely impressed with the car as a whole. Autoblog is very impressed with just about every car it reviews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Autoblog is very impressed with just about every car it reviews. You aren't hearing what they are saying about the Sebring. Yeesh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Car Examiner Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 You aren't hearing what they are saying about the Sebring. Yeesh. Being super-critical of the previous generation or other predecessor is another staple of their positive reviews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atvman Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 The car went from bad (F) to mediocre ©. Considering it is a strong value, I'd probably round it up to a a C+ or B-. It's no longer a laughingstock, but it will still rely on it's low price to sell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 But you're still looking at the mid-level with the V6. The 4 banger is still the lump that's been giving it such a horrible rep from rental car customers. That is just bad as compared to ANY OTHER 4 banger currently in use in the US market in this model year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Car Examiner Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 But you're still looking at the mid-level with the V6. The 4 banger is still the lump that's been giving it such a horrible rep from rental car customers. That is just bad as compared to ANY OTHER 4 banger currently in use in the US market in this model year. One of the biggest problems with the 4-cylinder in the old Sebring was the NVH, which Hyundai/Kia successfully quelled in their use of the same engine. So it's possible Chrysler has been able to do the same with the 200. A clear weak point is continuing to be 4-cylinder fuel economy -- it's steady despite the car's extra weight, but it's not taking part in the class's new fuel economy war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 One of the biggest problems with the 4-cylinder in the old Sebring was the NVH, which Hyundai/Kia successfully quelled in their use of the same engine. So it's possible Chrysler has been able to do the same with the 200. A clear weak point is continuing to be 4-cylinder fuel economy -- it's steady despite the car's extra weight, but it's not taking part in the class's new fuel economy war. I was just looking at a new 200 4 cyl. on the dealer lot and noticed on sticker it was rated 31mpg highway. Not bad, and not great. Kudos to Chrylser for updating so many of its products in 18 months. Most of the updates were very well done considering the limited resources. It certainly buys them some time to get all new products out in order to compete better on especally fuel mileage. Other than the Caliber, Chrysler has a decent linuep now. I look for their sales to be up all year and their incentives are less than GM, and just a bit higher than Ford. Not bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Other than the Caliber, Chrysler has a decent linuep now. Vs who? I think they went from they totally suck to they suck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsgnome Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 just fyi Brady, you list the engine size as 3.5L at the end of the article. Very nicely written, I really in joy reading your reviews. thank you! :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 One of the biggest problems with the 4-cylinder in the old Sebring was the NVH, which Hyundai/Kia successfully quelled in their use of the same engine. So it's possible Chrysler has been able to do the same with the 200. A clear weak point is continuing to be 4-cylinder fuel economy -- it's steady despite the car's extra weight, but it's not taking part in the class's new fuel economy war. I'm looking forward to a review of the new Fiat Powertrain C635 Dual Clutch Transmission that's supposed to replace the 62TE automatic on the 4-cylinder Chrysler 200 Limited later this model year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Car Examiner Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 I was just looking at a new 200 4 cyl. on the dealer lot and noticed on sticker it was rated 31mpg highway. Not bad, and not great. It's up one mpg from 2010 -- only on uplevel models, with the 6-speed auto -- but still near the bottom of the class. Highway ratings: Galant: 30 mpg Mazda6, 200: 31 mpg Altima, Camry: 32 mpg Malibu, Fusion: 33 mpg Accord, Optima: 34 mpg Sonata: 35 mpg Kudos to Chrylser for updating so many of its products in 18 months. Most of the updates were very well done considering the limited resources. It certainly buys them some time to get all new products out in order to compete better on especally fuel mileage. Other than the Caliber, Chrysler has a decent linuep now. I look for their sales to be up all year and their incentives are less than GM, and just a bit higher than Ford. Not bad. It will definitely be interesting to see how their improvements translate into sales and, more importantly, profit. And there's so much new metal floating around there I'd have to review nothing but Chrysler products for a few months to catch up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Car Examiner Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 just fyi Brady, you list the engine size as 3.5L at the end of the article. Very nicely written, I really in joy reading your reviews. thank you! :-) Thanks, and thanks for the catch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
156n3rd Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 My first car was a 1963 Chrysler Newport 4dr. sdn. It was a pig. It was huge. It was comfortable. From what I have seen of the many 200's I've seen on the road. My gut feeling is thatey have tried to make a silk purse from a sow's ear. Never Never Never gonna work. The giant gripe that I've had about and variation of the original "cloud" cars: First, let's face it. These are those same cars. The front seating has always been suspect, too low and without support. Why do they insist on such low seats? Your legs go straight and flat out. Too low for comfort, for decent vision and too far away from parts of the dash. No. This car should have been crushed. Take those dies and crush them, never to be seen by man again. They still don't get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.