Chrysler 200, interesting (V6+AWD+9spd)

"coriolis" (coriolis) 01/24/2014 at 12:40 • Filed to: None

0

20

But wheres the stick?

Casper > coriolis 01/24/2014 at 12:47

0

AWD? 9 speed? Chrysler? No thanks. This sounds like it has a half life of 5 years and will be the bane of some poor high school kid a decade from now.

HammerheadFistpunch > coriolis 01/24/2014 at 12:51

0

No stick for you. Still a good drivetrain though, the 9speed is nice.

HammerheadFistpunch > Casper 01/24/2014 at 12:52

0

based on....what?

The best fwd transmission on the market? a very good modern v6? Decent Styling? Built on a competent chassis? This isn't old Chrysler you know.

Casper > HammerheadFistpunch 01/24/2014 at 12:59

0

I do believe I have heard that said about every generation of Chrysler to date. I have historic evidence on my side, you have speculation and marketing. I'll wait until I see what exactly the final product is like.

Textured Soy Protein > coriolis 01/24/2014 at 13:03

0

My main question about the 200 was if it was going to grow up into something in the same general size ballpark as the Accord, Camry, Fusion, Altima etc. or if it was going to be like an oversized Dart but not quite big enough to really compete with the midsize heavy hitters. Turns out the overall dimensions are right in line with the competition but the back seat (according to the specs) could be a bit tight. Which then it would be like a Malibu.

HammerheadFistpunch > Casper 01/24/2014 at 13:05

1

What, like I've never driven a crappy Chrysler? of course I have, but its awfully pessimistic to pre-condemn it based on its crappy fore bearers. Most importantly, I don't see any reasonable evidence to support your claim other than said fore bearers. If this was just another badge engineering exercise...maybe, but its pretty clear they are trying here. Truth is, Chrysler/Fiat is making some nice stuff these days.

Casper > HammerheadFistpunch 01/24/2014 at 13:09

0

That is exactly what everyone who ended up buying cars like this said:

It's on them to prove they can turn things around, not me to assume they can. Ford worked hard, turned their crap around into some good products. Chevy is trying to do the same.

HammerheadFistpunch > Casper 01/24/2014 at 13:13

0

wouldn't also stand to reason that you should reserve judgement until you find out if they are crap?

Also, the writing was on the wall for that car...and to be fair...it was class competitive. no fwd sedans from that era are really worth writing home about. You don't have to buy one, but you certainly can't sit back and call it crap because you didn't like past Chrysler.

Zoom > Casper 01/24/2014 at 13:18

0

Compare that Concorde to any domestic in its class. Lumina? Ha. Ad it drove shitloads better than a Taurus. Maybe it didn't stack to the Accord or Camry in quality but it was a much better driving car, and it had the style and ergonomics to back it up. And we do allow bonus points around here for that.

Casper > HammerheadFistpunch 01/24/2014 at 13:26

0

Actually I can... there is nothing forcing anyone to give them a 3rd, 4th, 10th, chance to sort their problems out. They have "reinvented" their line every few years for the last 30 and failed to make progress in the right direction. At this point the ball is entirely in their court to change public opinion.... that's why they went bankrupt.

Casper > Zoom 01/24/2014 at 13:28

0

Nope nope nope. My wife had one and many retirees I knew bought into them. They were garbage in pretty much every way. By the time we got married I barely got my wife's started to take it down to Goodwill. I was never so happy to give away a car in my life. I also had "Plymouth" products people gave me that were Chrysler made and every one of them was garbage. The only ones that even ran well did so because they had Mitsubishi engines... which doesn't matter when everything else falls apart around the engine.

They only stacked up against other garbage cars. As soon as you are arguing which is worse, you know you need to just give up and accept it was terrible.

HammerheadFistpunch > Casper 01/24/2014 at 13:39

0

fine

They'll never make another nice car again. My point is, what about this car...from the facts we have...suggest that it will be bad? nothing but historical bias, and we all know that the past is a perfect predictor of the future.

Casper > HammerheadFistpunch 01/24/2014 at 14:06

0

You seem strangely emotionally invested in this. Nothing I have said was in regards to them never making a good car again. What I said is that they are historically incapable, so it's up to them to prove they can. There is no logical reason to assume they can.

If you touch a something and it burns you, it might be hot. The more often you test it and it results in a burn, the more likely the next time you touch it you will be burned as well. Just because it is possible the next time won't burn you, doesn't mean you should jump to that conclusion. History doesn't need to be a perfect predictor of the future, it's simply evidence of which you lack any to the contrary.

HammerheadFistpunch > Casper 01/24/2014 at 14:23

1

I'm emotionally invested in concrete statements based on bias and not fact. you can be averse to buying one and thats fine, but to say that "AWD? 9 speed? Chrysler? No thanks. This sounds like it has a half life of 5 years and will be the bane of some poor high school kid a decade from now." suggest that's from the data here you can predict this will be a poor selling, or poorly made flop. Its just bad logic. If you want to say, if this is anything like past Chrysler, this thing will suck. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but to infer that the data we have suggests this is a terrible product is false. Point? don't judge people from places you've never been...that's what they do in Russia.

Casper > HammerheadFistpunch 01/24/2014 at 14:36

0

It's not. According to all historic data, there is nothing to refute my conclusion and opinion. Until the car comes into existence and has a few years to show it's spots, we will not know for certain what the conclusion is, but at this point in time, mine is based on more details than yours.

Zoom > Casper 01/24/2014 at 16:25

0

Specifics, please or no go. The 3.3 was bullitt proof, from '90 through the early 'oos when it was discontinued. Multi link front and rear. Cab forward gave them tons of room, and ergonomics for the day was a decade ahead of anything available. The Mitsubishi engines (none of which were available in the LH) in any Chrysler either leaked oil worse than the Valdez, smoked, or cooked head gaskets, (the 3 liter and 2.6 which is why Chrysler dumped them both) and very few of these problems you saw with Mopar 6 cyl engines. We had evap problems with early 134 (no one else even tried new refrigerant) but there were very few other major failures with GenI LH cars.
If you wanted an appliance, you can have your Honda.

Casper > Zoom 01/24/2014 at 18:10

0

I think your last sentence sums it up. You are simply emotionally invested in the brand and don't want to be honest with yourself. To say the "ergonomics" were a decade ahead of their time is laughable. There was nothing "modern" or revolutionary about this interior...

There was nothing remarkable about the cars. They were simply a reskin evolution of an Eagle Vision and just slowly evolved until they ended up completely lost and confused about their purpose.

Zoom > Casper 01/24/2014 at 22:17

0

Again. Specifics or you are simply regurgitating something you have read or with one car you had experience with. The absence of such says volumes. There simply was not much better out there when Chrysler hit the market with the first LH. You are looking at an intentionally conservative dash aimed at a target market. The Vision, Concorde, and Intrepid all hit the market the same year. So a rebadge of something already in existence, they were not.
So, show me the competition, and their perfect record. Come on. You must have something competitive we can discuss.
Wow that Camry was a game changer, huh?

Zoom > Casper 01/26/2014 at 00:35

0

Come on, son. This is weak.

I got 210,000 mile from one of my last "["Plymouth" products people gave me that were Chrysler made] " before I sold it to a dude that had 295k on it when he totalled it.

My last '94 Dodge ["Plymouth" products people gave me that were Chrysler made"] Grand Caravan had 185,k when I KBB'd it and found {surFUCKINprise} that, TODAY, it is worth more than anything else built in its class back in '94. KBB a '94 Grand Caravan ES and compare it to any other minivan that year.

I will digress. Everyone made some serious bullshit back then. I think Toyota still had carburetors. Do you know how to set a choke, son?

Chrysler went full EFi in '88. Across the board. Motorola injectors, we never touched. To today.

Zoom > HammerheadFistpunch 01/26/2014 at 00:40

0

Ouch.

'Emotionally invested' seems like an out for this clowm.