The 200 convertible bites the dust. Here's why.

"AMC/Renauledge" (n2skylark) 02/24/2014 at 13:52 • Filed to: None

4

100

So !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! linked to an !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! on Chrysler's decision to can the 200 convertible after the current Mitsubishi-based shitcan gets pensioned off later this year. As I !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! in the FP thread, one of the main problems is, inexplicably, a pricing problem.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

The 200's Sebring and LeBaron predecessors were always strong sellers, particularly for rental fleets. However, as the cars became less and less competitive and desirable over the last 15 years, sales fell steadily to nothing.

The FWD 2014 Chrysler 200 convertible, with the 2.4L 4cyl engine, a canvas top and cloth interior, has a !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! of $27,950 . This for a car that's based on a Mitsubishi Lancer platform shared with the Outlander Sport, Compass, Patriot, Avenger, Journey, and the (thankfully) departed Caliber and last-gen Outlander. A platform that dates to 2006. Because of parts sharing across the line, tooling should be cheap.

To compare, the 2014 Mustang V6 rides on its own platform not shared with another Ford vehicle besides the Mustang coupe. It's got a RWD chassis, which is also inherently more expensive to build than a mass-produced FWD platform like the 200's. It's got two extra cylinders from a V6 that's newer than the four in the 200. And yet it !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! $27,510 . You can get one for $440 less than the 4cyl Chrysler ! The automatic (which comes standard on the Chrysler) pushes the base price up to $28,780.

So with the Chrysler, you get a crappier platform, 2 fewer cylinders, 132hp less, wrong wheel drive, and 1mpg less !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

One of the reasons the Chrysler costs so much is because its sheetmetal is unique aft of the A-pillar to its sedan counterpart. Chrysler hasn't made a coupe based on the same platform as the convertible since the 1993 LeBaron coupe was quitely dropped. The 1995-2005 Sebring coupes were all based on the Mitsubishi Eclipse, not the JA/JX body that the convertible was on. So Chrysler had to tool new doors, new rear fenders, and a new decklid and rear fasca. The Mustang shares these things with its coupe counterpart.

The 200 is also expensive because it comes with two different convertible tops...canvas and metal. When we knew it as the Sebring, Chrysler offered it with a vinyl option, as well. So that adds production complexity, reduces economies of scale, and means the engineering for each top has had to be different. That all adds cost, as well.

But what's really doomed the 200 convertible, on top of the engine, fuel economy, performance, and price, is the styling. Convertibles sell on styling. People will see you in them. They need to look good. The 1982-86 LeBaron convertible had novelty on its side, since it was the first in the American market to return to the bodystyle since Cadillac abandoned it in '76. The 1987-95 version had sleek, aerodynamic styling that looked a lot fresher than the convertibles it competed with. The 1996-2000 was the pinnacle of Chrysler's revolutionary "Cab-Forward" design exercise and made every other car look 5-10 years old.

But by 2001, the fallout from the DCX misadventure set in. The 2nd-gen Sebring convertible was a bunt, with styling that everyone else had caught up with. It was bland. When Chrysler added the hideous bitch basket of a PT convertible to the mix, sales slipped. And then they launched the current Mitsubishi-based car in 2007. So the styling went from great to bland to hideous in 3 generations.

Meanwhile, the Mustang was shedding its Fox underpinnings, and embracing its most successful design phase since the original '65-70. At prices right up against the dowdy Chrysler's. Chevy jumped in with the jaw-dropping new Camaro, as well.

By the time Chrysler got around to re-blandifying the Sebring and changed the name to '200', the die was cast. Rental fleets and retail customers didn't want an old, bland car with old tech and poor fuel economy, when, for the same money, customers could be seen in the eye-catching Mustang and Camaro instead, which were better cars, all-around.

So Chrysler's decisions to disconnect the Sebring/200 from its coupe counterparts, their bad decisions on styling, pricing, internal competition, technology, and options conspired to killed the car off. Ford and GM simply offered better cars with better looks for the same money.

Nibbles > AMC/Renauledge 02/24/2014 at 13:55

6

The actual reason is that FCA has decided to forego all this bullshit and try their hand at building real cars

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > AMC/Renauledge 02/24/2014 at 14:02

4

The perennially awful Sebring convertible is dead? I'm not even sure what to think - it was awful, yes, but such a staple of a certain kind of car being. It served us to have such a car exist, and it will leave a void in its passing. Or possibly it will no longer need to be avoided, as something a car company voided or passed from its bowels. Either or, it was a unique and flavorful kind of awful, and I don't think we'll know what we had until it's gone a while. Noooooooooo.

AMC/Renauledge > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 02/24/2014 at 14:04

0

Yeah, well it needed to be cheaper, prettier, and better. There's no compelling reason to buy this over a Mustang convertible right now. None. Not unless it's your only car and you live in the snow belt. And you insist on being the driver in your carpool.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > AMC/Renauledge 02/24/2014 at 14:10

4

Its door size, minivan-ish seats and lard-lad suspension back in the day made it *the* fat people convertible. Fail-wheel drive just completed the picture. It was a special kind of People Of Wal-Mart car that no Mustang can replace.

Milky > AMC/Renauledge 02/24/2014 at 15:10

12

TLDR - "The 200 convertible bites the dust. Here's why. Its a shitbox."

Summed it up for ya.

AMC/Renauledge > Milky 02/24/2014 at 15:15

1

Well thanks for that.

JR1 > AMC/Renauledge 02/24/2014 at 15:46

4

Honestly I never understood the hate for the 200, specifically the convertible. Sure it is a tad expensive but 27,000 for drop top motoring in a stylish and relaxing car is a tempting offer. Sure there is other competition out there but I bet this rides better and shifts smoother than any Mustang, Camaro, or MX-5 in the market. Worth the money all day long if you ask me.

AMC/Renauledge > JR1 02/24/2014 at 16:14

10

So a 173hp 4cyl FWD Mitsubishi compact-based convertible with bad fuel economy is worth every penny when you can get a V6 Mustang with 305hp, better fuel economy, and a lot more fun, for the same money?

To each his own, but you're in the minority on this one. Have you ever ridden in a 200? Not a brilliant ride.

JR1 > AMC/Renauledge 02/24/2014 at 16:32

2

I have rode in one not far but I have, it wasn't that bad (the roads were smooth). And I'm not saying I'd buy it with my money. For a lot of people though a sedan sized convertible is a tempting alternative. Not to mention in the northern climate Fwd is precieved as better than rwd.

jimz > AMC/Renauledge 02/24/2014 at 21:58

1

the current 200 is not as "Mitsubishi-based" as all y'all think it is.

and I'm surprised that 6 years past, people still think it is.

ZweiDeutschesAutos > JR1 02/24/2014 at 21:58

3

"Stylish"

Really?

Really?

Goofnik > AMC/Renauledge 02/24/2014 at 21:59

1

...hideous bitch basket...

I'm adding that descriptor to my daily vocabulary.

erikmc10 > AMC/Renauledge 02/24/2014 at 22:00

6

You guys did leave off one other incredible reason for why rental car companies should love this car. It's practical trunk and the rental upgrader.

By far, the largest trunk of any convertible, maybe even rental sedan when you have the top up. It was great to take the family in this car with all our suitcases, unload them at the hotel and then comfortably cruise California.

We couldn't do that with the Camaro or Mustang. I am in the camp that the 200 was better car for most, but there's a use case or two. Also having had a LeBaron convertible in 1992 with the 6 cylinder and a special order 5 speed was a lot of fun back then where there weren't many good, affordable convertible choices.

MPA > AMC/Renauledge 02/24/2014 at 22:04

0

My dad replaced his '07 Jeep Wrangler with a '13 200 Sedan last year. He asked me about it before he bought it and I told him it was just the same old POS Sebring in a new wrapper, with a new name. I was beyond shocked that he still bought it. I think it was the Touring version with the V6.

I took it from AZ to Vegas and back a few weeks ago - it wasn't bad, but after 600 miles I surely didn't want to drive it every day. I got 27ish MPG on the way there, and 30mpg on the way back, which isn't bad for a V6.

Of course last week he had enough and traded it in on a '14 Wrangler.

JR1 > ZweiDeutschesAutos 02/24/2014 at 22:05

0

Yes I love the front end!

The Devil Drives a Mustang (Rotary Pending) > AMC/Renauledge 02/24/2014 at 22:05

2

There's no compelling reason to buy this over a Mustang convertible right now.

The only reason I can think of is the bigger back seat. It is nice to be able to have a convertible and a family. It's not impossible in a Mustang or a Camaro but it's a little tight. Plus if you are ever in a position where you care about the comfort of your rear seat passengers not having the drive tunnel hump does a lot to help make the rear seats feel nicer

Still, if I were to go with a convertible for me plus my family there are options out there. Like the VW Beetle convertible which starts $2k cheaper than the 200 did and has the same horsepower and better mileage. If you aren't afraid of the used market you could look at the Volvo C70, or the Audi A4/A5 convertible.

Conclusion: crappy car but at least it had real back seats. Other than that one redeeming feature it certainly won't be missed. I agree with the general premise of your opinion but I don't agree on the Mustang/Camaro. They are just a little too tight in the back seat to use as a family car/convertible. I think the VW Beetle is the more direct replacement for the 200.

Beldrueger > AMC/Renauledge 02/24/2014 at 22:06

3

A researcher who works for me went on his first fully paid business trip last month, and he was super excited when the rental company offered him a free upgrade to a convertible. He's not a car guy. He assumed that a convertible would be a sporty fun car, and they should be. He started describing his disappointment, and it didn't take me too long to ask, "was it a Chrysler?" Yes, yes it was. Of course it was.

PyramidHat > Milky 02/24/2014 at 22:07

2

Nice, tight wording. Nothing superfluous. Excellent work.

Maxaxle > AMC/Renauledge 02/24/2014 at 22:14

2

*thinking* It just needs to be able to drive out of the lot on its own power. Then I'm in the clear.

LJ909 > AMC/Renauledge 02/24/2014 at 22:14

3

I always thought the Sebring/200 convertibles were ok, nothing special about them to hate them or love them they were just there. One thing they did have over the competition (along with the old Toyota Solara convertible) was rear seat leg room, something other cars in the segment have none of.

Maxaxle > AMC/Renauledge 02/24/2014 at 22:16

0

They show it on a beach because [insert joke about ride quality here].

justregisteralready > AMC/Renauledge 02/24/2014 at 22:18

1

There was a 200 convertible?

I didn't think they even sold enough of the crappy 4 doors to dare to try and make another version of it.

nauyop > AMC/Renauledge 02/24/2014 at 22:21

2

Vincent Davidson > AMC/Renauledge 02/24/2014 at 22:31

1

$27k for THAT...MONSTROSITY?!

Here's why.

Nedus > JR1 02/24/2014 at 22:41

3

Stylish? Maybe to AARP members. Relaxing? Sure, it can be. Of course, it relaxed me because when I had it I was coming from a '67 Mustang with a horrible exhaust leak, squeaky doors, and no radio.

It's quiet and relatively comfortable. It's not worth nearly 30k in my opinion though. Oh, and my 47 year old transmission shifts smoother than the 200.

Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom > AMC/Renauledge 02/24/2014 at 22:54

0

The 200 convertible bites the dust. Here's why.

A. Because mediocre

B. Because bland

C. Because unloved

AMC/Renauledge > Vincent Davidson 02/24/2014 at 22:56

0

It's $50 short of $28k actually!

Doctor-G-and-the-wagen > AMC/Renauledge 02/24/2014 at 23:00

0

I never understood why the convertible wasn't just based off the coupe, and frankly only the first generation convertible looked good (sorta like a smaller, cuter Camaro in terms of looks)

TXNIL > AMC/Renauledge 02/24/2014 at 23:02

2

N2SKYLARK,

Do you even do research before posting?

The 200 Convertible is in NO WAY based on a Mitsubishi. Nor was the Sebring.

The original '96 Sebring had a co-Mitsubishi-Chrysler designed 2.5L engine, other than that, it was all Chrysler. The chassis was the JR chassis, used in the Stratus and Cirrus Sedan.

The JR cars are IN NO WAY RELATED to the Sebring Coupe or Avenger, which ARE based on a Mitsubishi (the Eclipse).

In fact, the only thing the Sebring Coupe and the Sebring Convertible have in common is the name...

The 2nd Gen is all-Chrysler, ditching the 2.5L for the 2.7L. The 3rd Gen is mostly Chrysler, with a little Mercedes thrown in. The 200 is similar to the 3rd Gen Sebring.

Seriously, if you're going to slam something, at least get your facts straight...

sgtyukon > AMC/Renauledge 02/24/2014 at 23:20

1

So, when the 2015 model hits, does that mean if I reserve a Mustang convertible at the car rental place's website I'll actually get a Mustang convertible when I show up at the airport? If not, what will I get now instead of a 200? Are car rental places actually allowed to give you what they said they'd give you? That's never happened in my experience.

Someone Else's Projects > JR1 02/24/2014 at 23:25

2

Other people have covered the styling aspect, but I'd wager that people terrified of RWD in snow are also not the type to be buying a convertible that'll be used in the snow.

gawknburn2 > AMC/Renauledge 02/24/2014 at 23:36

0

Redesign it to have a convertible hard-top. Problem solved and you can keep your 200. I'll be here waiting for my royalty check.

Turkina > Beldrueger 02/25/2014 at 00:46

0

My mom got upgraded to a convertible one time. They gave her a Mustang. She was pleased.

I'd feel cheated if I got a Sebring while renting a convertible.

AMC/Renauledge > TXNIL 02/25/2014 at 00:52

1

I do indeed do my research. Did you read my post thoroughly?

I never said the first two generations of Sebring convertible were based on Mitsubishis. I said the opposite and affirmed that the coupes were.

The current car is based on the 200/Avenger platform, which is a stretched and modified Mitsubishi GS platform.

AMC/Renauledge > gawknburn2 02/25/2014 at 00:53

0

It already comes with an optional retractable hardtop.

AMC/Renauledge > sgtyukon 02/25/2014 at 00:54

0

For next couple years, until they get enough mileage to be rotated out, you might still get a 200. After that? Who knows? Maybe a Beetle Cabrio?

AMC/Renauledge > Doctor-G-and-the-wagen 02/25/2014 at 00:57

0

It used to be back in the LeBaron days. But the LeBaron coupe started selling like shit. Chrysler probably wanted to claim the convertible as their own design and share development costs on the lower volume coupe with Mitsubishi. Still not a great idea, though. It meant that little could be shared between the 3 Sebrings.

Doctor-G-and-the-wagen > AMC/Renauledge 02/25/2014 at 01:03

1

Agreed. I actually dig the LeBaron coupe's style. I'd even consider one if the price was tolerable.

AMC/Renauledge > Doctor-G-and-the-wagen 02/25/2014 at 01:07

0

Me, too. I liked the '93 with the facelift the best. They're rare, though. And I've always had a soft spot for the '93-95 convertible, too.

Shilly_Devane > AMC/Renauledge 02/25/2014 at 01:52

0

"The Mustang shares these things with its coupe counterpart."

Huh? What the hell does that mean? The Mustang IS, has ALWAYS, been a coupe. It is not a sedan.

AMC/Renauledge > Shilly_Devane 02/25/2014 at 02:02

0

The Mustang convertible shares its doors, rear panels, and rear fascia with the coupe.

The 200 convertible has to have all of that unique to it since it's based on a sedan, not a coupe.

300hp30mpgrwdfor30k > AMC/Renauledge 02/25/2014 at 04:33

1

I don't really have a bad impression of the name Sebring. Maybe others do, probably they had some bad models. Either way I like the name a lot more than the 200. It's like it fails at being the 300. Fuck it just call it the Sebring, the 200 just sounds like it sucks.

Good 300ish things: the 300, 300zx, 350z, 3000gt, Chevy 350, The 300 movie
Good 200ish names: Datsun 210 (sorta), 280z (the 80 and z sell that one)

Quit trying to copy everyone with numerical naming conventions, it's dumb anyway and you're obviously not that good at it. At least your name names are kind of ok, in some cases way better than the car (Pacifica).

Dusdaddy > gawknburn2 02/25/2014 at 06:28

1

Damn, going to be a long wait on that check!....lol

LastScene86 > Doctor-G-and-the-wagen 02/25/2014 at 06:39

0

Its a great company car!

Old-Busted-Hotness > AMC/Renauledge 02/25/2014 at 06:58

1

So did Chrysler send the 200 to Eleuthera to die among the S-10's?

jesda > JR1 02/25/2014 at 07:14

0

The 200 actually rides somewhat poorly and the structure is wobbly. The first-gen Sebring, however, felt nice and stiff.

tapzz > AMC/Renauledge 02/25/2014 at 07:17

1

It's got a RWD chassis, which is also inherently more expensive to build than a mass-produced FWD platform like the 200's.

Really? Is that because of the greater economies of scale that accrue to FWD platforms these days, or is there something inherent about RWD being more expensive to make?

Packardbaker > AMC/Renauledge 02/25/2014 at 08:08

0

I'm not understanding why. Sure sales fell off when it was on the old platform, but if what they are claiming about the new 200 is right, then it should be a very competitive car.

The convertible fights in a different market than mustang and camaro. Make it more for people who want luxury than angry styling. I think it sold well because it didn't have the boy racer image of the pony cars, and with the Solara disappearing soon, I think the market is more open than ever.

The Compromiser > AMC/Renauledge 02/25/2014 at 08:08

1

Dude,

For that kind of monies you could have had one Mustang V6.

-Tom- > AMC/Renauledge 02/25/2014 at 08:09

0

Mitsu based? Really? I always thought it was VW Eos based and what Chrysler got in return for the Caravan....or was it maybe an older Sebring?

jamisparker > AMC/Renauledge 02/25/2014 at 08:09

2

Ugh. My last rental was a Beetle, I might have actually preferred a 200.

Packardbaker > tapzz 02/25/2014 at 08:15

1

Yes, It's mostly economies of scale from companies going to a modular design. The front end package of engine/frame/suspension/crumple zones/crash protection/etc. can be used in dozens of different models from compact cars to vans to crossovers.

The 300 platform is too large and heavy for this one so they would have to develop an entirely new platform in order to do RWD.

Ry-bones, FiST pilot > AMC/Renauledge 02/25/2014 at 08:24

0

http://www.motortrend.com/new_cars/02/co…
This link says it all. No reason to buy a 200 'vert when there are so may better options.

Daniel Fleck > sgtyukon 02/25/2014 at 08:27

1

There is a bug in the system. The recommend button only works once... Has anyone ever actually gotten the car they reserved? Heck one time I begged for a different car so much they actually gave me what I reserved and I was like, if you had what I reserved, why didn't you just stick me in that car in the first place?

Daniel Fleck > tapzz 02/25/2014 at 08:29

1

I would guess you need a much stiffer car since you are applying the torque in the back. Also a transmission tunnel (which isn't necessarily a RWD issue as much as a front engine rear wheel drive configuration).

drunkcommy > JR1 02/25/2014 at 08:43

1

A smooth shifting Chrysler? maybe compared to being driven around to a guy with parkinsons.

ICantStandNewJalopnik > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 02/25/2014 at 08:50

0

No no. Don't let anyone change your mind. I said it on the initial announcement of the discontinuation of the 200 Vert. We see plenty of them here as daily drivers in Wisconsin because of a few different reasons. It can get through the snow. You don't feel badly driving it through salt and slop. You can drive on our frost-heaved roads and not care. If it gets beat up during a bad winter, you can still drop the top and enjoy the warm days. Not everyone cares about their driving dynamics, especially in a convertible where all many care about is the feeling of the wind in your hair. Winter is just a speed bump to convertible season.

That's it. There's still a market for cars like these, but they just have to be thought out a little better.

nadedan > Maxaxle 02/25/2014 at 08:56

1

*thinking* I wonder if Maxaxle really thinks that Michael Scott is a car salesman...

LoganSix > erikmc10 02/25/2014 at 09:19

0

Rented a Camaro convertible. Had to put the luggage in the back seat.

LoganSix > LJ909 02/25/2014 at 09:20

0

Yup. That was always the selling point over the Mustang. An actual useable backseat and trunk.

Sky Blue > AMC/Renauledge 02/25/2014 at 09:24

1

Take away Michael's car?!?

frankfan42x > AMC/Renauledge 02/25/2014 at 09:26

1

Hate on it all you want, but it was the only semi domestic four seat convertible with a decent sized trunk and fair leg room. Bitch and moan all you want but the fact is lots of people love boring, comfortable, smooth riding cars with decent room. Why does Toyota sell so many camry sedans? Because people not only need them, they L LIKE them. It's called boring, but it's also called growing up.

Too bad there are not more American convertibles to choose from that can be both convertibles AND family cars. The world was a far better place when virtually every American car had a convertible variant.

dyrtdawwwg > JR1 02/25/2014 at 09:28

0

stylish? what are you smoking? if they badged it as a sebring no one would bat an eye. it's an ugly, stupid car.

gla2yyz > AMC/Renauledge 02/25/2014 at 09:35

1

The last convertible Chrysler I was in was a circa 2007 Sebring. It was, of course a rental in, of course, Florida. By the time we returned it, through no abuse or malice the trunk wouldn't shut. We were driving down the freeway to the Fort Lauderdale airport with the trunklid flapping about like a shoe with a busted sole.

The Mustang is far superior. I won't shed a tear for the 200 Convertible's departure. It also means I don't have to hold my breath when asking what convertibles Avis has on hand.

Dream Theater of the Absurd > AMC/Renauledge 02/25/2014 at 09:56

1

In its defense, the Sebring/200 convertible does have a back seat that will accommodate adults.

Dream Theater of the Absurd > JR1 02/25/2014 at 10:05

0

I have plenty of experience with a Sebring convertible, a '98 JXi V6 my wife got shortly before we began dating. Fuel economy is nothing to write home about (around 25mpg highway observed), and for all that gasoline it drinks its acceleration is best described as adequate. The engine is deficient on low- and midrange torque and sounds like a dishwasher at full throttle. It rides well on a smooth road (I know, what doesn't) but jiggles over small bumps and bottoms over big ones. Handling is thoroughly uninspiring, though to be fair my daily is a Miata so you may take my assessment with as many grains of salt as you like. And even new, it had more cowl shake with the top closed than my Miata does with the top open, and the Miata is seven years older and much more stiffly sprung.

Reliability has been decent, but the car has developed a number of minor electrical issues over the years. And with all the horror stories I've heard about Chrysler auto transaxles, I'm pretty sure that at sixteen years old and around 150K miles that car is on borrowed time.

And what does my wife want to replace it with? A Sebring/200 4-door, although since one of her friends likes hers she'd consider a Sonata.

Dream Theater of the Absurd > The Devil Drives a Mustang (Rotary Pending) 02/25/2014 at 10:08

0

Having ridden in the back seat of an SN95 Mustang convertible, I would say the back seat of a Sebring (full disclosure - my spousal unit's car is a '98 JXi) is a much more pleasant place to be if you don't mind the huge blind spots with the top up.

PDilyard > Shilly_Devane 02/25/2014 at 10:30

0

He's talking about coupe vs convertible. Not coupe vs sedan.

AMC/Renauledge > frankfan42x 02/25/2014 at 11:07

0

Lots of people may want boring cars with big trunks and decent leg room. And if we were talking about the Camry, you'd have a point. But convertibles are supposed to be fun cars. Sedans are crossovers are supposed to be boring.

Less than 5,000 people wanted a 200 convertible last year. In its heyday, the LeBaron/Sebring was pulling down 40-50k units a year. And because the convertible shares so little with the sedan it's based on, there just isn't a business case to replace it.

AMC/Renauledge > Ry-bones, FiST pilot 02/25/2014 at 11:09

2

MT needs to update their chart. The Mustang hasn't come with a 4.0L V6 in a few years now. Certainly not in 2013 or 2014, as their chart says.

AMC/Renauledge > -Tom- 02/25/2014 at 11:10

0

Nope. It was based on the Sebring/200 sedan, which was based on the Chrysler JS platform, which was loosely based on the Mitsubishi GS platform.

AMC/Renauledge > Packardbaker 02/25/2014 at 11:12

0

It used to sell well. It doesn't now and hasn't for years. It's never been a particularly luxurious car, and the base model is certainly not luxurious at all.

I agree that convertibles don't need to be pony cars to be viable. But they do need to be fun and nice to look at. Hacking the roof off a homely sedan and lengthening the doors doesn't cut it.

AMC/Renauledge > 300hp30mpgrwdfor30k 02/25/2014 at 11:13

0

I agree completely.

JR1 > Dream Theater of the Absurd 02/25/2014 at 11:15

1

The auto transaxle never was an issue for either one of my grandparents, both own a Sebring convertible. Electrical issues haven't been an issue either, both were garage kept and are adequate to great at everyday tasks. Yes they aren't as stiff but sometimes thats the price you pay for open top motoring. Regardless of issues I think they are great cars.

Packardbaker > AMC/Renauledge 02/25/2014 at 11:17

2

Well I was expecting/hoping the next gen to take care of those issues. If it did I think it could sell well. Maybe Buick will take Chrysler's place in that segment:

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/10/17/ope…

AMC/Renauledge > Packardbaker 02/25/2014 at 11:19

0

I sure hope so. The Cascada is a real looker. And hopefully, it won't cost a ridiculous amount of money.

Maxaxle > nadedan 02/25/2014 at 11:40

0

No, OFC not. I thought it was just a stock image.

DRobin78 > JR1 02/25/2014 at 11:45

0

So I'm assuming you haven't read the article yet..

DarthNoll > AMC/Renauledge 02/25/2014 at 11:55

1

A lot of people forget that the 200, at least until 2015, is just a prettied up Sebring.

oldirtybootz > JR1 02/25/2014 at 12:30

1

They're junk, dude. They were uncompetitive from the start in 2007 and the change to the 200 hardly helped. The interior is a generation behind the competition, the drivetrains aside from the Pentastar are totally outclassed, the platform feels as cheap as it is. The 3.6L Camaro and 3.7L Mustang are far nicer vehicles than the 200 even with its 3.6L. It is far from stylish, and it's only as relaxing as any 200 or Avenger (ie, it isn't) and it certainly isn't a better ride than the Camaro, Mustang, or Miata.

pauljones > AMC/Renauledge 02/25/2014 at 12:59

2

I think that a lot of the hate for these things is somewhat misplaced, and I think that comparing them to a Mustang or Camaro convertible is completely unreasonable. Neither the Mustang nor the Camaro are particularly touring convertibles. They can do it, if you're an absolute minimalist and have no need of backseats. Otherwise, the trunks are smaller, the rear-seats are the automotive evolutionary equivalent of T-Rex arms, and the rid is often jarringly stiff.

But most people who buy this sort of car do so for spring or summer road trips, possibly with passengers. The trunk in the 200 is comparatively large and easy-to-access. The chassis may have all the rigidity of a Jell-O shot, but it was usually calm and smooth over the kind of terrain it was likely to encounter. Fuel mileage may have been no better by EPA ratings, but by real-world ratings, when people were tempted to hammer the throttle of a Mustang or Camaro, it was on par. Servicing is generally cheap (unless it had to do with the top) for the reasons mentioned in the post. And, as far as looks go, I actually think the 200 in convertible form is an attractive car.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not suggesting that the 200 convertible was a stand-out-awesome car and that we should all go worship the cult of the 200 convertible. The truth is, however, it isn't as bad of a car as many are inclined to make it out to be. With the death of the Camry Solara and the Saab 9-3, it was the only full-on four-seat touring convertible you could buy for under $40k. That was enough to make it unique and welcome to those that couldn't spring for a $60k+ German car.

I'm sad to see the 200 convertible go, and not just from the standpoint that I think it wasn't as bad as it's made out to be. I'm sad that that general class of car is now extinct, at least in a reasonable price range. Mark my words, that market isn't dead; it's just wanting for something with just a little more R&D time. The first company that jumps on that market with a solid offering for ~$30k will find themselves with a solid little hit on their hands.

AMC/Renauledge > pauljones 02/25/2014 at 13:03

0

Yeah, I think that convertibles are more about image and the 200 just didn't have it. While you're right that the Mustang and Camaro have tighter backseats and trunks, it's clear that that mattered to fewer and fewer people over time. Less than 5,000 200 convertibles were sold last year. At this type's peak, Chrysler was selling 50,000 a year.

And there's absolutely zero good reason a minimalist sedan-based Chrysler 200 with a 4cyl and cloth should cost the same as a minimalist Mustang with nearly twice the power and better fuel economy.

pauljones > AMC/Renauledge 02/25/2014 at 13:05

0

Based on your last paragraph, I'm not sure you actually read my prior comment.

AMC/Renauledge > pauljones 02/25/2014 at 13:08

0

No, I did. In general, I agree with you. I think the market is there. It's just waiting for a better car at a better price.

Dream Theater of the Absurd > JR1 02/25/2014 at 13:13

1

The electrical problems with ours are minor. The fog lights no longer come on, which is probably an issue with the switch, and the radio occasionally loses power. Those are more nuisance than actual problem.

pauljones > AMC/Renauledge 02/25/2014 at 13:16

0

If you read it, Then you'll understand that there are reasons why a Chrysler 200 convertible might actually be preferable compared to a Mustang or Camaro convertible; you're basing your argument on a numbers game which doesn't quite work out. The Mustang and Camaro may be newer and have 50% more power, but there are things they just can't do as well as a 200 convertible. Like, say, accommodate more than two people, provide an large, easy-to-access trunk, provide a smoother ride, offer the security of a hard top, etc. It's true that the automakers could put out something more refined, but that's not to necessarily say that the 200 convertible is an inherently bad vehicle. It could simply be better.

AMC/Renauledge > pauljones 02/25/2014 at 13:25

0

I did read it. And while the 200's formula isn't a bad one, the car itself is one of the worst you can buy on the market right now.

It's not hard to make a convertible with a decent trunk and backseat. Chrysler screwed up everything else about it, though. It's too expensive, it's underpowered, it's unrefined, it's not very well-equipped, and it doesn't actually ride all that well.

The Mustang is actually older than the 200, to boot. It came out in 2005. The Sebring came out in 2007. Both have been reskinned once in the process. The Mustang in 2010, the 200 in 2011.

There's nothing about a bigger backseat and trunk that justifies the mainstream sedan-based Sebring being more expensive than the comparably equipped bespoke Mustang. Nothing. It should be cheaper. But it isn't.

A car like the 200 convertible can succeed. But the 200 convertible itself has failed. For a reason.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > AMC/Renauledge 02/25/2014 at 15:26

0

So clearly, the Cadillac Alante is the car to get.

AMC/Renauledge > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 02/25/2014 at 15:28

0

Absolutely.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > AMC/Renauledge 02/25/2014 at 15:29

0

lol, my work is blocking that image as pornography :/

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > AMC/Renauledge 02/25/2014 at 15:31

1

pulled it up on my phone, is that Kelly Bundy?

AMC/Renauledge > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 02/25/2014 at 15:31

0

Yup. Sure is.

pauljones > AMC/Renauledge 02/25/2014 at 16:06

0

Apparently, it is pretty hard to make a convertible with a decent trunk and backseat, particularly for under $40k, seeing as no other company has one at this point. No Daimler/Cerebrus-era Chrysler is truly going to be fantastic, but they really didn't screw the pooch on the Sebring-to-200 redesign as badly as you're wont to assert.

It's really not that expensive compared to anything else with its capabilities, and if 283 horsepower isn't enough for you to drive, then you need to learn how to drive again. And frankly, in terms of mileage, the Pentastar V6 puts out the nearly identical mileage to the Mustang and Camaro. It actually rides better than a comparably-equipped live-axle Mustang. And, technically, the Mustang has been re-skinned twice.

There are a great many things about a useable rear seat and trunk that justify a higher price. You just don't seem to get that, because the only viewpoint you seem willing to see is that the 200 should necessarily be competitive with the Mustang and Camaro convertibles, and therefore any convertible must be a two-seat, tiny-trunk semi-sports car. That's simply not the case. The 200 convertible is designed for something altogether different than the Mustang/Camaro - comfortable, affordable open-top grand touring for four and their luggage. That's something that the Mustang/Camaro convertibles will never be able to do... because they weren't designed for it, and therefore are not a reasonable comparison.

You say it should be cheaper? Do explain further. I'd love to hear more insight into the details that drive the Chrysler's production costs for different body styles, and how you think they could be improved.

AMC/Renauledge > pauljones 02/25/2014 at 16:31

0

The Pentastar V6 model starts at $33k . The $28k 200 convertible comes with an old Hyundai-based 2.4L I4 with 173 wheezy, thrashy, buzzy horsepower. The 4 gets poorer mileage than the Mustang's 305hp V6.

And your logic about the ease of making a 4-seat convertible is that same that would suggest that, since there are no tigers around me, I must be tiger repellent.

Also, the Mustang was reskinned once. It had a very light facelift for '12, I think. But the Sebring got a light facelift in '09. So it's a wash. Except for the part where you were wrong about the Mustang being newer.

Rental fleets buy a good chunk of Mustang/Camaro convertibles. They used to buy tens of thousands of 200 convertibles. Ask them why.

And yes, the 200 convertible should be cheaper. Much cheaper, especially for what you get. For all the reasons I wrote about. The platform is cheaper to make, with costs spread across far more vehicles. I wrote about some of the mistakes Chrysler made in building the coupes off a different platform, so the two cars couldn't share tooling and they had to go to the needless expense of changing everything about the 4-door sedan to turn it into a 2-door convertible. I wrote that initially designing 3 different convertible tops for the same car added needless complexity and cost, as well.

The truth is, something is wrong with the 200 convertible that they're killing it off, but the less useful, less practical (except on MPGs) Mustang and Camaro are staying. Either the business case isn't there, the market isn't there, or the current product is so substandard that they've ruined their prospects in the market going forward. I think it's a combination of all 3.

therevengeofthesaab (really likes pre-2005 hondas right now) > AMC/Renauledge 02/25/2014 at 18:35

0

OOH, A cloud!!!!

TXNIL > AMC/Renauledge 02/25/2014 at 19:38

0

"So Jalopnik linked to an Edmunds article on Chrysler's decision to can the 200 convertible after the current Mitsubishi-based shitcan gets pensioned off later this year."

That's the first sentence!

And, your claim about the GS platform is false as well.

There hasn't been any Mitsubishi involvment in the Sebring/200 Convertible since 2000, and even then, it was just a joint-venture engine.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

"...the Mitsubishi platform was studied initially but was later rejected as being too confining for the designers. Hence, according to Rooney, the Sebring is a completely Chrysler-engineered Chrysler."

Original is at 2007-2010 Chrysler Sebring cars: before the 200 http://www.allpar.com/cars/chrysler/…
Follow us: @allparcom on Twitter | allparcom on Facebook

Also, your article makes is sound like the 2006 and older models were available with a hardtop, canvas top, and vinyl top. That's not the case. The hardtop was not available until 2008. (There was no 2007 MY convertible.)

AMC/Renauledge > TXNIL 02/25/2014 at 20:04

0

Reading comprehension. I swear.

- I never said the Sebring convertible rode a Mitsubishi platform before the current car. I said that, from 1995-2005, the coupes did ride a Mitsubishi platform. I DID say this:

"One of the reasons the Chrysler costs so much is because its sheetmetal is unique aft of the A-pillar to its sedan counterpart. Chrysler hasn't made a coupe based on the same platform as the convertible since the 1993 LeBaron coupe was quitely dropped. The 1995-2005 Sebring coupes were all based on the Mitsubishi Eclipse, not the JA/JX body that the convertible was on. So Chrysler had to tool new doors, new rear fenders, and a new decklid and rear fasca."

- I said the Sebring convertible that launched in 2007 (as a 2008 model), had 3 types of roofs available.

"The 200 is also expensive because it comes with two different convertible tops...canvas and metal. When we knew it as the Sebring, Chrysler offered it with a vinyl option, as well. So that adds production complexity, reduces economies of scale, and means the engineering for each top has had to be different. That all adds cost, as well."

When we knew the current 200 as the Sebring, it was offered with 3 different top options. That would be the 2008-10 model, which was called Sebring, and then became the 200.

And then they launched the current Mitsubishi-based car in 2007.

They did launch the 2008 Sebring convertible in 2007. Here's the Autoweek article on the 2008 Chrysler Sebring convertible, which was published in April 2007.

- According to Autoweek, the Sebring and Caliber shared an inner structure and suspension design. These bits were part of the Mitsubishi-based platform I've been talking about.

JCAlan > pauljones 02/25/2014 at 20:46

0

Ya, 200 and Mustang/Camaro are not competing for the same customers. Just because Chrysler doesn't make a Challenger convertible doesn't make the Sebring a pony car. I think the author makes some very valid points as to why the 200 'vert doesn't sell, but the model comparisons are way off.

TXNIL > AMC/Renauledge 02/25/2014 at 22:50

0

Hi, Pot! My name's Kettle!

-I never said you said that either, you may have inferred that though.

-Perhaps you should consider using the "MY" or "CY" designation? Though I didn't really mention that to say you were wrong, just as an FYI.

-I stand corrected on the 3 tops. I was not aware they kept the vinyl option after switching to Karman (2008MY).

-The 2008+ Sebring/200 IS NOT BASED ON ANY MITSUBISHI. It is an all-Chrysler platform. Autoweek got it wrong. Did you read the link above???

frankfan42x > AMC/Renauledge 02/26/2014 at 15:56

0

Skylark, convertibles ARE fun cars. They don't have to be flashy, they don't have to be sporty, but just being a part of the world opens the whole driving experience up. MANY family cars had convertible variants in the day and I have fond memories of that. I wager to say I have probably owned more convertibles than anyone else I have ever known and only own three right now. I brought my baby daughter home in a 63 Plymouth convertible (top up though). Yes, it has seatbelts to secure a child seat.

Regarding the 200, yes the business case is not there I suppose. Take care and God Bless ya!