If there's one thing I can't stand (which is a lie, obviously) it's a made-up quote. It's easy enough to do. First, analyze some industry trend using your informed insight and common sense. Then, make up a quote, attribute it to an unnamed source and call it news. Edmunds' Inside Line [allegedly] shows us how it's done. First, the warm-up. "Supplier sources familiar with the product cycle plans at Chrysler tell Inside Line that the automaker is 'trying to move investment up' in the effort to improve the Sebring, Avenger and Sebring Convertible even earlier than originally planned." And then, the pitch! "'The interiors are too cheap,' said one highly placed industry source. 'We call it 'the Sebring problem.' That vehicle is dying on the vine and it's only a year old. They got cheap on everybody and said 'the customer doesn't mind hard plastic and ugly grain [in the cabin].'" Anita claims these same sources say Chrysler is considering dumping the Viper to pay for the Sebring, Avenger and Sebring Convertible fix. (Which Autoblog reports as gospel.) How about either doing the hard work of proper journalism or just fess-up to your own analysis?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Dump the viper to save the sebring? I wish they could just think about that for a second. Axe the most visible car they have to fix a turd. Whether it’s true or not, such an idea surely deserves the Ludicrious Thought Of The Day award.
the thing is, though the interior is ghastly, it’s still not the worst part of the Sebring. It’s just another in the long list of factors that make it one of the worst cars ever made.
Dumping the Viper is not as ridiculous as it sounds. The Viper generates relatively little revenue, and probably no net profit.
The got a serious problem if their mid-size vehicles are not spinning enough cash, especially with the truck market all but dying.
When you are fighting for survival, this seems like a perfectly reasonable business decision. No matter how good the Viper is, it is not going to save the company.
The rumor has some legs, too. A “review” of the 2008 Chrysler Sebring convertible I heard on the radio recently said “press reports have Chrysler working on an emergency upgrade” of the interior.
That comment (in a podcast) by AAA’s Jim MacPherson, is HERE.
Look for: “Car Review 1/6 – 2008 Chrysler Sebring Convertible”
The Viper is worthless to Chysler! Halo cars are meant to be icing on the cake, unfortuantely Chysler has no cake to ice so what the point.
In the mid 1990s Toyota decided to drop its sportscars because they were a major drain on R&D dollars yet were not very profitable.
Toyota could have did a GM and made a Super Supra that would have been a performance success but would have cost many of the necessary dollars that went into the R&D of the Prius.
Dropping the Viper would actually be a very smart move. The cost associated with this thing are waste for a company in danger of going under.
If they drop the Viper to fix the Sebring-factor they better fix a lot more than just the interior or it will be money well wasted. I think they should work on making the car more competitive mechanically before trying to put lipstick on a pig. But then again they probably don’t have enough money to fix the real issues.
Dump the Viper? If they do, can anyone justify that any Chrysler car is in any way competitive with anyone.
Is someone a Chrysler bigot if they would never consider a Chrysler?
In the mid 1990s Toyota decided to drop its sportscars because they were a major drain on R&D dollars yet were not very profitable.
Can someone explain why Toyota is still in racing when they don’t build a single model for the driving enthusiast?
Just replacing the cheap dashboard plastic in the Sebring (and Caliber whilyatit) with a better material would bring instant benefit with no retooling required! Could it really cost *that* much?
In the mid 1990s Toyota decided to drop its sportscars because they were a major drain on R&D dollars yet were not very profitable.
Very true. While the Supra and MR2 were great cars in their own way, real high market share was achieved by making ordinary cars for the masses better than anyone else. I predict the Supra and maybe even a hybrid sports car are in Toyota’s future once they completely own the market in the US.
Fixing the interiors of those pigs will be a complete waste of money because they are so doggone ugly on the outside that few people even wish to get inside.
What is ironic is that the Big2.8 all went in the opposite direction as the Japanese companies in the late 1990s. While the Japanese companies pulled back from expensive and unprofitable sports/Halo car developement. GM, Ford, and Chysler dumped billions into products that have had no positive effect on their bottom line.
Z06 Corvette
Ford GT
Viper
Now these are the type of management decisions that are killing the USA auto industry. One would believe that the big2.8 are being run by a bunch of teenage boys that have little to no business sense. For all the money Ford poured into the GT developement it is all but completely forgotten today. What was the the point? Was the GT made so Billy Ford could have a car actually made by his company that he would not be ashamed to drive?
The Viper was a good idea when Chysler first came to market with it. But today the Viper serves as the prime example of just how out of wack and upside-down Chysler is today. The car that Chysler will be lucky to sell a few hundred of keeps getting better while the products that Chysler needs to survive are the worst cars on the domestic market today. They are of poorer quality than the products they replace!
I don’t think we should focus on dumping the Viper to “save” the Sebring – that matter is attributed to the same person who fabricated the entire story.
That being said, if they GIVE me a Viper, I will buy a Sebring.
The problem is that Chrysler’s current management approved the Sebring. People that clueless don’t deserve to stay in business.
No, if you *buy* a Viper, they’ll *give* you a Sebring (pre interior fix) :-)
Dumping the Viper would be a mistake. It is such a small program that it cannot be losing that much money, in total dollars. I would love to see a P&L on the Viper program.
That loss, whatever it is, (assuming I am right) pays for untold amount of “free” marketing – both online and in the printed press.
I realize the Challenger is debuting next month, but the Challenger is more of Chrysler’s Camaro or Mustang, not it’s Corvette. I realize Corvette is a much higher volume seller, but Viper serves a similar purpose: Halo car that garners respect and graces magazine covers worldwide.
Management wasn’t the same back when the Sebring would have been in development.
Where *I* see the Sebring’s failures(as someone who urged his Mother to test one– only for her to buy the 2006 model that is heads-and-tails above what they’re building now) is here:
If you look at the w204 C-Class and the Sebring with eyes squinted– they’re the same automobile. It’d have made HUGE waves if Chrysler had been allowed to build the segment-topping new car and not Father Benz. Why would they allow that when it’d have hurt the ‘important’ part of the company?
They designed the car(all the cars, actually) to not compete with their MB counterparts, in any way.
Look at a pre-merge Chrysler sometime.
iNeon
I agree with you. All the decisions and approvals were made by the Benz management implants. Benz has no clue how to make a good affordable mass market vehicle. Yet they pulled all the strings at Chrysler and this is what we got. Thanks for nothing.
The materials, layout and fit and finish of the Crossfire’s interior were pretty nice. Chrysler could do far worst than using the Crossfire’s interior as a template and probably could save a little cash by going to the parts bin.
I’ve never even sat in a Sebring, but from the pictures, the interior doesn’t really look THAT bad. The ugly, giant steering wheel is pretty ugly, but these things are land yachts anyway (My mother had a circa 2002 Sebring).
A friend of mine got into an accident and ended up with a brand new dodge avenger, the 4 cylinder. It wasn’t really a bad car, not if you didn’t pay a lot for it, but it wasn’t really at all good at anything. I could think of one thing that would make it a hell of a lot better though, RWD. A rear-driver with a decent V6 and available stick shift would at least differentiate it in the market, especially with its mini-charger styling anyway.
ZCline– I couldn’t agree more on the RWD thing.
It’s sad that DCX didn’t allow these cars to be built on the out-going w203 C-Class chassis and duplicate the success of the LX cars.
I can just hear the discussions– ” ACH! ZO? VAT? YOO VANT VAT? VE AH ZEE IMPOOOOTENT VUNS HIER!! AMERICANS VON’T NUELL ZEE DIFFERENCE!!”
Putting a nicer interior in that pig is like putting a nice big fancy bow on a piece of dog poop – it still stinks.
The Sebring’s interior is too cheap? After reading a Car & Driver comparison test I thought the interior was the best thing going for the car. An excerpt:
We’ve been critical of Chryslers over the years for their sheeny-shiny cabins, obviously plastic. But not here. The colors are Audi subtle, surfaces are gloss-free zones, and just when we thought we’d seen every grain pattern that man could hatch, Chrysler designers went abstract, forsaking imitation leather in favor of a simulated spatter effect. It really works. In fact, the quality of the interior materials easily tops the group.