Find Reviews by Make:
Chrysler has just released pictures of its drop-top 200 (neé Sebring), and we want to know: Would you pay a Dollar (or Thrifty) for that?
40 Comments on “What’s Wrong With This Picture: The Plastic Surgery Beach Edition...”
Read all comments
NO
Agreed. After the last Sebring convertible I rented, I’d rather drive a Hyundai Sonata.
twotone, I respect your take on this chrysler 200 but, I really like this car. The only thing I would like them to change is the front end. I like for my car to sit “”high and proud”” like my wife’s 2010 Challenger, “there are no disapointments in this Beast”
The TRUTH…. About Cars
It looks ok in a generic sort of way. I would much rather have a mustang/camaro convertible, even in v6 form.
It will become the default rental car, which in turn means it will become a depreciation special, which means it will then be purchased by people who can’t afford something better. These people will then proceed to drive them into the ground. and vuala! You have a carbon copy of the current Sebring. (but it will be called the 200)
The pictures are very nice.
It is much an improvement from the Sebring convertible, and nicer than the 200 sedan.
But I would rather have a Challenger convertible.
A few years ago, supplier ASC showed a fully engineered 4-door 300 convertible that they called the Helios. The Challenger is a shortened 2-door 300 so it shouldn’t be too hard to engineer a Challenger with a retractable soft or hard top.
Meh. Compared to the rest of the inexpensive front wheel drive convertible field not that bad. Not great, mind you, but not bad.
It looks nice.
Despite voices to the contrary, there is still a need for a ‘cruiser’ convertible in today’s market.
Steve, I think there’s always been a market for non-luxury ragtops. Chrysler’s been careful to offer some kind of convertible that regular folks can afford – the K car convertibles, the PT Cruiser, and the Sebring/200.
Not my cup of tea, but I’m surprised how well the tweaks they’ve been limited to have actually helped. I’m sure Michael Scott will be well pleased.
Back in the 90’s, the Sebring was always my favourite rental car for my visits to the Sunbelt. I’d definitely rent this updated version. As for buying… uhhh… no.
Nobody makes a better-looking convertible than Volkswagen.
The more I see pics of the 200, the more I think “Sebring”. It just doesn’t look much different to me than the old bad dog it replaces, even though so much of it really is different.
I wonder if they’ve improved the actual driving dynamics at all? The Sebring ‘vert was always ass-heavy, which amplified the understeering FWD car’s poor road manners… that convertible was my least-favorite rental car of recent times because it handled so poorly.
I like it.
The old car was wretched – we know this. Chrysler and Fiat know this.
If this car is improved to the degree that the Sebring has in becoming the 200, then it’s going to be a decent ride.
Yes, the Mustang and Camaro are performance cars, and this one isn’t. Not everyone wants that, and not everyone want to, or can, pay the insurance on those models. This is a usable 4 seat convertible – it’s on a different mission.
Yes, we pine for a Challenger Convertible. Which would be my choice if it existed.
I think for its mission – and so what if that means a lot of rental sales? – it will do the job just fine.
Nice Barbie car! Gotta have something for the vapid heiresses to drive, amirite?
Bland yet mildly pleasing proportions and lines. It should have pretty wide appeal if Chrysler can build up their brand image.
If they can break even for the next couple of years, the replacements will be ready.
The updates that have been made are actually amazing, considering their limited funds.
Hopefully the new vehicles will be competitive.
Amazing updates? I wonder if that means that they now even make the convertible’s side windows seal up to the roof? The last example I drove had a half-inch gap between the glass and the roof …
The first 3 posters captured my feelings:
– no
– it looks generic
– the photos are nice.
These capture the flow of my thoughts as I paged thru the pics;
– no, there are better (even if less practical) cars to rent;
– what about it evoked the previous thought? it is so boring and generically ugly;
– after that, from the garage door backdrop on, I was looking at and enjoying the background of the pictures before looking at the car (by the end, I was kind of pissed that the car blocked most of the shot);
Then I saw that the 5$/gal gas question had over 60 replies and the sebring cum 200 question had 12 replies (corresponding number of hits would have been interesting) … my thought before typing this was, ‘good lord, the car is so bad, most people can’t be bothered to answer the question posed.’
Now on to read the comments on the gas…
Hooray for decent, affordable, non-boring transportation! There’s not a lot of alternatives out there for people, most of whom don’t drive aggressively, to better enjoy the ride and feel the scenery pass by. This is especially the case if you can only afford one car that needs to do everything and has to fit four people. After all, there’s the two kid’s college tuition to save-up for, the mortgage that’s worth more than the house to pay down, the $4-5 gas which is more affordable with a less expensive car …
The most exciting thing about driving a Sebring, oops, 200, is the betting about whether any pieces will fall off by the time you return the rental.
There are lots of small cars that are more fun to drive, cost less and even use less gas. The new Focus and the Cruze are just two examples, and that’s before exploring the Korean options.
Do the Focus and Cruze come in convertible versions for the North American market that still retain their rear leg room?
Reliability, of course, is the biggest issue. We’ll see if that’s going to change with the redesign (of the car and the company). If you’re looking for a family convertible to cruise around in, there aren’t any moderately-priced alternatives.
If you can only afford one car that needs to “do everything” and has to fit four people, then I think you would do well to be looking at body styles other than convertibles.
I’d (only) rent the car, however I’d rent the beach first.
Nobody makes a better-looking convertible than Volkswagen.
Can almost agree if you take the Eos out of the equation. Rumor is a new Golf convertible will be appearing in the not too distant future. This 200 will do just great at the rental counter…..but do keep in mind there aren’t any other realistic 4-place convertibles available with the disappearance of Saab.
Oh, and it needs to be a law that convertibles must have canvas tops….none of this folding hardtop crap. Man-up people.
Uh, Saab has in no way disappeared. Still kicking and well on their way to getting it together. And if you like the Saab convertible, you will never get one cheaper than right now.
“there aren’t any other realistic 4-place convertibles available with the disappearance of Saab.”
Well, the BMW 3-series is saddled with its folding hardtop (which will probably have far more many reliability problems out of warranty than a standard canvas top) but it’ll still seat 4 people in about the same comfort as a Saab convertible. I’ve ridden in the back of an early 2000’s 9-3 droptop and it wasn’t extremely spacious (and I’m only 5’10”).
Chrysler has owned the lower priced ‘cruiser convertible’ market ever since Iacocca introduced the original Lebaron convertible in 1983. Unfortunately, Daimler dropped the ball, big time, with the latest Sebring/200 convertible’s styling. I guess the logic was that the big ass was necessary to accomodate the retractable hardtop option, but it doesn’t work, design-wise.
If they had just lowered the rear deck a little so it was closer to being on the same plane as the front end, it might have been okay. It’s a shame because, as other have pointed out, there’s definitely a market for a cruiser convertible like e Sebring/200.
One thing a convertible does is show just how far the wedge design has come. Even with no top/tiny rear window, the driver still can’t see the driver of the car tailing him over the high rear deck, only the roof of that car. I suspect a better view out the rear and sides is part of the attraction for SUVs and pickups, not just the bigger seats for ample American buns.
Unfortunately, the rising beltlines and sloping roofs of crossovers, and the ever-taller pickups, are throwing it all away. Remember the huge greenhouses of Japanese cars of the ’80s and ’90s? Those cars sold rather well. I think the first manufacturer to design a car that restores the driver’s ability to see the traffic around him/her will sell a surprisingly large number of vehicles. A large trunk and slick drag coefficient aren’t at the top of many car buyers’ wish list.
You got that right. Our newer cars (Altima and G35) have rather poor outward visibility and they are by no means the worst. I pulled up in my ProbeGT next to a Chrysler 300…talk about a contrast. My car had the typical big greenhouse. I felt like I was looking at his door handle because I was. There’s got to be a happy medium between the two.
This convertible is as 340-4 puts it, good for the intended mission. Considering the short time, limited funds, and low starting point, Chrysler has made great strides. Still, the first few improvements in your golf game come easy compared to the later ones. So, I’ll go with cautiously optimistic. And to be fair, there really is noting wrong with being the entry level product. Not everybody can afford the better ones. But there is a huge difference between inexpensive and cheap. The old Toyota Tercel was inexpensive but is wasn’t cheap. The Sebring was just cheap. And always try to make the drive at least a bit engaging. Sure, when it needs tires (let alone struts) the owner will balk at $600 for the good replacements and install Pep-Boys specials but the factory shouldn’t make the same mistake.
Much improved. Not great, but much improved. I agree with some others that Chrysler is the place to go for a moderately priced “cruiser” convertible. The Mustang is surely a better car, but not if you need a usable back seat for adults. With the Solara convertible gone, where else do you go?
In my book, the biggest problem with this car in the past has been the engines. I refuse to buy anything with a 2.7 and I just can’t go with a 4 cylinder engine in a car of this sort, or I would have had an older Sebring convertible in the garage years ago (this is my inner cheapskate talking).
The new engine/suspension/interior makes the car worth considering, and it is not an ugly car, so it should rent/sell in decent numbers.
I know people who own Sebrings and Sebring convertibles. i don’t know a single one of them who doesn’t love their car. I like the 200 convertible because by eliminating the pillar of the sedan, its entire body looks new, wherein the 200 looks like a Sebring with a new face and butt.
The convertible has an appx. 3″ longer wheelbase than the sedan– It has never suffered from the sedan’s critically-unacclaimed looks. It only suffered by association, and like the minivans and Jeeps– is in a segment Chrysler isn’t going to have to fight for relevance in– in the future.
A solid double.
I have had the same experience with Sebring Convertible owners as well. I’m always shocked when they say how much they love their cars. I’ve come to understand that these people are almost universally older and thus much more easily pleased with cars. As long as the roof somes off they’re happy campers. Doesn’t really say that much about the actual car though when we’re talking about a group of people with very low expectations…
I would recommend this car to my grandparents, now 90, if they decided they wanted a convertible to drive on nice days.
I actually think it’s a big improvement over the current Sebring convertible. It’s simpler and has a more classic look. Would I ever buy one, no, but I wouldn’t have bought one before either. Would I rent one if I was visiting someplace like Palm Springs or Ft. Lauderdale? Yes, especially if I knew I would be driving several friends with me. A car like this isn’t meant to be a performance car, it’s just meant to be able to drive with the sun shining on you and the wind in your hair.
Yes the photos are nice, especially the 3/4 rear that’s featured in the large shot above, but like your best-friend said when he warned you of the blind date he set you up with . . . don’t look too close.
Big improvement over Sebring. Would be great for someone who likes to cruise topless and lives south of the Rust Belt.
Driving dynamics?
Material quality?
FWD understeer?
Sorry, but the vast majority of the ‘best and brighest’ haven’t a clue between your ass and a hole in the ground relative to this car. Just because you wouldn’t buy it doesn’t mean there isn’t a market and nothing is truer than for this Sebring.
Saying you saw “tons of these as rentals” on your last trip to Florida is redundant to the n’th degree. Convertibles by their very nature are rental queens in mild climates and the Sebring has always done the job the best for the cheapest.
Furthermore, down here where it never snows, I see truckloads of these of ALL generations owned by private individuals. Yes, Virginia, private folks actually buy the Sebring. They tend to be older, winter residents who desire an affordable second or third vehicle that will be used solely as seasonal transportation. Also, middle-aged women buy these for the same reason they buy anything with a ragtop, leather, a dollup of chrome, and is dressed in a cute color.
I’ll also state that I’m no big fan of recent Chrysler products, but I will stand by the Sebring as being the best convertible on the market. Period. Droptops by their very nature are compromised handlers with structural added weight necessitated by the lack of a roof, so expecting a softop version of ANY car to perform like its hardtop cousin is self-defeating.
People who actually buy these cars don’t care about all these perceived nuances; they want an affordable car with a power top that folds down, seats four people comfortably, has basic power equipment, gets out of its own way, isn’t terrible on gas, and is decently reliable. You buy a convertible because you want to enjoy driving around in the open air when the weather is nice. Show me a car that excells as well at doing that as the Sebring has for 13+ years. Then, show me a car priced at the bargain that the Sebring is priced at.
Last week, I had three Sebrings on the lot – an ’02 w/102k, an ’05 w/85k, and an ’04 w/65k. Today, I have one – the ’04 – and that’s because its getting a new top installed (cut by vandals or something). I also have an ’04 C70 that I can’t get rid of for the life of me. And, yeah, its not the hottest name on the block, but it certainly should have more cred and intrinsic value than a Sebring – premium nameplate, loaded with power equipment and superior safety features, turbo + 5-speed auto, and a gorgeous Passion Red w/light tan top and leather. But, if I’m enjoying a convertible for the weekend, I’d rather drive the Sebring – better on gas, less cowl shake, and just as stylish.
America needs an affordable convertible that isn’t hideous (Solara), uncomfortable (Eclipse), expensive (Camaro/Mustang), or needlessly overcomplicated (Eos).
If not for you, at least think of your grandparents.
Is a Sebring convertible that much less expensive than a Mustang? I don’t know that I see any of the former running around here in E. TN, but I see quite a few Mustang convertibles, usually V6’s driven by women of a certain age. <insert cougar sound effect here>.
So Ford dropped the Taurus name in favor of the 500 name only to adopt the Taurus name again. Chrysler is dropping Sebring in favor of 200 and will it stick?
Pics show a nice cosmetic upgrade to the car. Wonder if it will last and be trouble free?