Ronald writes:
I have an hour-plus commute with light to moderate traffic that fluctuates between 50 to 70 miles per hour. Adaptive cruse control would be great, but how cheap of a used car can I find with the technology?
Sajeev answers:
My value to the Internet goes beyond Google searches. Wikipedia lists numerous vehicles that have adaptive cruise control going back to 1999, but most of those older vehicles are flagships that are too old and cost-ineffective as reliable daily drivers. Of course, you can pull off flagship ownership if you’re forum junkie, are handy with tools, and you buy parts cheaply online.
But, at what price comes relaxed motoring and when is such motoring no longer stress-free? The needle (or needles) in the haystack is found further down the list.
- 2008: Lincoln introduced radar adaptive cruise control on the 2009 Lincoln MKS.
- 2009: ACC and CMBS also became available as optional features in the model year the 2010 Acura MDX, Mid Model Change (MMC) and the newly introduced 2010 Acura ZDX.
- 2010: Jeep introduces Adaptive Cruise Control on the 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee.
- 2014: Chrysler introduces full-speed-range radar Adaptive Cruise Control with Stop+ on the 2015 Chrysler 200.
Hello there!
The 2009 Lincoln MKS has potential thanks to a shared platform with the Taurus/Five Hundred. The Acura ZDX is so silly but somewhat sensible under the skin. However, it’s the Chrysler that wins on price: the 200 is a toxic piece of automotive real estate. It’s the best value for long-term ownership: your next car is a Chrysler 200.
I’ve never driven a 200, but they look nice (except the DLO FAIL). Even Jack didn’t have much to discount. I bet you could get a new one for many hundreds (or thousands?) under invoice price, enjoy favorable new car finance rates, and avoid overpriced used vehicles. This combination means looking elsewhere for active cruise control is likely a fool’s errand.
[Image: Chrysler]
Send your queries to sajeev@thetruthaboutcars.
I’ve never been able to figure out why people are so down on the new-gen 200. It’s a damn nice looking car, and seems to match its competitors per-feature. Is this just a reaction to the older one, or is there something I’m missing?
Because the Sebring (legitimately) sucked, the first 200 was the best they could polish that turd, and since the vast majority of auto journalists are worthless, it’s safe for them to continue to use it as a whipping boy so they can appear “objective” and “unbiased.”
plus it doesn’t help that The Stronzo in the Sweater has p!ssed on it in public more than once.
If it weren’t a Chrysler, I’d be interested in owning a 200. It drives nicely and it’s pretty. The cramped rear isn’t a deal breaker for me; I’d happily own a “four-door coupe” at the expense of a little back-seat utility.
It’s nice enough, but it’s still one of the worst midsize sedans, relatively speaking–even excluding predicted reliability from the equation.
You have to walk past a lot of much better product to choose it.
Cons: it’s cramped, doesn’t ride well, isn’t sporty, isn’t the most reliable, isn’t the most thrifty of fuel, has a problematic transmission, a poor entry-level powertrain and a brutal depreciation curve
Pro: it’s pretty, has a good infotainment system, and can be had at a steeeeeeep discount.
“It’s nice enough, but it’s still one of the worst midsize sedans, ”
no it isn’t. Stop being a parrot.
So what is the proper ranking of mid-size sedans then?
I didn’t say it was _bad_, I said you have to walk past a lot of better cars first.
Which current midsize sedan for sale North America is holistically worse than the 200?
It’s better than some offerings in select ways (eg, more power than the 6, aesthetically better than the Passat inside, has AWD unlike the Camry) but it’s still bottom of the pack.
I don’t think there’s anything grievously wrong with the 200 either, but if it is definitely NOT the worst in class which of its competitors are clearly worse?
I could see myself buying one, but only if it were significantly discounted versus an Accord, or if I insisted on a configuration like V6 AWD that most of its competitors don’t offer.
“Worst in class” is like comparing fast food restaurants. They all offer about the same thing and a 200 purchase wouldn’t be a huge mistake. Consumer Reports has red donuts for everything besides the transmission, and people who have actually owned the car say the transmission gets better with use as it learns your habits. Resale is not really a big bugaboo as you can get a new one at a ~$10K discount. And for some, looks matter. If they didn’t, there would be no market for rides like the CLS or F-Type. 200, all things considered, is very competitive.
Sure, the 9-speed may be troublesome (more likely just annoying, but not mid-00’s Honda troublesome), but what’s wrong with the 200’s engines?
The Pentastar has been out for 6 years, with no major issues, and the 4 has been around for over a decade. How long do we have to ominously refer to “predicted reliability” before we admit that they are not lemons? Do we need 20 years of experience?
If that’s the case, is there any new car that passes the “predicted reliability” test?
“more likely just annoying, but not mid-00’s Honda troublesome)”
Let’s see some of these 200s at around 100k miles to make a fair assessment.
Had one, lasted all of 3 mos before I gave it up (for a TDI…what can I say, I make poor decisions).
The main issue I had with the 9-spd transmission was that when you’re cruising on the highway and need to pass something RIGHT NOW, it would take what seemed like an eternity before it finally kicked down, and then it would drop one-are you sure you want to do this-two-three gears. The steering wheel would then snap to the right and I quickly learned that jumping into the left lane to pass a semi wasn’t worth it.
If you don’t mind planning passes (pretend you’re in a Prius!), it’s not a bad place to be. UConnect 8.4 is great, there are great deals, it’s a comfortable cruiser, and it has a huge trunk. Where else can you get an awd V-6
Not sporty? On a 100+ mile commute mostly on the highway? I don’t care how old or young you are, “sporty” is what you don’t want, for nothing gets older than a sporty ride day after day. It’ll drive you batty. A 20-minute commute? Now that’s a different story!
Problematic tranny? Isn’t it just the programming, not the mechanicals, for once?
It is a very nice-looking car, though. Even though I look at anything Chrysler with a jaundiced eye (except for Jeep Wrangler), I’d like to drive one, but doubt that will happen anytime soon.
psarhjinian, the Chrysler 200 is currently priced significantly below midsize sedans. The real question is how does a Chrysler 200 compare relative to a new compact sedan or a used midsize for the job of a long highway commute? For that use, aerodynamic drag is a bigger factor than mass in performance and economy. If the transmission downshift delay isn’t a problem on the highway, the rest of the Chrysler 200 is a step up from the Corolla and Civic class.
Even Car and Driver says the latest 200 deserves to live (easy to say now that FCA has announced plans to discontinue it). They tested a V6 FWD model a few months ago and came away smiling:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/test-2016-chrysler-200-v-6-fwd-review
I’ve got an example that kinda sums up the amount of thought that went into the new 200.
I saw one at the rental car lot and decided to give it a try since I hadn’t driven one yet. Standard rental car setup; 4-banger automatic. I go to reset the trip and MPG displays and the first thing I notice is that the “instant” MPG readout is actually a vertical bar that goes up and down to indicate mileage, and that the scale only goes from 0 MPG to 30 MPG! This is a car rated at 36 MPG in the highway!
All I can think about is how many people in the design, testing, etc processes either missed this problem or didn’t feel strongly enough about it do DO anything. Kinda sums up the new 200 in my opinion.
vwoska, I don’t know you, I certainly don’t know what you drive, but the comment that you’ve summed up all the thought that went into the latest Chrysler 200 by the feature that displays the MPG that doesn’t match the MPG range advertised smacks of a former Prius driver that misses the MPG display his new non-hybrid car doesn’t have. To me, that’s like ignoring a model of car that’s otherwise checked off everything on his checklist because it either doesn’t come in gold or only has two coat hooks. I spent a week in a new Chrysler 200 and never noticed if it had an MPG display, and I’m certain I wouldn’t have paid attention to it even if I were aware of it in the car. I have a BMW when I’m home, and I didn’t think the 200 was a come-down in NVH while out of town, and I actually wanted to try it when I saw it on the rental list. And, while I was open to the chance that it might disappoint me over a whole week, I can say that it deserves consideration right along with Camry, Accord, Outback, and the others if this is the class of car that someone is shopping for.
Well, it being my rental car I really didn’t care what MPG I got, but for my own personal analytical interest.
I spend roughly 150-200 days per year driving rental cars. Since I usually spend the entire week driving the same car I have gotten into the habit of zeroing out all trip meters, syncing my phone, plugging in a USB with music, and adjusting the stereo in each rental before I leave the lot. That is how I came upon the error with the instant MPG display.
As for the rest of the car, I can remember disliking the overly bright backlighting in the instrument cluster, an engine that didn’t seem to have enough power to utilize 8th or 9th gear, and very vague steering.
I don’t particularly remember the NVH so I’m sure it was pretty quiet.
I found the instant MPG display error and the irony in how many people overlooked such a simple element to be an accurate analogy because it summed up my thoughts (and judging by sales, other’s as well) on the entire car; a poor execution of an average design.
It’s not a BAD car, it’s just not on par with other midsize sedans in my opinion.
BTW, my daily driver is a 2015 Mustang GT. Never driven a Prius in my life.
Caveat: I’ve never driven one. I have driven a 2016 Camry, and I thought it was terrible.
To be honest, on paper it looks like a winner.
As far as looks go, they’re on the right track, but it’s too tall and narrow. It looks like a Dodge Intrepid (that’s a good thing ) that has been stretched vertically in Photoshop (not so good).
I’ve driven a 200 (an S.) It’s a perfectly fine and competitive car. Most people who call it a “bad car” have either never driven one or if they have it was a bare-bones rental, and are just dogpiling on the outcast because all of the cool kids are doing so.
My FIL owns an S. Loves it. Rear seat room is not an issue, as it hardly ever gets used. Just sporty enough for his daily slog in Metro Detroit traffic without breaking the bank. And this from a dyed-in-the-wool GM fan.
I too have driven a 200 S. It was the awd version that’s only comes with a V6.
I thought it was very nice except for two things.
The seat upholstey felt and looked very low quality. One would hope it would wear well but there are much better materials available that would be perfectly adequate and look good.
Their other issue I had was with its lack of performance with a powerful V6. It made a lot of fun noises but didn’t deliver the push into the seat I expected for that power.
It had a lot going for it but even at its $20k price I felt I could do better with my money.
Most recent Volvos have adaptive cruise control, and I remember reading that the S60 has one of the highest depreciation rates in its class. Might be worth adding to your test-drive list.
2013 Cadillac XTS offered it also. They can be had for low to mid $20’s. D
Don’t go cheap and expose your hearing to noise, fatiguing cars for two hours daily. The longer you can put off ear aids the better!
I think it’s a decent-looking vehicle. I have not test driven one since I’m not currently in the market for a new car. The only marks against it seem to be the “shifty” nine-speed transmission and questionable FCA quality.
Struggling with all the whiners complaining about the nine-speed AT. Have had several rentals with this tranny, with no complaints. Yes, there is one shift that is a little slower than the others. But it’s not bad. I rented a Renegade and a 2017 Camry SE back-to-back last week, and while the Renegade shifting was fine, even in the mountains, by comparison the Camry was glacial, especially in downshifting. Floor it and wait a second or three, maybe something would happen. I can’t speak to long term durability of the 9A, but the driving experience is competitive to say the least.
What is this …go and buy a 200 month or something. As much hate as this car gets why would we recommend it. I have driven one and its ok but not great. Its just too small for me.
of course it is. the journalists (salesmen) are pushing metal 24×7.
FCA’s full stop adaptive cruise works wonderfully. I’ve been in other cars (particularly those pre-2012, and the radar cruise is a herky jerk affair not suitable for anything other than open highways.
This guy is driving 100+ miles a day, so figure 25-40k miles a year just for the commute.
That’ll destroy the resale on any car, reliability is mission-critical, and nothing will be fun to drive under those circumstances. A new 200 with an extended warranty sounds like a good answer to this question.
I’d also investigate moving much close to work, but I have a firm “no commute” policy.
+1 If you are going to drive a ridiculous number of miles and resale value means nothing (assuming you keep the car its useful life) then might as well buy an unloved new model (like the 200) drive it into the ground, lather – rinse – repeat.
Unless you are more comfortable with a high mileage lease. Rack up the miles and turn it back in.
“might as well buy an unloved new model (like the 200) drive it into the ground…”
Well, I think that is what I did. Perhaps my W-body wasn’t THAT unloved, but I am (gently) driving it into the ground. 101,000 and counting in 4 years, 3 months.
However, I love the thing.
No commute can be difficult depending on your locale.
I work in the DC Metro, just inside the southeast part of the beltway. The only way I’m getting closer than 45 minutes each way is by living in PG county, which is not happening as long as I care about schools and property values.
Don’t even get me started on what people who live in NoVa and work in DC have to deal with. I’m lucky enough I’ve managed to stay on the MD side.
It’s my question. No argument, I live in the SF bay area, and work a long grave, just by switching to grave, I cut my commute from over an hour to less that 30 minutes total, but my housemates are looking to move, and for a bunch of reasons, I’d want to move with them (it’s a long story), I’m trying to figure out how to make it less painful, adaptive cruse control would be really nice.
So, it’s worth a bunch for me to move, but, yeah, not liking the idea.
So what is the lowest trim level on the 200 that includes adaptive cruise control standard?
http://www.chrysler.com/hostc/bmo/CUC201609/models.do
I’d personally get a Legacy with Eyesight over a 200 with ACC.
I was going to mention the Legacy as well – they got adaptive starting in 2013…
This may not be the most exciting car out there, but even the base Corolla L comes with ACC standard now.
This would be a good choice: it’s reliable, efficient, easy to drive, and even with a lot of mileage it could be resold for a good amount.
The issue I’ve found is seat comfort, though: the cushions are pretty short.
Dang, I didn’t know that. Not only ACC, but Pre-collision Detection, Lane Departure Alert (with steering assist) and Automatic High Beams too, on every trim. I wondered if Honda offering Sensing on basically everything (although as an option) would start a gadget war. Game on, I guess.
Why hasn’t anyone mentioned the Regal? Driver Confidence Package 2 gets you ACC. You can get a ’15 GS for under $25K, down from $40K+. It’s a MUCH MUCH MUCH better car than any 200 will ever be.
Another good option: Fusion Titanium. Those depreciate like mad, and unlike the 200 you won’t be driving an orphan that even the company itself admitted was basically crap. The transmissions in both the Buick and Ford actually work properly, Intellilink is perfectly fine, and later period MFT is at least usable.
Since the consensus is that the 9 speed tranny in the 200 is a piece of compressed dog turd, I would consider an FCA extended warranty if buying a new 200. A former co-worker used to buy used TC minivans (1-2 years old) and always took out the extended power train warranty. He seemed to always get his moneys worth from these warranties. The steep depreciation on FCA products gives you a lot of room for the extra cost of the warranty.
well a volvo s60 has it it is worth a look , the seats alone make a hour long commute worth it but if your gonna drive it into the ground give the 200 a test drive. No idea how they do on gas but it will be new w a warranty, not a bad looking car but not a popular one but if it is the right tool for the job screw what ever one thinks.
Didn’t E90 get adaptive cruise later in its life?
*None* of the tech on the early MKS works particularly well; the adaptive cruise will slam on the brakes (so that it’s more like collision-avoidance) rather than glide to a slower speed. The blind-spot monitoring is also iffy.
Lol, there isn’t much the early MKS got right.
New Passat SE for $20-21k ($17k ish for an ex-rental unit maybe), done. ACC standard, along with moonroof and heated seats. Super roomy rear seat and trunk, awesome highway commuter that will knock on the door of 40mpg to boot. No guarantees in terms of long term reliability, but I’d but it at least at parity with a Chrysler 200.
New Golf has it too. Adaptive CC works great. They only problem is that it leaves a little too much room to the car in front of you. So if in left lane it it makes people angry. But I suspect that it is a problem with all of them.
Chuck
I loved it on my 8 hour haul out to K.C. and back (drove out one day, looked at equipment the next morning, drove back the same day). Between the ACC and good highway manners, and super long fuel range, I couldn’t possibly think of a better partner for a long drive like that.
The following distance can be adjusted on the VW and Honda ACC systems.
Even adjusted all the way up it still leaves a lot of room (am driving on I95 mostly so super aggressive drivers). But I was shocked how well it works.
The Honda system keeps you a little bit too far back at the closest setting, and is a little slow to resume speed after traffic clears in front, but is otherwise good!
You have to pay attention to what’s behind you, because you could end up getting hit if your car brakes faster than you might if someone cuts in too close in front; I give just a light touch of throttle to override, then let off gently, letting the car take back control.
Detractors, notice the trend in the Chrysler 200 comments? We like the latest 200, so stop the bad mouthing if you haven’t driven one, or rent one and then give us your newly-informed viewpoint. I could do without the rotary knob for switching gears(I know-Fusion has one, too). But, except for the shifter dial,it’s pretty much on par with Camry and Accord.I borrowed one for a week, put 700 miles on it and liked it.
Fair mention of the M35 and M45, which got adaptive cruise for 2006 and don’t fall in the “flagship costly maintenance” category.
Yes, my 2006 M35x has it. I wondered if the G got it about that time also? My M has depreciated to under $10k now, but I think you could get a more recent G with fewer miles for about that much.
Those do sound interesting, and the price savings would buy a lot of gas.
I think that the main problem with the 200(and any american small car really) is that they are
1) porky
2) pokey
3) plasticky
The only 200 that even has close to enough power is the v6, and that version is slow compared to japanese/german equivalents. The 200 weighs way too much, so handling suffers. The 200 sounds hollow when you close the doors and while the interior is nice, its still not as good as german or japanese competition. They definitely made a step forward with the 200, but it still lags behind the competition
What does plasticky mean? The majority of the interior of the 200 is soft touch materials.
And please explain on how 5.7 seconds to 60 is “slow” as tested at C&D:
“At the track, this 200 ran from zero to 60 mph in a brisk 5.7 seconds, 0.3 second quicker than the 2015 200S AWD, which weighed 267 pounds more. That time ties the V-6–powered VW Passat, one-tenth better than the Camry V-6 and one-tenth slower than the Honda Accord V-6. “
The 200 may be a nice looking car, but it’s nowhere near class competitive. It’s back seat is cramped, it’s trunk is fit for around town grocery getting at most, it drives really cheap, it feels really cheap (other than the really nice center storage between the front seats which is great), it’s 4 banger is noisy and it’s ride is loud.
It’s got an ok stereo.
Is adaptive cruise control worth buying this type of car?
You can get a new Civic for 21k that comes with adaptive cruise control. (part of Honda Sensing package)
“it’s trunk is fit for around town grocery getting at most”
Chrysler 200: 16 cu ft
VW Passat: 16 cu ft
Mazda 6: 14.8 cu ft
Ford Fusion 16 cu ft
Toyota Camry: 15 cu ft
Sounds like you’ve just typed a bunch of stuff out by using the comment section as “facts”.
Seriously, are all of you 90th percentile in height or something? Have you actually tried the back seats of a 200 or are you saying it’s cramped based on magazine test drives?
I had one as a rental (a 4 cyl) and I thought the space was fine, it was pretty quiet at freeway speeds, and was roomy enough for 4 adult males without a single mention of space. How many of use really use our back seats very often except, perhaps, to carry kids?
Funny, but there was one thing I found hugely annoying about the car that I’ve never heard mentioned anywhere else. What is with the blue lights around the instrument cluster? As far as I could figure, it could not be dimmed along with the instrument backlighting and it was just too bright at night. Of course, my rental didn’t come with an owner’s manual, so perhaps it’s possible to turn that off or dim it, but I couldn’t figure it out.
At only 6 ft 1 I cant even sit behind myself and I am pretty much average hgt. Thats how I judge cars. My knees hit the back seat and I mostly sit up pretty straight. Not to mention its not very wide back there.
6ft 1 is not pretty much average. The average height for US males is about 5ft 9. You are more than 1 SD taller than the mean, about 90th percentile.
5’9″ and 225 or something, short and round is why America buys all of the trucks.
Mean weight for all US males is actually ~196, unless you’re just checking at WalMart. ;)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_03/sr03_039.pdf
I’m surprised it’s that low.
I kinda thought I was average since everyone here at TTAC is like 6’5 or something. Atleast thats what they say.
Unless you’re going three across or sleeping in it, I doubt that anyone who can get through the back doors of a 200 will find that it isn’t wide enough.
I’m driving a 2016 200 loaner while my troublesome RAM is in the shop again. It’s not a bad car at all. It rides nice, is comfy, and the interior is nice with plenty of soft touch materials. They have these things priced to move right now.
Going to countersignal the 200 here with another car that’s under appreciated around here: for 2017 you can get a Passat SE with the V6 and adaptive cruise and all the other goodies for $30k MSRP. And with VW’s desperation to keep moving iron, I imagine there are great deals to be found. The Passat is a superb highway cruiser, especially with the 280 HP VR6 engine.
And the rear seat is cavernous compared to the 200.
Terrible reliabilty. Buy a Camry or Accord.
Allowing for the difference in reliability, how much more is a Camry or Accord worth? Chrysler’s 7/100 extended warranty is about $2500.
I love this feature to the point that fiddling with the buttons on a regular cruise system is annoying. I’ll get a car with it wherever possible.
Just like automatic climate-control for me; I’m constantly futzing with it otherwise!
From the front it is the best looking mid-sized car. The 200 handles better than the Camry. Lets be honest the Camry is just about the worse handling mid-sized car around. If you look at all the various automotive press tests the Camry is always trailing in the handling department. In some ways in the tradition of being America’s top family sedan it celebrates its mediocre handling as a virtue.