Chrysler Sebring, Aspen, and Pacifica: hands-on in New York
Chrysler invited a number of journalists and a few others to an event in New York, where we met the head of Chrysler marketing, the regional rep, and a few others – not to mention the Aspen, Sebring, and new Pacifica. Of course by now many have already seen the Aspen in person at the auto show, but it’s quite another story to see one at eye level and be able to climb in.
Outside, the Aspen, Sebring, and Pacifica are clearly of a single brand, with their ribbed hoods (those are speed grooves, in case you were wondering; six concave, one convex), rounded-trapezoid grille, chrome, and similar front-end lines. Inside, they could hardly be more different, with interiors that appeared to have been designed by three different companies with very different cultures.
The Aspen (due in September) arguably has the most elegant, upscale interior; the huge gauges are black on silver, with large shiny chromed rings that make quite an impression. The color scheme is restrained, with two-tone seats (darker suede inserts are the second tone) and a fairly uniform beige otherwise; while there is a preponderance of plastic, it is, by far, less noticeable than in the Sebring. Light woodgrain-style covers hide the center storage bin and cupholders; the center stack bezel uses this same material, as do strips on the doors and dash and the top half of the steering wheel. The interior of the Aspen is by far the most upscale of the three. The main surprise-and-delight feature, to use Chrysler terms, is the easy flip-and-fold middle-row seat design, which lets people easily climb into the third row. There is decent room in all three rows. The Aspen feels surprisingly open for a large vehicle, with good visibility.
The Pacifica remains much as it was, with a large black driver pod and a two-tone passenger pod, both featuring curves to personalize the dashboard to the occupants; there is light woodgrain on the wheel, with strips on the dash and door. As with the Aspen, care was taken to provide an unobstructed 180 degree view from the driver, for a light, spacious feel. The Pacifica is largely an enhancement of the current version, and it carries forward things that worked while making the appearance more distinctive. Pacifica will start at $25,000 and go on up to about $36,000.
The Sebring is a troublesome car inside. Though the front is attractive to many people when viewed in person, and the Audi side view is not unattractive, the interior is an odd mix of Caliber and Aspen, and doesn’t really seem to succeed as a whole. The three colors seem to clash a bit, and combine to be rather busy on the door panel and inside the front of the cockpit; the rear is much more restrained. There are acres of blocky gray plastic, with tortoise-shell plastic inserts on the wheel, doors, and glove box, along with the other-shade-of-gray and silver plastic. Doors also have a chunky feel.
The lighter side of the Chrysler Sebring interior is a number of clever features, including a front passenger seat that easily flips forward to provide a table at the same height as the center console (the doors have map pockets for rear-passenger storage); the 20 GB built-in stereo complete with easy to reach port; and easy to reach controls for the trip computer / personalization center.
The Sebring appears to be an eminently practical car, with a large rear seat featuring good leg room and an abundance of head room, coupled with a huge trunk and decent gas mileage; the base engine, a 170 hp 2.4 liter four-cylinder with all sorts of technology but little low-end torque, is available even on the most loaded version for those who like the features and comfort but don’t need more acceleration. The engine most enthusiasts will be awaiting is the 3.5 liter, designed for the Chrysler Concorde way back when, but coupled to a Chrylser-designed six-speed automatic; according to Dave Rooney, head of Chrysler marketing (who once headed Eagle marketing!), it’s dead quiet at 90 mph. We won’t ask how he knows. Gas mileage is 19 city, 28 highway according to EPA estimates. It’s hard to say what that means for the real world, but we suspect that the Sebring will easily beat 300M and 300 Limited mileage due to the wider range of gear ratios and the lower first gera that makes acceleration easier without heavy pedaling. (The 2.7 V6 has identical EPA ratings, while the 2.4 liter is 2 mpg higher.)
Dave Rooney, by the way, was quite friendly and open, though as you might expect he didn’t give away too much when asked about future diesel powered Chryslers or for that matter the Dodge Avenger. If a theoretical Avenger were to be built, Rooney believes the Chrysler version would largely be differentiated via features and styling.
Rooney also noted that the 4 liter engine new to the Pacifica was designed to have more low-end torque and to provide a better off-the-line launch than most vehicles. He said that about 25% of Chrysler owners leave the brand to get an SUV, and only about 25% of those people get a Dodge or Jeep, so the decision to launch a “real” SUV in addition to the Pacifica seemed to be practically a given to capture their own owners. He also felt optimistic that the Aspen would sell reasonably well, in part to those moving down from larger SUVs; and as he said, “we don’t need to sell a hundred thousand of these” because much of the investment had already been made in the Durango. The Aspen is clearly different in styling and appearance from the Durango, and, indeed, those who do not follow Chrysler by reading Allpar and other publications would not be aware, from looking at them, that they had much in common. The Aspen will only have V8 engines – 4.7 and Hemi.
Allpar regulars are aware of the constant discussion around the positioning of the Chrysler Brand. Rooney reiterated that they already had Mercedes at the high end, and noted that Chrysler had not competed at the Cadillac/Lincoln/Mercedes end of the market even when Walter P. Chrysler was alive; several times he repeated that the Chrysler mantra was to understand what the customer really wants and give it to them, and to provide a good value by doing that. According to Rooney, Chrysler strives for “presence, a refined and even glamorous look,” with “purposeful technology, not just technology for technology’s sake – it’s been that way since Walter P. Chrysler, 80 years ago.”
We’ll have photos and updated pages for these three vehicles.
On the surface that sounds like a death knell for Imperial. Unless of course they think that’s what their (Chrysler brand) customers want….
I don’t think I’d mourn the loss of this version of the Imperial. It looks more like a truck than a car. The Sebring from the front is okay, but I don’t like the Toyota Corolla taillights at all. I expect more originality than that. The interior is nice, but I’d like the option of having a few less gadgets please. I want a car, not an entertainment centre on wheels.
99 IMPERIAL BARON, SMOOTH
I agree on the taillights – which don’t even line up. You do have the option of less gadgets with the base model but not with the 3.5 V6. Personally I like the internal hard drive feature – less melted CDs! – if they have navigation set up well.
And yes, I think they’ve dropped the idea of Chrysler becoming a competitor for Lexus GS, Mercury (does anyone buy Mercurys?), Acura, and Audi, and set up Chrysler as a competitor to Chevy, Toyota, and Honda – replacing Plymouth.
And yet Pacifica & Aspen & the ritzier T & C contradict that. I think they’re going to continue to try to do both, eventually with one or two vehicles that don’t reach down in the market (Aspen maybe?), and one or two that don’t reach up that far (PT Cruiser) and the balance that cover the bulk of the spectrum.
That’s a lot of work and a pretty complex message to get across to a sound byte society. Can you come up with one word to describe this tactic? With Dodge you can go with ’sporty’. Jeep, ‘Rugged’. Chrysler? Um….it sounds like they’re shooting for ‘Refined’ but I’m not sure the low end models can carry that off. Pacifica for instance; the top model certainly carries that off, but the base model? Minus the exterior chrome and interior wood trim? Hmm. Not sure about that one.
The “purposeful technology, not just technology for technology’s sake” comment is interesting considering the path Mercedes has been on.
At first I didn’t get the comment about the Toyota Corolla tailights, but during today’s travel I got behind one and knew exactly what you were talking about. I am disappointed that other car companies feel the need to copy Toyota in someway. I don’t want a Toyota or a look a like. The same thing happened to the VW Jetta being made to look like the Corolla. DCX and everyone else need to realize that it is not Toyota’s styling that has gotten them where they are, but their reputation.
Sure, there are things we can find fault with on the Sebring. But what matters is how it measures up in the marketplace. I think it’s got the goods to do that. If anything, it looks a little like a C-class Mercedes from the front, which ain’t a bad thing: that could help it stand out from the Accords and Camrys and appeal to people who want something a little different, a little more upscale, yet don’t want to pay more for it. Mercury is selling a good number of Milans based on precisely that sentiment. Chrysler has got to steal some sales from Accord and Camry (without bleeding to death with incentives): This car has the features to do that.
I really like the Sebring’s instruments (and clock). The steering wheel looks good to me. And the little “speed groove” in the center of the dash’s top panel is neat. Reminds me of the strake that ran down the center of the roof and down the trunklid of the ‘57 Imperial. It would be cool if there were only one “speed groove” on the hood: if it had a raised speed grove running down the center it would match the one on the dash (which would help tie the exterior and interior together). The nav / entertainment display is well-integrated (BMW and Mercedes would do well to examine it). The six-speed automatic with alternate kickdown gear is great: it definitely surpasses what the competition offers.
So what does “with their ribbed hoods (those are speed grooves, in case you were wondering; six concave, one convex),”
the speed groove do – add stability at speed? – were created by high speeds ripping through the sheetmetal? – just something to collect water/snow like the depressed hoods on the 1970-1978 Dodge Trucks?
Other than that the design is nice and I’ll have to wait for the release to see if that increased Interior room holds true.
Chrysler knows their owners enjoy waxing their cars so much they figured they’d increase the time required :)
chrysler has always been an upscale brand, except in canada when the name went on an entry level car (2000 neon). chrysler should (and does in my opinion) compete with lincoln and cadillac, leave the lex and acs bims and odds to the mercedes mark
depressed hoods were on the 72 – 78 trucks thank you very much, and the crossfire hoods were for design, not function
I think it will be a very bad misake to not have a Avenger(Stratus) size car. Let the Sebring be upscale and Dodge the sporty performace version.
i think the sebring’s biggest failing will be its 4 speed automatic, which will find its way into most of the cars. remember…the accord and malibu are new next year. the camry and altima are new this year, the sonota and fusion/milan are only one year old and the sebring and its (already) dated mechanicals intended for the masses are here for a 5 year stay. sure it may sell well in its first year to the chrysler faithful…but what about after that? who are they positioning chrysler against…the chinese?? what a shame.
Where have we seen these before?
http://www.moparfins.com/Chrysler/61/61_Chrysler_Newport/Images/1961_Chrysler%20Newport%20rear.jpg
I must comment that the New Avenger is a much more better looking car than the Sebring.
Also, I must lament the failure to offer a 5 speed Manual with this car. Maybe in a coupe version – please.