The midsized dilemma: fixing the Avenger and Sebring
“Inside Line says: Chrysler has yet to lay out a plausible business case to show how it plans to reverse its rapidly dwindling fortunes in the midsize segment.”
This quote comes from Anita Lienert, who managed to completely misunderstand Chrysler’s legal filings and jumped to the conclusion that the Dodge Ram and Jeep line would be dropped.
She apparently is completely ignoring the clear plans set up for Chrysler to adopt Fiat’s new mid-sized platform for its own Sebring/Avenger replacement.
Now, if Chrysler really had some money to invest, I suspect they could easily “fix” the mid-sized cars they already have. Here’s what they need:
- New names and styling. I hate to say it, but Sebring and Avenger are fatally wounded now. Hey, here’s an idea: make one midsized car and call it the Dart. (Valiant’s a Plymouth name, in case you’re wondering.) Dart had a great reputation and remains known and mainly loved.
- The new styling isn’t really needed except to justify the new names.
- Call it “all-new” a hundred times in the press releases. Change some dimensions slightly. You don’t need to change the actual dimensions, as long as the reported dimensions change. Rounding helps.
- Restyle the Avenger and drop in the Pentastar V6 (née Phoenix engine). Obviously, this delays the launch until there are such engines to be used. The performance with this engine will be good enough that people may not notice that the World Engine is still there, especially if none of them make it into the press fleets.
- The interior treatment given to the Patriot – change some surfaces here and there, change the graphics, and it’ll seem much more different.
- Drop the Sebring entirely and make the convertible a Dodge to help branding and sales figures (though not actual sales).
- Switch back to ASC for the convertible tops so they won’t be at the bottom of the quality rankings. We can do without Karmann’s “German quality.”
That’s really all these cars need to compete, in my humble opinion. They were getting decent reviews until suddenly the wolf-pack descended and the sheeple in the media decided if they said anything good about them, they’d lose their cred.
That would buy a lot of time, during which the Fiat chassis could be reworked to fit Chrysler’s needs, with no shortcuts.
Dave,
You got it right again. You must have gone to parochial school.
One of my very favorite cars was my 1995 Dodge Stratus. I purchased it when they were new on the market and the styling used to stop people on the street. I got the ES with the V6 and better suspension/tire package. It was roomy, drove and handled well. And, unlike what the reviewers said, the cloth covered seats that whose material(?) was “hard” and would probably be uncomfortable on long trip, it was the most comfortable cars I have ever owned. That “hard” material helped keep the seats in great condition for the seven years we owned. And neither of us are “lightweights” by any stretch of the imagination.
Alas we did have some quality problems, particularly with the transmission. It crapped out twice, both times in the (extended) warranty period. And since this was an outgrowth of the infamous 604, the deductible was waived. We had substitute transportation during repairs and when we picked the car up, were handed a receipt and keys with no money changing hands.
When I t became time to replace it, due to some of the problems we had, we went strictly for price. Actually, at that point our income had receded so we sort of forced to do so. The best thing we found was a 2001 Taurus program car with 13,000 miles on the clock. It was cheap so we got it, along with the extended warranty. Well the Ford did real well until the warranty ran out. Hate to say what the transmission did cost when it did go, about three months and a couple of thousand miles out of the extended warranty. And now the second set of front discs are all warped to h**l. But that isn’t the big thing. The car is uncomfortable, especially on long trips. The seats pretty well gave up under my bulk rather early on and it just is not that enjoyable to drive. Yeah, it ain’t terrible but going from the Dodge to the Ford, even though the Taurus is “full-sized” was a definite step down in comfort and enjoyment.
The only real problem with the more recent editions (Avengers and Sebring’s) is the lowering of the interior trim quality during the DC days, and the “World” engine. Chrysler should have added their MASCAR budget to a well designed four banger back then, may have done some good. But the cars are still roomy and decent handling and, at the price, still a good deal.
.
I disagree about changing the names. I think the Sebring sedan needs to go, but keep the Sebring as a convertible. The Avenger name can be fixed.
Redo the interiors, not so much the design, but the materials and optional colours, etc.
Drop the 6spd into the 4 cylinder model. Fast track the Pentastar as well.
Also, for European and other world markets, a wagon and hatch model would be a nice addition.
Public school and state college. I guess I’ll take that as a compliment. I really enjoyed my brief rides in the Stratus/Breeze/Cirrus. Loved the Neon which CR rated first as middle-of-the-pack, then as lousy, then as worst — all in one year!
I agree with you on most points Dave. The cars need to undergo a bit of plastic surgery appearance wise…not just for the reasons stated, but because design wise they are a bit odd/boring…not up to pre-Daimler involved (and hopefully post) Chrysler standards.
I agree with the idea of dropping the Sebring sedan as the new dealer model (like we’ve had in Canada for years) of carrying the entire line up, makes the Sebring unnecessary. I would keep the convertible in the Chrysler stable, but base it off of the 200c if possible and sell it as a LeBaron…or some other popular old ChryCo name.
The Avenger name is unfortunately linked to the current models woes so it would need to go. Dart is a good possible name…I guess Coronet is too old fashioned a name, and Mitsu got the Lancer name. I would like to see one thing spun off the new car though–a front wheel drive/awd two door sport coupe ala the old Daytona. not sure if theres a strong enough market for it, but it would be nice to see!
The Sebring is dead, I think the name got wrecked by the currant car. Redo the dash and door panels for a quick fix untill a new car comes. Dont call the new car Sebring.
I currently own a 2008 Avenger R/T AWD, fully loaded minus rear seat DVD and mygig. I find very little to complain about, but that could be that its not a fleet or rental stripper model.Gas mileage could be better, it could be a little faster, but its a fine daily driver for my 70 mile round trip, I guess the best part is I bought it for $14,200 with 3,000 miles on it, excellent value at that price. Some people complain about the world engine, I have the 3.5, but the world engine is a pretty good engine guys, and has very little that ever goes wrong with it, and gets pretty good fuel mileage to boot. I also own a 2001 Sebering LXi, and its just a great car all around IMO.
It would be easy to upgrade the suspension. They export these cars with a superior European suspension tuning. Use the brakes off the LX cars like the Caliber SRT4 does. Adapt the Fiat dual logic gearbox ASAP. This will take advantage of the World Motor’s peaky powerband. If Chrysler gives there midsize the same interior fixes that the Compass received that should hold the fort until help arrives.
The Sebring/Avenger can be fixed and both models saved. Most of you don’t seem to take into consideration brand loyalty. Tune the suspension, upgrade the interior, and reskin skin them. Do this and put in the pentastar engine and a six speed tansmission, keep them front whell drive, and you have a very good start. Rename both of them, the Dart name is good for Dodge and use the Valiant Fury, Newport or Cordoba name for the Chrysler.
To be clear, I agree with the “keep the cars” group — but they do need to be changed to overcome public perception. I don’t see any point in changing the names and sheet metal until the Pentastar engine is out. The experience should be vastly different – and the cars can be lightened somewhat as less sound insulation will be needed.
If a Chrysler is sold, I’d argue it should ONLY be a six-speed Pentastar V6 model. The Dodge could go with a four though frankly, if the smallest Pentastar engine is ready for sale, I’d consider making it available with just the V6 and a choice of stick or automatic. Then I’d seed the major press glossies with ONLY the stick-shift version so they’ll get the better gas mileage and acceleration (assuming the stick has better gas mileage and acceleration). This would also keep certification costs down – one engine, two transmissions in the Dodge.
Or if you really want to reset the brand naming convention, use a European-like number scheme, with one digit the “platform”, and two or three the “detailed descriptor”, or just use the engine displacement alone…think BMW (320 = 3series with a 2 liter engine, as an example) or some of the Simcas (1000 = 1 liter engine). Sort of highlights the engineering side of the equation vice sales and marketing. Ma MoPar used a flavor of this (for the trim level if I remember correctly) in the 60’s along with the car name (ex: 1963 Dodge Dart 270, still the best 4-door family car I’ve ever driven to this day).
My suggestions –
If there will be a substantial reskin and upgrade of the Sebring, how about 100 C for a name – a name that could be kept for a future model of that size that would work right in the 300C/200C range.
I don’t think the Avenger name is poison – save Dart for a smaller upcoming Dodge model.
100 C – Pentastar V6, Avenger 4 or Pentastar V6 as an option. 6-M in the 4 as well as an upgraded automatic.
Keep both the Chrysler and Dodge models but make them more distinctive, like the difference between various Honda/Acura, VW/Audi etc nameplated but similar models.
I currently drive a 2008 Avenger R/T AWD ~150 miles a day to work and back. I like the car but I think Chrysler needs to lower it by ~1 to 2 inches too give it a better stance. The flares on the rear quarter panels also need flattened out. After 1 year of driving, the flare on the rear doors has been blasted by debris leaving it pitted. The interior is okay but they need to remove all the chrome, especially around the shifter. The bottoms of the front seats on the cloth interiors also need flattened out a bit. The engine runs great and I get between 25 to 27 on the highway. It also handles very well in snow, ice, and heavy rain.
I say keep the Avenger name because improving the car and keeping it would show the media that Chrysler is serious about making a new image for themselves.
I hope Chrysler pulls through. I was planning on getting a Charger some day.