Allpar Forums banner

The loss of 200 and Dart....

68K views 625 replies 86 participants last post by  DAGAR 
#1 ·


FCAs decision to drop both 200 and Dart at the same time is leaving a serious void in our product mix.
Previous happy customers of Sebrings, Darts, 200's and Avengers now have ZERO options when they want to replace their SEDANS. Everyone is not going to be converted into an suv. It breaks my heart when folks come in and they actually tell me that they wanted another Chrysler or Dodge sedan and were forced to look elsewhere:( These nice folks have bought from our dealership 3 times in the past and bought a VW for the first time because we now no longer have a small or midsized sedan. IF FCA has something for us in the pipeline I wish they would hurry and get it to us. We are loosing customers and market share daily.....
 
See less See more
1
#381 ·
Having Fiat in the US just to justify the "F" in FCA would be unnecessary. Fuji Heavy Industries was an unknown brand to most people but they were the parent company of Subaru before it was renamed to the Subaru Corporation.
 
#383 ·
You can't have it both ways.
I don't understand your comment. I explained that the circumstance for Dart/200 and Fiat in the US are very different. That's two different scenarios that lead to two different solutions, not "both ways". Most of this discussion is lost in a "fairness debate" - hey they got rid of the vehicles I like and kept ones I don't - NOT FAIR! Well, that's life. If we look at it from a completely pragmatic perspective the decisions to date as painful as they may feel make sense.
 
#392 · (Edited)
Pragmatically, FCA should be building low margin cars that actually sell with that capacity as opposed to ones that don't.

It's not about "fairness", it's about common sense.

Common sense says you don't throw away billions in investment. If you have to move the line, then move it.

At the very least Tipos and Neons should be rolling out of Toluca instead of the 500.
 
#384 ·
Its highly likely Fiat is only being sold here for CAFE reasons. Sell the cars at nearly zero profit OR pay huge fines, pick one.
What are 26,000 Fiats going to do to CAFE numbers, really?

Besides pissing off 26,000 additional innocent customers, that is...
 
#390 ·
What are 26,000 Fiats going to do to CAFE numbers, really?
Agreed. I don't think that's why Fiat USA is kept around - if it were, then I'm sure there was a MUCH stronger case for keeping Dart/200, because they had to be having 10 times the positive impact to CAFE numbers that Fiat has.

My hope is that Fiat is being kept around because they're secretly developing a new Dino that they're going to spring on us and it's going to be awesome. Well, I don't really have any reason to expect that...but I can daydream.

In less than a week this thread has generated 20 pages of arguing over the same points that have been argued over for months now. At this point all that we can do is wait and see what FCA has planned.
I think it was a bad decision to delay a Dodge version of Giulia. The last estimate I heard from RRB was that it was looking like not until 2022 or 2023. That's a long time for the CDJR dealerships to go without a smaller sedan to sell.
 
#386 ·
I suspect the last is still somehow related to Alfa - we'll see how that plays out. As to the first 2 statements, Sergio also allowed the Dart and 200 to be developed and sold, but found that they were competing in a much tougher market than minivans or full size cars and the FCA products failed economically. It wasn't so much a lack of will as an attempt that failed. Could it have been fixed in the longer term? Perhaps, but to survive the next downturn, FCA needs to shore up the balance sheet and couldn't afford to keep hemoraging cash on those vehicles. That's the bottom line. Like it or not FCA is not strong enough yet to push through. They retreated to their areas of strength trucks, minivans, SUV/CUV and large cars.
I don’t deny Marchionne had his reasons for deciding as he did. The point I keep trying to make is that there are other perfectly valid reasons for keeping them.

My personal feeling is, had he been aware of those other perfectly valid reasons, I doubt he would have pulled the plug on those two cars. Or at the very least, he would have drawn a more business-savvy timeline and transition plan.

True, I don’t know for a fact whether he was aware of all the implications; I am simply going from being familiar with that other market information myself, from a tendency I see in Marchionne to ignore it, and a pattern I see in other —arguably more successful— automakers for not ignoring it. Ultimately, no automaker can remain successful over the long run, regardless of its short-term financial goals, if it keeps ignoring the laws of the market.

But we keep going around in circles...
 
#387 ·
I doubt there is profit.
There is. 500 is not an expensive car to make, even at low numbers in Saltillo, and MRSP is high for this model. Using the same price advertising rules as the US market (i.e., excluding sales taxes), the mechanically identical FIAT Panda sells for $9,000 in Europe as a 5-door; the basic 500 starts at $13,000 but almost no cars are sold without extras on the order. Panda is a profitable model at its price, and there is not $4,000 of additional content in the base 500 model. Even if you allow that the Tychy, Poland plant is much more efficient per vehicle (as it makes 400,000+ cars a year), there's still a lot of scope for discounting on 500 without losing money.

The only NAFTA capacity consumed by the FIAT brand is the line at Saltillo that was provisioned for 50,000 units per year, but which has probably been reduced down to 30,000 by now anyway. (For what it's worth, I believe 500 production will end at Saltillo as soon as that plant gets modernised, and 500 product for NAFTA will come from Poland thereafter). Everything else is overflow from profitable European-market plants.
 
#388 ·
Upgrade works on the plant that is manufacturing the Fiat Tipo / Egea / Dodge Neon were completed about mid 2017. Si now they have increased capacity, if I am not wrong, now the bottleneck is the paintshop.

Will Tofas be source of some additional models for U.S.A.?

note: Tofas is a joint venture between FCA and Koc Group.
FCA costs are shared with Koc Group.
From Tofas arrive also the Ram Promaster City, contract from 2014 to 2021, minimum 175k units.
 
#389 ·
But it does matter that Fiats are produced and sold globally. It exempts them from the capacity shuffle since the capacity they are using would otherwise just be excess and wasted the NA affected models (Dart and 200) were occupying a lot of capacity that could be re-purposed to build vehicles expected to have much better margin.
But it does matter. Just because the cars exist doesn’t mean there is zero certification costs to sell them in the US. Not to mention the corporate overhead for them, advertising, parts, warranty, etc. They are at best zero margin, likely quite a financial drain. Keep them where they sell well and save money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aldo90731
#399 ·
Perhaps, Valiant, but there is a need to sell the Fiat 500e in CA to be allowed to sell other cars there. Perhaps Pacifica Hybrid is replacing that need and I also believe there is a cost to stopping that vastly exceeds the cost to continuing at a small loss. This will be mostly from financial penalties in dealer agreements. There's a big difference between discontinuing models and brands. Especially when many of the dealers have standalone facilities that sell only that brand.
 
#391 · (Edited)
I used wrong term "principles", meaning was since the volume of a model is very low than drop that model in a geographic macro area.
The two Wrangler model example was since sales have been always low in Europe, but Wrangler has a marketing value. But for sure the cost associated to have a diesel engine inline with emission rules in European Union was for sure not low cost.
Also other models, always with their diesel engines, had very low registration numbers.

The KPMG study was to show that the most "penalized" market in the future, that is not so far for a manufacturer since cycle of life of a new model is not so short, will the the "sedans".
KPMG forecasts is that the number of manufacturers that will manufacture that "appliance sedans" will be few.
note: I wrote "appliance sedans" since are the generic sedans that are bought only because customer needs it for transportation, with very few or no emotional implication of the desire of owning such vehicle (= they drive because they have to, not because they like driving).

The other part that is also in KPMG study, or in others, is that automotive scenario will change since "new" markets will appear or increase greatly their volume of incomes.
Also actors of the next automotive market, better to say transportation market, will increase in number and will arrive from other industries.
In many situation actual automotive manufacturers will see at least a part of their business to shift from being end point to "private customers" (B2C) to a position of suppliers of other companies (B2B), a position that most manufacturer doesn't like at all (and that position that even be worst than the actual sales to "fleet" customers).

KPMG forecast the reduction of "sedans" volume from 5.4 to 2.1 million by 2030.

Some possible effects on "sedans" market volume reduction (each point could happen or not because other points):

- average price of sedans, without increase due to emissions and/or safety rules, will increase (amortization costs will be higher per unit)
- some actors (manufacturers) will leave the "sedans" market, the fewer bigger ones can maintain volumes and their actual structure of costs
- fewer manufacturers continue sedan production in their plants at actual volumes, other manufacturer sedans drop their production of sedans, but are supplied by other manufacturers
- no "traditional" manufacturer continue "sedans" production, very few suppliers start manufacturing "appliance sedans" for "traditional" automotive manufacturers and the companies that offer "transportation" services.
I hear you. And I don’t dispute KPMG’s findings. But KPMG is not an automaker.

In its simplest terms, the job of an automaker is to uncover consumers’ unmet needs and develop a vehicle that gives it to them.

Over the years I heard auto clients tell me things like “the 2-door coupe is dead”, “the minivan is dead”, “RWD is dead”, “the V8 engine is dead”, etc. And every time, KPMG, or some other prestigious consultancy, had a million-dollar study telling them they were right. Until some astute automaker would figure out what consumers really wanted, and seemingly come out of nowhere and give consumers precisely what they wanted.

The 2-door coupe was dead until Ford came up with the 2005 Mustang. That car was such a hit that it singlehandedly turned around those segment’s fortunes, forcing Dodge and Chevrolet to respond. Now even Toyota is looking to bring back the Supra, after having given up on coupes for decades.

The minivan has been given for dead since I can remember. I have to give credit to both Chrysler and Honda for sticking to it and trying real hard to figure out how to revive the category. It looks promising, but it is not out of the woods yet. Meanwhile, Toyota appears content letting Honda and Chrysler figure it out, and keeping its toes in the segment with Sienna.

The RWD non-luxury sedan was dead until Chrysler launched the 2005 300. That car launch singlehandedly TRIPLED purchase intentions for the entire Chrysler brand over a six month period. This accomplishment is simply unheard of in this business. Chrysler scored such a homerun, that both GM and Ford were forced to explore bringing back their own RWD sedans, and others like Acura and Nissan to pay attention. The wholeness of 300’s original design speaks for itself today by still selling in decent numbers despite the cold shoulder it continues to get from FCA.

The V8 engine has been written off too many times to count. More recently, positioning the 5.7 V8 as a HEMI was another marketing coup, and mating it to the Chrysler 300 —and later Dodge Charger and Challenger— was simply a stroke of brilliance.

In my opinion, the old Chrysler Corporation had a knack for pulling these unexpected tricks more regularly. But regardless, even if Marchionne didn’t want to spend his organization’s resources tied up uncovering sedan consumers’ unmet needs and wants, it should have stayed in the game until Toyota, Honda or GM did. Because that’s precisely what Toyota and Honda are doing right now, and is only a matter of time until someone does.

The problem for FCA is, once someone else figures out what sedan owners really want, they will reward that automaker just like they reward Chrysler with Pacifica and, still, with 300. But at that point, FCA will be late to the party by many years. Because even if it scrambles at the last minute to bring a foreign-made Fiat with a Chrysler grille, in the interim years it already lost HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of sedan owners who went to the competition, and don’t give a hoot anymore about Chrysler...or Dodge...or Fiat.
 
#398 ·
I hear you. And I don’t dispute KPMG’s findings. But KPMG is not an automaker.

In its simplest terms, the job of an automaker is to uncover consumers’ unmet needs and develop a vehicle that gives it to them.

Over the years I heard auto clients tell me things like “the 2-door coupe is dead”, “the minivan is dead”, “RWD is dead”, “the V8 engine is dead”, etc. And every time, KPMG, or some other prestigious consultancy, had a million-dollar study telling them they were right. Until some astute automaker would figure out what consumers really wanted, and seemingly come out of nowhere and give consumers precisely what they wanted.

The 2-door coupe was dead until Ford came up with the 2005 Mustang. That car was such a hit that it singlehandedly turned around those segment’s fortunes, forcing Dodge and Chevrolet to respond. Now even Toyota is looking to bring back the Supra, after having given up on coupes for decades.

The minivan has been given for dead since I can remember. I have to give credit to both Chrysler and Honda for sticking to it and trying real hard to figure out how to revive the category. It looks promising, but it is not out of the woods yet.

The RWD non-luxury sedan was dead until Chrysler launched the 2005 300. That car launch singlehandedly TRIPLED purchase intentions for the entire Chrysler brand over a six month period. This accomplishment is simply unheard of in this business. Chrysler scored such a homerun, that both GM and Ford were forced to explore bringing back their own RWD sedans, and had others like Acura and Nissan to pay attention. The wholeness of 300’s original design speaks for itself today by still selling in decent numbers despite the cold shoulder it continues to get from FCA.

The V8 engine has been written off too many times to count. More recently, positioning the 5.7 V8 as a HEMI was another marketing coup, and mating it to the Chrysler 300 —and later Dodge Charger and Challenger— was simply a stroke of brilliance.

In my opinion, the old Chrysler Corporation had a knack for pulling these unexpected tricks more regularly. But regardless, even if Marchionne didn’t want to spend his organization’s resources tied up uncovering sedan consumers’ unmet needs and wants, it should have stayed in the game until Toyota, Honda or GM did. Because that’s precisely what Toyota and Honda are doing right now, and is only a matter of time until someone does.

The problem for FCA is, once someone else figures out what sedan owners really want, they will reward that automaker just like they reward Chrysler with Pacifica and, still, with 300. But at that point, FCA will be late to the party by many years. Because even if it scrambles at the last minute to bring a foreign-made Fiat with a Chrysler grille, in the interim years it already lost HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of sedan owners who went to the competition, and don’t give a hoot anymore about Chrysler...or Dodge...or Fiat.
Most of the examples You made is about creating a distinctive value that the customer would want to pay for.
But that does not apply to a generic sedan, that I could name "appliance", whose main reason of purchase, for vast majority of customers of that kind of vehicles, is to have a transportation tool with low cost of maintenance and trouble free.

FCA is too small to compete in "appliances" in a market that is shrinking.
Had/has to invent something else.
 
G
#393 · (Edited)
I wonder what the profit margins are on the 500, 500L, 500X, and 124? It's odd how that never gets mentioned.

The Dart and 200 were complete and total money sucking leeches, but the Fiats always get a pass. The Dart and 200 were just more products in the lineup, but the Fiats had to have their own stand alone dealer network.

Now in fairness...you'd have to be able to actually sell them to find out, but I'm sure the numbers are super impressive.
Not just that -- but the Dart had international potential that was squandered. The Viaggio (Chinese Dodge Dart) sold better in China than the majority of the Fiat USA lineup...... And yet again, the Fiat models get a pass (and don't deserve it).

Fiat Viaggio China auto sales figures (at http://carsalesbase.com/china-car-sales-data/fiat/fiat-viaggio/ )

The Dart/Viaggio was a more viable product than a 500L and even probably the Spyder (even though that is one of the products I actually like).

What does the Fiat USA lineup do well at.
1) They sell way below sales forecasts.
2) Dealers need subsidized rents because they are losing so much money
3) The entire lineup are low-margin, low MSRP vehicles
4) They are nearly always dead last in all Quality and Reliability Ratings
5) Lose a ton of money on each car because of low residuals and the highest lease rate in the industry (hovering around 78% of all Fiats in the USA)

So what's the point? If profitability is their main focus -- then Fiat USA should have been retired 3 year ago.
 
#400 ·
Dodge Dart and international markets.

- Dodge Dart is a sedan too big for most international markets.
- In some international markets "sedans" are rare cars in manufacturers lineup.
- CUSW is too expensive for markets in which sedans have already a big market, even if shrinking also there.
 
#402 ·
The reason Fiat is kept around is the same reason why it was rushed to come back.....to keep a presence in the second largest auto market in the world.

Fiat today is a placeholder in the US until other things happen....net debt zero, merger/sale/acquisition, Alfa/Maserati volumes above a certain amount, Marchionne's promotion from CEO to oversight board.

Then, everyone will see the true purpose of keeping the money-losing Fiat around in NAFTA.
 
#405 ·
Once someone "reinvents" the sedan, everybody will see it as obvious.

But everyone will be late to the dance. FCA will not be invited.
 
#406 ·
It doesn't matter to me or 320 million other people if a car is available in Turkey. If it isn't available in the US, it's IRRELEVANT to us.
.
ahhhhhhhh Its relevant if it can fill the market hole that you are complain about, and who said its only available in Turkey, a version of it is available in Mexico now. It is completely relevant to fill the whole if they can profitably import model, in much the way they did the Colt and D50 in the past.
 
#411 ·
But they are NOT doing it, have not announced any plans to do so, and Mexico is NOT the US (yet). So it IS irrelevant, despite your expressed hopes for the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Judas Shuttlesworth
#407 ·
You guys are still missing the point.

Want to wind up FIAT in the USA? Go ahead. Just buy out the dealership contracts. Ow. That was expensive wasn't it? But wait, now you've still got to support 200,000+ owners until their cars eventually stop working. Now you'll discover that they days of the 5-year automobile are long gone. A new 500 should be good for 10-15 years unless they make the Mexican ones out of pig-iron and gum (spoiler: they don't).

So, your genius management has left you still paying 60-70% of the costs of actually running the FIAT brand in the USA without the benefit of, you know, actually selling any cars. Plus you leave FCA with nothing to offer the 40,000 people a year who actually liked the products. (Do not, for one minute, consider think that re-badging would work: who will associate Chrylser, known for spacious full-sizers and minivans, with micro-cars?).

FIAT sales are not lost sales for CJDR. FIAT is not costing money. Withdrawing the brand will cost money. This isn't like killing Plymouth, when it was a matter of shunting the existing models under other badges and hoping the customers followed (most did, some didn't); removing FIAT would drop those customers entirely - there's no alternative for them from FCA US.

For the thousandth time: Dart and 200 were not cancelled solely because they weren't selling well without incentives. (If the US car industry cancelled models just for needing big incentives to sell, you guys would all be doing a whole lot more cycling and walking). The two models were cancelled because having those two factories available allowed the group to make about a billion dollars of extra money, by allowing unbroken production of capacity-constrained high-margin and high-selling models as they moved to facilities that will allow FCA to make more of them.

If FCA wasn't so capacity-constrained in the first place, maybe it could have moved Dart/200 to a single, smaller facility doing about 120,000 a year combined, and let them sell at their natural, unaided level, but there was no such facility, and it's debatable if the cost of moving the tooling (and suppliers) would ever have paid itself back.
 
#424 ·
You guys are still missing the point.

Want to wind up FIAT in the USA? Go ahead. Just buy out the dealership contracts. Ow. That was expensive wasn't it? But wait, now you've still got to support 200,000+ owners until their cars eventually stop working. Now you'll discover that they days of the 5-year automobile are long gone. A new 500 should be good for 10-15 years unless they make the Mexican ones out of pig-iron and gum (spoiler: they don't).
They are paying the studios to stay in business. Perhaps a going out of business settlement won't be as large as you think and it eliminates FCA from subsidizing studios indefinitely.

GM continued to support their "orphan" brands like Pontiac, Hummer and Saturn at other dealerships. FCA could do the same with an orphaned (in the US) Fiat.

I think you underestimate the costs of Fiat staying in the US and overestimate the costs of leaving.
 
#409 ·
All 12,000 of them for this year. Yes, not many, but more than zero.
vs. about 1.8 million domestic FCA products. OK.....
 
#410 ·
Yes, I would buy from that company if they offered the product I wanted in the future. The Pacifica is all the proof I need that the company is capable of making compelling high quality products and I would have no concern buying from FCA if/when they introduce another product in a category that I am interested in. The vast majority of potential FCA customers have no idea that any of this was said.
Everyone I work with says that the 200 and Dart were discontinued because they were JUNK. They will not listen to any explanation. THAT'S the potential customer perception. And it's Sergio's fault.
 
#412 ·
That's the problem Dart and 200 likely lost money on each and every unit sold and had a huge multi billion investment to bring to market. Fiat needed only a fraction of a billion to bring existing global models to the US and even if they are losing more per Fiat sold, the very fact that they sell so few means the losses are far less.
HA HA HA> Losing less is still losing.

"That's the problem Dart and 200 likely lost money on each and every unit sold" - are you an insider? It's easy to claim that when we can't fact-check your speculation.
 
#414 ·
So they are better they Honda? Sure... that and they have published the saving by dropping the models. Before the market collapsed completely.

Your correct that this unproductive. Especially when One won’t acknowledge the market collapse.
 
#418 ·
I find this conversation fascinating.

It's one of those "what if" scenarios that EVERYONE has an opinion about, yet none of us will ever be proved right or wrong, at least for several years. I know some of the moderators would like to end this seemingly endless wrangle, but obviously people still want to talk about it, so I say, let them work it out of their systems. It will eventually die down, like all discussions do.

Maybe this thread should actually be pinned, so it's easily accessible to all? I find myself agreeing with both sides, depending on the argument. Personally, I agree that it is a mistake to leave the segment completely, especially so abruptly, yet I understand the reasons for doing so, financially, but question the reasons for doing so as a long term business decision, or as a customer who prefers cars over crossovers. I think many people here are as ambivalent as I am about the situation. What is FCA to us as customers? Certainly not 'mother mopar' anymore, also not 'fiat', but a new entity struggling to survive in an increasingly tough market world wide. Are they going to get it right every time, not very likely, but hopefully they can learn from past mistakes and satisfy both sides of the fence, financial and product.

SM reminds me a bit of President Trump, speak first, think second, and the consequences be darned. I don't know if they regret or even notice the backlash from their 'constituents', but the fact remains that if you piss your supporters off too much, they WILL go elsewhere. That is something to be aware of in any situation and I think this type of discussion is an avenue towards that point. The loyalists hate the new regime, the new acolytes think the king can do no wrong, and sooner or later some will leave the party and new ones will come to visit.

I don't see much I like, product wise, on the 'chrysler' side of the business lately, and what I like on the 'fiat' side is out of my price range, so where does that leave me? I really don't know yet, but I am prepared wait a little longer in hopes I will find something to purchase. I think a lot of people are feeling the same way, yet there are those who say," If you don't like what is available today go somewhere else, and good riddance", this is the NEW FCA. Anyways the next few years will be "interesting times" for the company, I look forward to watching the game!

Just my nickel's worth! (no pennies left in Canada! )
 
#419 ·
Jeep registrations/sales worldwide, first 10 months 2017.
World Best Selling Car. The Top 100 Models in the 2017 (at http://focus2move.com/world-best-selling-car/ )

Grand Cherokee 258.758 +11.8%
Renegade 235.359 +2.3% <-- Small
Cherokee 229.606 -24.6%
Compass 229.526 +93.9% <-- Small
Wrangler (2 models) 197.032 -1.8%

The Compass, my opinion, will be Jeep best seller next year when launch on international markets will be complete.
Since arrives after the Renegade should have, I hope, all the improvements made over time on Renegade, 500X and Toro and new solution to improve its performances in various sectors (durability, noise, assembly enhancement, safety, ...). The segment where it lands is bigger than the one of the Renegade.
For example engine mounts were updated in Jeep Renegade (but I don't remember when).

More vehicles built on Small go well, more the chance of something landing in U.S.A. market as passenger car (sedan, hatch or station wagon).
 
#423 ·
More vehicles built on Small go well, more the chance of something landing in U.S.A. market as passenger car (sedan, hatch or station wagon).
IMO, when 500 and Journey leave Toluca there is a high possibility of another Small Wide car from there.

And I'm still with conclusion that 7 seat CUSW car as a replacement for Journey is a mistake. Who builds cars around naturally aspirated V6? That's thing of the past.
 
#425 ·
We owned a Camry for 14 years. We've owned a 200 for nearly 6 years. NO COMPARISON.
The Camry was a wallowy, poor-handling sofa on wheels with a bad interior - thin cloth exactly like my dad's 1966 Chevy Biscayne, that wore a hole through. Totally unexciting. The 200 interior is fantastic, has the best ergonomics of any car I've every driven, at 60K miles is still tight, quiet, rides and handles great, has tons of what I consider luxuries as standard equipment. Even before the 2015, the car was definitely far above a Camry. But FCA's reputatiion for poor quality in the past, and the unresponsive dealers are the two biggest issues. And still are.
I absolutely agree the 200 is a better car...I had one as a loaner a few years back and in terms of feeling like a substantial vehicle, it was head and shoulders above anything from Toyhonsan. Japanese cars always seem to have a very fragile, lightweight and just tinny feel to them, like if you are in anyway careless or rough they'll fall apart. But that wasn't my point. The 200 is a fwd midsize sedan. As a whole, this class is VERY homogenous and the clear cut priority there is cheap reliable transportation for 4-5 people. Not handling, not performance, not utility, or anything else. Outside of a cheaper price or preference in styling, theres no compelling reason really to pick one over the other.

A rwd midsizer that's actually enjoyable to wring out on the twisties and stands out visually against all the beigemobiles on your block is a reason to seek it out. Infiniti's G series, BMW's 4 series etc sell at a premium and have that desireability for the same reasons. Dodge and even Chrysler can cash in on that with a rwd midizer the same way the LX cars have. Basically a car for someone who would buy an LX but is a bit put off by the larger size.
 
#427 ·
I absolutely agree the 200 is a better car...I had one as a loaner a few years back and in terms of feeling like a substantial vehicle, it was head and shoulders above anything from Toyhonsan. Japanese cars always seem to have a very fragile, lightweight and just tinny feel to them, like if you are in anyway careless or rough they'll fall apart. But that wasn't my point. The 200 is a fwd midsize sedan. As a whole, this class is VERY homogenous and the clear cut priority there is cheap reliable transportation for 4-5 people. Not handling, not performance, not utility, or anything else. Outside of a cheaper price or preference in styling, theres no compelling reason really to pick one over the other.
I agree there was nothing seriously wrong with 200.

Yes, the 2.4L wasn’t the best, and the rear seat was a little cramped. But the 200 V6 was an enjoyable, thoroughly modern car with a stunning interior. Especially in S trim.

It was going to take years to retrain the average shopper to think of Chrysler as a place to go look at a midsize sedan. But alas...
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top