Discussion in 'Rumors and General Chrysler Discussion' started by NWbyNW, Nov 1, 2019.
Please.........not another swoopy sedan that looks like all the others.
IMO this is one of the best looking cars to come out of Chrysler. They should use it for inspiration on a future sedan.
Yup. But it's not as swoopy as many. Notice that the rear door is large and the roof does not fall off too early! It was darned near impossible to clean the insides of the front and rear windows but there was plenty of headroom. A very efficient design for space.
Oh no. That rear roofline, trunk shape, and overhang is horrible. Would not translate well to a new vehicle.
Isn't the slippery coupe-sedan styling overdone at this point? It's time for a new styling direction, I'm not saying clone this design.
I think that new styling direction should be lifted sportback sedans. Sloped hatchback like on the Stinger and A5 Sportback but with slightly higher ground clearance than a traditional sedan.
Don't think either of these have the hatchback, but they are taller than a normal sedan.
Basically instead of trying to make an SUV look more like a sedan (GLC Coupe, X4, etc), give a sedan the more functional components of an SUV (more cargo room, AWD, higher ground clearance).
The old design language used on sedans with very pronounced trunks is a bit played out. Does not look modern at all and I doubt would attract very many buyers.
Dodge had a concept car like that before, the Avenger from 2003.
Except for rear seat headroom. If that's not an issue, it's the right car, and I agree. If it is an issue, Chrysler failed, and I disagree they got it right. It's a good, maybe not great car, but it has that one potential friction point.
The 200 was a good car, except getting in and out was a pain. Once you were in, room was OK. They prioritized sporty design over functionality.
It was a mid-sized car. If everything was increased proportionally it would be a much-better-looking version of the design presented above to which I was responding. Such an increase in overall size would increase rear headroom.
Furthermore, most people who buy mid-sized sedans aren't stuffing tall adults in the rear seat on a regular occurrence...
I've sat in the rear of 200 and had no issues with head room; I'm 5'11". I noticed more of an issue with knee/leg room than anything, but again, it's a smaller car. I have no issues in the rear of our Charger which has a similarly aggressive roofline to the 200.
If you want functionality above all else, you're not really going to be in the market for a sedan. People who design sedans would be silly to cater to you're preferences. You're a CUV buyer. CUVs are the modern station wagons. That's what you want... Asking sedan designers to cater to you is just a dangerous as asking Wrangler designers to cater to soccer moms and urbanites...
I have to disagree with you on this one. That thinking is killing the sedan market. Not everyone looking for comfortable transportation wants a CUV/Wagon
My Sons 6'3" and their wives 5'10" often sit in the back of our car. We recently were in the market for a sedan, and the back seat room is very important to us.
This thinking that ease of entry and exit and rear seat passenger room don’t matter is exactly what killed the sedan market.
What's old is new again.
Or try those that have children that cannot afford a minivan or SUV/CUV. Back in the day (early '90's) we wanted to purchase a minivan, but simply put I could not afford the payments (even with the discounts/rebates at the time). But we could afford a nice 4 door sedan. Ended up purchasing a '92 Acclaim which had a good sized trunk with an easily accessible and roomy back seat. The Acclaim lasted 302K miles and 11 years (heater core blew).
I liked the 200, but I did not care for the sloping back side. Could not convince my wife to even look at one.
You have options. The 200 - a MID-SIZED SEDAN - is probably not one of them. A 300 - a larger car - has more of the room you seek. (And so would a 200 that was made larger...)
Also, your one specific example is not indicative of the market at large. If I could have my way I'd have a '69 Road Runner with the powertrain from a Hellcat Challenger (6-speed), the suspension from the Viper, and the interior from a Ram Limited, but that car doesn't exist and Chrysler would be stupid to build it...
The 200 was a midsized car. It was not meant to transport a family of larger/taller people regularly. No midsized cars are. Some MAY BE ABLE TO, but those are exceptions. Larger cars exist for people who need room. 300, for example, is considerably larger in the rear seat... The post I am responding to presented a car more similar to 200 than to the current 300, but with a WORSE rear end design. If you'd pay attention and not worry so much about being "right" or "smarter", you'd see we're closer to agreeing than disagreeing on the design elements being discussed... Furthermore, a hypothetically larger 200 would solve many of the actual 200's issues due to the increase in size, so again, we agree more than we disagree...
Rear seat headroom hasn't killed the sedan market, what's killed that is the return of the station wagon in a much more appealing package - it's called a CUV these days - and improvements in trucks. There's also fewer trade-offs now, especially with CUVs; fuel economy is roughly the same, they drive roughly the same on the highway, they aren't too much larger, etc... Trucks are bit a larger, but most new trucks drive as well as or better than large sedans from 20 years ago.
- - -
Furthermore, these excuses about not being able to afford a larger car are simply that - excuses. The prices for comparably equipped CUVs and sedans are roughly the same. If you can afford one, you can afford the other. Same for minivans... Now, I'm not going to sit here and say that these cars aren't all getting harder to afford, but that is another issue.
But beyond that aspect (in the increasing costs), those of you claiming that the costs for one type far exceed the other simply aren't dealing with reality. For comparable equipment and features, you pay comparable costs. And if you can afford one, you can afford the other. If you cannot afford either, the used car market has you covered, and again, you'll be able to find larger cars.
These are all things that need to be considered before having children and furthermore need to be considered when aligning yourself with a political agenda and/or set of beliefs. Part of the reason such things as the transportation of children are so much of a concern and stressor these days is because it is no longer socially acceptable to place children in a seat without an over-sized child seat around. Nor is it acceptable to pile 4 or 5 children into the back seat of a car, let alone the cargo area... Furthermore, to maintain interior volumes but keep increasing "safety" even more, cars are growing larger... Most people don't perceive size in terms of interior volume, and so many end up looking at the wrong vehicle because they compare the outer dimensions first and end up down-sizing themselves.
I also believe that automakers tend to make more profit in utility vehicles then cars, which is most likely the main reason for the sedan's demise. And as someone who is 6'4" which typically is considered tall, there is no car that I would buy today. Because as I age, now at 60, a utility vehicle is much easier to get in and out of. I'm not anti sedan, they just don't fit my needs like a truck or CUV does. That's why I haven't owned a car since 1985.
Oh, and that car was an 85 Aries wagon. I was 25 we had one child at the time, it was ice blue and I thought we were lucky to have such a nice car, bench seat and all. Lol
My Dart is very easy to get into and out of, front and back, and it's supposedly smaller than the 200 was, so midsized sedans can be quite large inside and carry five tall people. (The Dart also has good leg room. It's really really close to being midsized. Trunk is large, too.)
It's hard to believe on the inside that the 300C is two size classes bigger than the Dart, except maybe for width.
I once fit three car seats in the back seat of a PT Cruiser. There was a space efficient car! Really liked that thing, kinda wish I'd kept it, other than mileage.
Politics may have been one of the factors in a decision to manufacture an SUV/CUV, but it certainly is not a factor in the resulting success. In my case, when I replaced my Dodge Stratus with a PT Cruiser, I did so because I got a good deal on it and liked it. My wife had a Concorde at the time. After having my PT for a few months, my wife told me that her next car is going to have a hatch and be like the PT because she loved not having a trunk to to the ease of loading shopping bags, etc., and she also loved the seating position much more than her Concorde or my Stratus. So she ended up with a PT Cruiser, and to this day we both still have them. My daughter had a Neon at the time and graduated to a PT Cruiser of her own. None of these purchase decisions were forced on us, nor were we being puppets. We found we greatly preferred everything about the CUV.