[Allpar News System]

Four Dodge and Chrysler vehicles earned “Best 2013 Total Quality” honors in Strategic Vision’s annual Total Quality Index (TQI): Dodge Dart, Dodge Durango, Chrysler Town & Country, and Chrysler 200 Convertible. The awards are based on input from 17,568 vehicle owners; Strategic Vision measures “Total Quality” by weighing over 440 variables including reliability, driving excitement, emotional attachment, and overall sales and service satisfaction. Toyota captured two first place awards, one shared with Volkswagen (“entry utility”). Honda only nabbed one, for “mid-size multi-function.” GM garnered the most first place awards, with six entries (Corvette, Volt, Corvette Convertible, Traverse, Yukon, and Avalanche); Ford gained just two, for Fusion and F250/F350. The top rated vehicle in the study this year was the Corvette Convertible, with a score of 959. Overall company scores seemed unrelated to individual product wins.

View the original, full post

 

[JRS200x]

I might get flak for this, but any time the Chrysler 200 Convertible wins an award, especially for Total Quality, I can't take any of the other awards seriously.

 

[Dave Z]

Convertibles are not, as a whole, the most pleasing cars by normal standards; they are heavy which usually means lower performance, the chassis is usually floppy, etc. 200 is likely a standout in the category as Sebring Convertible used to be, and it's not what it was four years ago.

Not that I've been in one since the redesign -- the press fleet hasn't had them, I think we can't be trusted with them. Or maybe it's because "I" broke the Sebring Convertible ... actually the top and wind break both self-destructed on me. This is one reason I wish they'd stayed with ASC.

 

[JRS200x]

No no.. they Sebring Convertible of old, back when the entire car was good looking was a great car. The new one is garbage. The top is slowwwww and extremely heavy, the chassis feels terrible (you can just feel it twist) and it is a reliability nightmare. I loved the old Sebring convertibles (up through 2006), but the new one... It is the worst car that Chrysler makes, by a LONG shot.

 

[JoshMHam]

No no.. they Sebring Convertible of old, back when the entire car was good looking was a great car. The new one is garbage. The top is slowwwww and extremely heavy, the chassis feels terrible (you can just feel it twist) and it is a reliability nightmare. I loved the old Sebring convertibles (up through 2006), but the new one... It is the worst car that Chrysler makes, by a LONG shot.

Remember, these awards aren't on an absolute scale. This doesn't say anything about it being a great car, just that it is better than the other sub-30K convertibles.

 

[bumonbox]

Remember, these awards aren't on an absolute scale. This doesn't say anything about it being a great car, just that it is better than the other sub-30K convertibles.

I wonder if it is more specific - sub 30k 4 seat convertibles. I mean what else is there? A mustang convertible? Eclipse convertable, then you've got Miata, Mini, Smart, and heck the 500 and Wrangler counts I suppose. The vast majority of these entries are pretty cramped, and unusable especially with the drop top. When you get down to it, the 200 is probably the best blend out of those option.

But, you are right. Out of all the things the reworked, it sure seems like the left the Convertible issues alone. It seems likely it's not long for this world. There seems to be no rumor of a convertible joining the upcoming 200 sedan. It's a niche vehicle anyways. Guess we'll see what happens.
Either way, I don't think the award is that far fetched, as Dave said - there isn't much to chose from. The market was seemingly much more competitive around 2000

 

[Dave Z]

The segment average score was 899 and the 200 Convertible was at 917. It included all but “premium” convertibles so the Corvette won against Mercedes etc. I believe Mustang would be included with 200. I don't think they'd put Wrangler there but who knows? Wrangler would most likely have been "mid size traditional utility" which was won by Durango (you might think it's large but be glad it's not, since then Yukon would have beaten it; ditto near luxury because Buick Enclave would have trounced it.)

Convertibles: 200 = 917, Corvette = 959, Boxter (“tied” with Corvette) 957
Utes: Tiguan 885, FJ 883, Traverse 900, Durango 771, Yukon 893, Enclave 928, Cayenne 948

Of note, the “standard” pickup Tacoma (847) was trounced by Avalanche (896) which edged out F-250/F-350 (892).

Dart's score was 884 which easily beat Kia Soul (small CUV) at 868.

Town & Country was top minivan but its score was just 850.

Overall you can see how Chrysler didn't come close to the top in the manufacturer run, it won in segments where the overall score was low. BTW Honda's only win came from an odd category, "mid-size multi-function."

 

[Roy Thigpen]

The important thing here is the win on the part of the Dart. It beat out the Corolla, the Fiesta, the Spark and Sonic, as well as the 500. This is a ultra-competitive segment, and the fact that the Dart won is a big win.

The other vehicles, honestly, are in categories without much competition, so not as excited.

 

[Dave Z]

That is my perception as well. Still impressive to capture four wins!

Seems like Dart owners are like 1980s VW owners, either very happy or very unhappy...

 

[saltydog]

The Convertible is not that bad guys! It is such a solid car compaired to the 1 and 2 gens that have body flex issues, it also gobs quiter. But the top can have issues, but seem to have imporved over the years(my 2008 had no isses, as did my 2002 had no issues) but some did expreince with the new(2008+) setup, mostly leaving stuff in the trey and trying to open the top, once the rail's get bent, it's downward slop and nothing but issues. Chrysler did some updates around 2010 they changed from one touch down, to must hold till the top is done and they changed trey so that it was less prone to brakeage.

Though for style, it would have to be the 2001 - 2003 just classy! An the one with the Navy Blue top! wow.... :thumbsup:

 

[JRS200x]

Oh please... the first 2-3 years (so 2007-2009) of the Sebring Convertible there were huge problems with the top and the mechanism. We had a ridiculous number of them coming in to the shop on flat beds with their tops stuck in the partially open/closed position looking like giant sails. There were a warranty and reliability nightmare and complete garbage compared to the Sebring convertibles from before then.

They have finally fixed the mechanism more recently, but it is still the slowest operating convertible top on the market as I recall ESPECIALLY the hard top.

 

[bumonbox]

Oh please... the first 2-3 years (so 2007-2009) of the Sebring Convertible there were huge problems with the top and the mechanism. We had a ridiculous number of them coming in to the shop on flat beds with their tops stuck in the partially open/closed position looking like giant sails. There were a warranty and reliability nightmare and complete garbage compared to the Sebring convertibles from before then.

They have finally fixed the mechanism more recently, but it is still the slowest operating convertible top on the market as I recall ESPECIALLY the hard top.

If that was directed at us, I think you are missing the point. I never said the 200 Convertible was a good car. Not even slightly. All I am saying is that there is very little that competes with it, and most of what does compete is particularly impracticable. If you really wanted a sub 30k convertible, what would you buy? After looking at the options, it'd probably have to be a 200 convertible. (Of course, I am not personally in the market for a convertible.)

 

[Jeff2KPatriotBlue]

That is my perception as well. Still impressive to capture four wins!

Seems like Dart owners are like 1980s VW owners, either very happy or very unhappy...

I think a lot if the time people who are unhappy with a car simply bought the wrong one.

 

[saltydog]

They have finally fixed the mechanism more recently, but it is still the slowest operating convertible top on the market as I recall ESPECIALLY the hard top.

Does not seem any slower then my coworker's BMW convertibe(to which has had issues)

As with any thing mechanical, there will be chance of failure and with it's added complexity there is even a greater chance. However just look at most convertibles on the market, they all seem to have the need to flold into the trunk and have become more complex. Mustange is the only one that is still simple, even the Comaro is rather complex. I guess it the way of future.

 

[UN4GTBL]

I think a lot if the time people who are unhappy with a car simply bought the wrong one.

Agreed 100%

There was a user on the Dart forums that decided after the fact that he didn't like his Dart SE. He then proceeded to go off on how terrible the Dart was. I bet that had he bought a better equipped Dart he would have enjoyed it more.

 

[unverferth]

No no.. they Sebring Convertible of old, back when the entire car was good looking was a great car. The new one is garbage. The top is slowwwww and extremely heavy, the chassis feels terrible (you can just feel it twist) and it is a reliability nightmare. I loved the old Sebring convertibles (up through 2006), but the new one... It is the worst car that Chrysler makes, by a LONG shot.

Chrysler didn't even show one at NAIAS. (at least I didn't see one)

 

[UN4GTBL]

Chrysler didn't even show one at NAIAS. (at least I didn't see one)

I know that there was a 200 S at the Toronto show, but I don't remember about NAIAS

 

[Jeff2KPatriotBlue]

Agreed 100%

There was a user on the Dart forums that decided after the fact that he didn't like his Dart SE. He then proceeded to go off on how terrible the Dart was. I bet that had he bought a better equipped Dart he would have enjoyed it more.

Equipment is one thing... others include "too small for my family", "won't fit my drum kit", "payments mean that I can't eat out as much as I would like to", etc....

 

[UN4GTBL]

Equipment is one thing... others include "too small for my family", "won't fit my drum kit", "payments mean that I can't eat out as much as I would like to", etc....

Yes, for sure!

 

[Bajanbuoy]

Equipment is one thing... others include "too small for my family", "won't fit my drum kit", "payments mean that I can't eat out as much as I would like to", etc....

.... "it can't tow my boat, it doesn't fit 36's, and it can't fly... what a POS"...

Haha,.. I think that comes from not being prepared when shopping for a car, and by not having a list of must-haves which include space, performance, price and amenities, one can end up being disappointed when the excitement of a new car wears off and the things that you needed it to do are not available...

Bad owner, not bad car,... IJS.