Allpar Forums banner
21 - 40 of 48 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
CarsandGuitars said:
The anti Chrysler propaganda machine is at it again. Gotta make sure the banks and consumers lose confidence in Chrysler or those with vested interests in the Koreans, Japanese, and Germans will actually have to play by the rules.
Annnndddd, don't forget our friends at GM--since at least the early 1930s up through the present they have engaged in smearing Chrysler and other slimy tactics with the thought that Chrylser conquest customers---however they are gained--- are the easiest way to gain or maintain or avoid losing too much---market share.
 

·
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!
Joined
·
8,808 Posts
I never got into using Yahoo too much, their "index" method only worked when the Internet had about sixty sites, and their news page was neutered when they tried to emulate everyone else.

I still miss Digital's Alta Vista search engine "project". They ran it as a research project for a very long time, and one could use Boolean operators to create conditional searches that even Google has never matched. Unfortunately once it got popular it got mainstreamed and then bought out and then killed off...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,231 Posts
Yeah, the comments were actually a refreshing read:

""The backseat and trunk are tiny". not true, what a load of #$%$. ive had sex in that car many times;)"

Haha, yes, a lot of folks are happy with their Avengers. :D
 

·
Say no to kool-aid
Joined
·
3,922 Posts
Calling the Avenger not hugely competitive is one thing, but worst in class?
But as everyone else has said, this is a brainless idiot parroting brainless popular opinion. The 200 and Avenger are more visible than a car that is deserving of the title.

Mitsubishi Galant. Now, in all fairness, the car has received practically nothing for quite some time. But it is still on the market. You can have only the 4 cylinder with only a 4 spd. MPG of 30. It is old, and it shows. It is absolutely TROUNCED in every way by the 200 and Avenger, and it is more expensive prerebate.

If you want to run useless garbage like "worst car" then at least try. But then again, it's wasted space. The Galant's lack of sales reflects it's state on it's own. You'd have to actually try to get to one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Aldo said:
Let's face it: automotive writers and publications are in the business of picking winners and losers, and a Chrysler vehicle at the bottom of the rankings is almost a cliché. This lack of general respect for Chrysler leaves its products exposed to getting bashed by "media" outlets looking for attention.

I'd argue Avenger is no worse than Corolla, yet the media always finds something redeeming to say about a Toyota, no matter how crummy it may be. Well-established consumer trust helps Toyota shield its products from most criticism.

Until Chrysler earns a basic level of consumer trust, its products will be easy pickings for any publication --including Consumer Reports-- looking to drive the number of clicks up.
This just isn't true. Yahoo went through each segment and there was only ONE Chrysler product (Avenger/200) listed. There were more listed for Ford, Toyota, Honda, and Mitsubishi. In fact, if you look at the slide for the compact sedan segment (the Mitsubishi Lancer), the Corolla is referred to as 'crummy'.

What is this mysterious grudge some of you seem to think the media has against Chrysler? As far as I can tell, it doesn't exist. And if it did, it certainly isn't prevalent in this article.

I don't even disagree with the pick of the Avenger as the worst in the mid-size segment. Yes, the V6 is fun to drive, but a base 4-speed offering is absolutely ridiculous in 2013. The interior is not up to par with the likes of the Fusion, Accord, or Altima. Set aside the power the Pentastar offers and the ride is sub-par. The front-end styling is in desperate need of an overhaul. A replacement cannot come soon enough.
 

·
Say no to kool-aid
Joined
·
3,922 Posts
cstarace said:
This just isn't true. Yahoo went through each segment and there was only ONE Chrysler product (Avenger/200) listed. There were more listed for Ford, Toyota, Honda, and Mitsubishi. In fact, if you look at the slide for the compact sedan segment (the Mitsubishi Lancer), the Corolla is referred to as 'crummy'.

What is this mysterious grudge some of you seem to think the media has against Chrysler? As far as I can tell, it doesn't exist. And if it did, it certainly isn't prevalent in this article.

I don't even disagree with the pick of the Avenger as the worst in the mid-size segment. Yes, the V6 is fun to drive, but a base 4-speed offering is absolutely ridiculous in 2013. The interior is not up to par with the likes of the Fusion, Accord, or Altima. Set aside the power the Pentastar offers and the ride is sub-par. The front-end styling is in desperate need of an overhaul. A replacement cannot come soon enough.
Tripe sir. That is tripe. The metric is not the least of the offerings that come to mind, but the least of the offerings in that segment. Per my post above, the Mitsubishi Galant is absolutely put to shame by the Avenger and 200. It offers only the 4 cylinder 4 spd combo with 30 MPG tops. it ain't quick, and it's dated as heck.

The article is a half assed article that simply reflects popular critic opinion. It took my less than a minute to drum up the Galant. This idiot writer has this for a job and couldn't do it.

Most people here acknowledge that the Avenger and 200 are far from top of their class. But they are a great value, and in packaged with the right things are actually quite good (The V6 is class leading). Since there is a worse vehicle, it is false to label them as worst. And given the offerings they are a decent deal. More over, putting aside the powertrain, many of the completes are just not valid. Cargo space for instance, is not "bad".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
The Galant is so invisible that I was unaware it was even still in production. I highly doubt that any of the 'critics' believe that the Galant is an acceptable offering. The thing is so irrelevant that it wouldn't have garnered enough attention from the viewership. And, sure, that's not good journalism, but it isn't evidence of a coordinated media assault against Chrysler, either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
694 Posts
cstarace said:
This just isn't true. Yahoo went through each segment and there was only ONE Chrysler product (Avenger/200) listed. There were more listed for Ford, Toyota, Honda, and Mitsubishi. In fact, if you look at the slide for the compact sedan segment (the Mitsubishi Lancer), the Corolla is referred to as 'crummy'.

What is this mysterious grudge some of you seem to think the media has against Chrysler? As far as I can tell, it doesn't exist. And if it did, it certainly isn't prevalent in this article.

I don't even disagree with the pick of the Avenger as the worst in the mid-size segment. Yes, the V6 is fun to drive, but a base 4-speed offering is absolutely ridiculous in 2013. The interior is not up to par with the likes of the Fusion, Accord, or Altima. Set aside the power the Pentastar offers and the ride is sub-par. The front-end styling is in desperate need of an overhaul. A replacement cannot come soon enough.
Completely agree. I really don't understand why people are standing up for the Avenger, the columnist was correct- drive a Fusion then drive an Avenger and you will laugh. I have plenty of both in my fleet, and the Avenger is not nearly on the same level.

But I also agree, the Gallant is pathetic as well.
 

·
Vaguely badass...
Joined
·
43,887 Posts
cstarace said:
The Galant is so invisible that I was unaware it was even still in production.
It's not. Galant production ended in July of 2012.

Based upon that, I would read any 2013-published article that makes reference to the Galant with some trepidation, as the author may not have bothered to even look to see if the car was even still in production.

Slamming the base Avenger for having a 4-speed seems silly to me, when you consider that Toyota sells hundreds of thousands of Corollas equipped with 4-speed automatics - the 2013 Corolla was so equipped. Must not be so bad, right? (Then again, consumers are constantly told that 6>4, and now 9>6, so who's to blame, really?)

The Avenger is serving a purpose - it's a low-cost model that serves the fleet sale community as well as the less-than-perfect credit community. Put that avenger up against smaller/cheaper cars from a value preposition - it excels there in many respects - most especially in the "I'm getting more car for the same money" respect.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,813 Posts
bumonbox said:
Tripe sir. That is tripe. The metric is not the least of the offerings that come to mind, but the least of the offerings in that segment. Per my post above, the Mitsubishi Galant is absolutely put to shame by the Avenger and 200. It offers only the 4 cylinder 4 spd combo with 30 MPG tops. it ain't quick, and it's dated as heck.
The 4 cylinder Avenger is nowhere near quick, only gets 31mpg TOPS, and has terrible NVH. It is not a good vehicle, and in reality probably is as near the bottom of the segment if not the bottom. The quicker the 200/Avenger get replaced, the better, they sell because of price, not because of how nice they are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Stratuscaster said:
It's not. Galant production ended in July of 2012.

Based upon that, I would read any 2013-published article that makes reference to the Galant with some trepidation, as the author may not have bothered to even look to see if the car was even still in production.

Slamming the base Avenger for having a 4-speed seems silly to me, when you consider that Toyota sells hundreds of thousands of Corollas equipped with 4-speed automatics - the 2013 Corolla was so equipped. Must not be so bad, right? (Then again, consumers are constantly told that 6>4, and now 9>6, so who's to blame, really?)

The Avenger is serving a purpose - it's a low-cost model that serves the fleet sale community as well as the less-than-perfect credit community. Put that avenger up against smaller/cheaper cars from a value preposition - it excels there in many respects - most especially in the "I'm getting more car for the same money" respect.
Well then, the Galant was rightfully not mentioned in the article as it wasn't eligible.

I slam the Corolla/Toyota for the same purpose. The Avenger is an infinitely better car than the Corolla. But the 4-speed on the Avenger is still a problem. Merely because the Corolla is a good selling car doesn't mean it is exempt from criticism. It's a well known nameplate and that's why its sales have remained so high despite its shortcomings Any 4-speed on a new car in 2013 is unacceptable.

I don't disagree that the Avenger is a decent value. But Chrysler should strive for more than that, and there are MANY areas where they can improve. It just isn't a good enough car to put up against the likes of the Fusion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
JRS200x said:
The Corolla is cheap, and very reliable transportation. Not many are buying the Corolla because they love it so much, and those buying it could care less about the 4 speed transmission.
Yes, but if you're an automotive journalist, you need to compare the cars objectively based upon how much car/how many features the consumer is getting for their money. Not from the mindset of the average Corolla buyer. Based upon the former criteria, the Corolla isn't even a contender. I just bought a brand-new compact car a week ago. The Corolla didn't even cross my mind as an option because I know how severely dated it is compared to its competition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
694 Posts
Stratuscaster said:
The Avenger is serving a purpose - it's a low-cost model that serves the fleet sale community as well as the less-than-perfect credit community. Put that avenger up against smaller/cheaper cars from a value preposition - it excels there in many respects - most especially in the "I'm getting more car for the same money" respect.
And this is exactly what Chrysler has been trying to get away from (GM & Ford as well) - fleet sales, and bland blah cars. There's no denying the update in 2011 was much better than the previous version, but its still not a great car. Its a very basic, cheap feeling/riding, car in a class where people demand a much nicer overall car for their money.
 

·
Vaguely badass...
Joined
·
43,887 Posts
It's also a 5-year-old car with a 2-year-old refresh, based on an even older design, against cars that have all been redesigned in that same 5-year period.

I will not deny there are better vehicles in the mid-size class today.

Now, put your consumer hat on. Tell me which other mid-size vehicle can provide the same level of VALUE the Avenger can?

Consider our forum member, Powered Toast Man. He just picked up a decently equipped Avenger with the 3.6L engine and Rallye package and got out the door for ~$21K. Is there another mid-size car that would fit that bill and that price? And if so, would PTM have even LIKED the car anyway? We can't say, because we aren't him.

Yes, there are those that feel fleet sales are a bad thing. They can be, if they are mismanaged. Properly managed, it can be a profitable business.

I read a good number of articles and reviews from critics and journalists. Ultimately, the decision is mine, and even if every review is glowing and praise-filled, I'm still going to go put my own butt in the seat and judge it for myself by my own needs and wants. Some guy writing web articles for Yahoo doesn't know what mine requirements are.
 
21 - 40 of 48 Posts
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