MM Review: 2015 Chrysler 200C
06-18-14, 06:17 PM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
MM Review: 2015 Chrysler 200C
A Condensed Review of the all-new 2015 Chrysler 200.
http://www.chrysler.com/en/200/
IN A NUTSHELL: Excellent value for the money, and say good-bye to the old rental-car 200/Sebring. But the popular convertible is gone.
CLOSEST AMERICAN-MARKET COMPETITORS: Buick Verano/Regal, Acura TL/TSX, Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Nissan Altima/Maxima, Ford Fusion, Mazda6, Audi A4, Chevrolet Malibu, and VW Passat.
(The 200, though, seems to be an odd size and price-range that fits in between some of these competitors in size and undercuts a number of them in price)
;
OVERVIEW:
Ah, yes, the mid-sized Chryslers and Dodges. The auto press and enthusiasts loved to beat up on them. The rental-car companies loved them, period. They were designed on a budget, built on a budget, sold on a budget, rented on a budget, and it showed. They drove on a budget, rattled/squeaked on a budget, flaked-off their paint on a budget, and were in and out of the repair shop. I owned a couple of them myself in the early 1980s, and they, along with equally shoddy vehicles from GM, finally got me into the Japanese cars which I had restated for some time.
To be fair, they did improve somewhat after the K-car-based junk (for lack of a better term) that rolled off the assembly lines in the 1980s. The Chrysler LeBaron became the Cirrus and Sebring. Fuel-injection replaced the balky electronic carburetors. The structures/platforms became stiffer, with fewer squeaks and rattles. Despite their bargain prices, I still found them rather unimpressive in fit/finish, interiors, and overall refinement compared to their competitors, but that was also true, to some extent, of their GM competition as well. Only recently, after the reorganizations/buyouts, have we really begun to see truly major strides forward in quality and design from both corporations.
One version of the older models, however, did seem to really earn its keep (apart from rental companies)...and that was the popular Sebring/200 convertible. For years, it was the only low-to-moderately priced convertible available in the U.S. that had enough room in the rear seat for at least two moderate-sized adults. Convertibles, especially soft-top models, because of the room needed next to and behind the rear seat for the top-folding hinges and fold-up compartment, tend to severely compromise rear-seat room compared to sedans and coupes, and it is difficult to combine the top-fold mechanism with four doors....one reason why we haven't seen a four-door convertible here in the U.S. since the big 1960s vintage Lincoln Continental. The Sebring/200 convertibles had at least SOME room in the rear seat for small or moderately-sized adults....and a reasonable price to boot, though the budget-construction showed in other ways. Sure, you had the V6 Mustang and Camaro/Firebird convertibles on the market, too, which were also reasonably-priced, but, their pony car design made the convertible rear seat too tight for anybody taller than Munchkins. The Chrysler convertible, at least, solved that one problem. A moderately-priced, mid-sized, Pontiac G6 convertible (also rather unimpressive in the quality department) was offered for a few years as competition to the Sebring convertible, but, of course, went down with Pontiac's ship after the GM reorganization. So now, for 2015, we have an all-new 200,this time with Fiat input......the former 200 having been renamed from the Sebring a few years ago.
According to documents, when Sergio Marchionne became CEO of both Fiat and Chrysler several years ago, he personally inspected all of the Chrysler products then on the market, called his managers together, and said "We've got to do better than this. No wonder this company was in trouble. We can, and we WILL start building better vehicles." He was true to his word. When the CEO says jump, with their jobs on the line, people usually listen. And better vehicles DID start rolling out of Dodge/Jeep/Chrysler plants, though not all of their former reliability problems have been totally licked yet, especially on the Jeep Grand Cherokee.
For 2015, the totally-redesigned 200 comes in only one body style, a four-door sedan. Unfortunately, the nice convertible has been dropped...IMO a bad marketing error on Chrysler's part, as that model was very popular. Still, six different trim lines are offered...a base LX, Limited, 200S, 200C, 200S AWD, and 200C AWD. All versions come with a 9-speed automatic transmission. Two engines are offered...a Fiat-sourced 2.4L Tigershark in-line four of 184 HP and 173 Ft-lbs. of torque, and a Chrysler-Sourced 3.6L Pentastar V6 of 295 HP and 262 Ft-lbs. of torque. AWD S sand C models get only the V6, while LX and Limited models get the four. FWD 200S and C versions get a choice of the four or V6....but, oddly, seem to list at the same base price with both engines.....go figure. Pricing seems to be a real bargain, especially for V6 models, ranging from only $21,700 for base 4-cylinder FWD models to $30,195 for a top-line AWD V6 C model....although the V6 and AWD can also be had in the less-expensive S version.
For the review, a nice gray V6 FWD S model was parked right outside the showroom.... in a bright sun and typical D.C.- area 90 degree humid summer heat. So, I got the key, opened all the windows to expel some of the heat, and ran the adequate but rather weak A/C system a few minutes to get the car tolerable enough inside to where I wasn't ready to pass out. (No, no 200s were inside the big showroom where it was nice and cool). I did both the static-review and test-drive on this car, as I was impressed with what it offered for the money ($28,940) and its nice Ivory-colored real-leather seats.
Even though there were several new 200s in stock, this particular salesman, although he was otherwise a super-nice guy, wanted the miles kept down on the one I was driving. Some dealerships (particularly those that know me well) allow me to test-drive alone, but he came with me. He did allow me enough time/distance at the wheel to get a good basic idea of what the car drove and handled like, but not quite what I would normally want for a full-review. So, that's why I'll call this one a Condensed Review instead of a Full Review.
MODEL REVIEWED: 2015 Chrysler 200C V6 FWD
BASE PRICE: $25,995
OPTIONS:
Customer Preferred Group: $1950
(Interesting, as this option was listed on the price-sticker, but I couldn't find on the 200's website)
DESTINATION/FREIGHT: $995 (a little steep for a car this size)
LIST PRICE AS REVIEWED: $28,940 (a bargain, IMO)
($1000 cash allowance or 2.9% financing is available as I write this)
DRIVETRAIN: FWD, Transversely-mounted 3.6L Pentastar V6 295 HP, Torque 262 Ft-lbs. (couldn't find the RPM figures on the website), 9-speed automatic transmission.
EPA MILEAGE RATING: 19 City, 32 Highway, 23 Combined.....(not bad for a V6 this size)
EXTERIOR COLOR: Granite Crystal Metallic Clearcoat
INTERIOR: Black/Linen (Ivory) Leather
PLUSSES:
Excellent value for the money.
AWD available with V6.
Some low-optioned 200S V6 AWD models can be had in the upper 20s price range.
Relatively smooth, refined V6.
Relatively good EPA mileage figures for a V6.
Extremely flexible 9-speed automatic transmission (possibly overkill?).
Very good wind and road-noise isolation.
Fairly quick steering response.
Generally good ride comfort with 17" wheels/55-series tires...but some versions have 18/19" and lower-profile.
Excellent paint job.
Decent choice of paint colors.....but still a little dull.
Nice-quality real leather seats inside....no fake stuff.
Pleasant, soft-padded dash/door-panel trim materials.
Generally well-designed easy-to-use controls.
U-Connect dash-screen reasonably easy to use by video-standards.
Handy, rubber-lined compartment/cubby-hole below the main console on the floor.
Quality of (most) interior hardware better than on past models.
MINUSES:
Lack of a 2015 convertible is a real bummer.
Web-site seems to be lacking in some specs/options that should be posted.
Coupe-like, droop rear roofline strongly compromises rear headroom.
Relatively weak air-conditioning by Lexus or GM standards.
Loosely-applied chrome-strips near side-mirrors a potential hang-up in automated car-washes.
Cheaply-trimmed cargo area by the standards of this class.
Temporary spare tire instead of a real one.
No standard body-side moldings for ding-protection.
Glove box door and latch feels somewhat light and tinny.
Poor underhood layout for Do-it-Yourselfers.
Awkward (IMO) Jaguar-style rotary-**** transmission-shifter.
Front seats not as supportive for large people as on some competitors.
EXTERIOR:
The new 200 seems to be of a rather odd, in-between size between what is today considered compact and mid-size class....although closer to mid-size. According to Chrysler, it is derived from a slightly stretched version of the compact Dodge Dart's platform...itself, of course, derived from a slightly stretched version of the Alfa Romeo Giulietta platform. I would consider the Buick Verano and Regal to be Chrysler's closest domestic-badged competitors, and the 200 seems to fit in right between the Verano and Regal in size....closer to the Regal. That said, the 200, IMO is generally a good-looking car, although, also IMO, the auto manufacturers have to get over this silly idea of trying to make sedans look like coupes. The resulting droop in the rear roof-line inevitably compromises rear-seat headroom and ease of entry/exit for tall persons....badly so in the new 200's case. Come on, guys....sedans are NOT coupes. So quit trying to make them LOOK like coupes....it just messes up headroom, rear-visibility, and (sometimes) the cargo area.
The quality of the exterior sheet metal seemed adequate but a little thin, and, while the doors shut reasonably solidly, the hood and trunk-lid felt less substantial. The paint job was excellent (this is one of several areas where Chrysler products have vastly improved in the last several years), and the paint-color choice was decent, though, as usual, a little dull for my tastes. The salesperson claimed that the 200's assembly-plant was given an award for being the best paint-shop in the industry. While Chrysler paint jobs ARE much better than before, that's probably more smooth-talk than reality....just one more example of slick salesmanship. The chrome trim outside was well-applied except for a couple of semi-loose attachments right next to each side-mirror, where an automated car-wash system might (?) be able to pull out on them and damage them (one more reason why I only wash my own cars by hand). The side-mirrors themselves snap-swivel and lock reasonably solidly. There are no standard body-side moldings to help ward off door-dings in parking lots, and it is unclear if they are available as options or dealer add-ons.
UNDERHOOD:
Pop the rather light-feeling hood (it was hard to tell if it was aluminum or simply very light sheet-steel), and two nice gas struts hold it up for you.....no fumbling with a manual prop-rod. Underneath the hood is the usual insulation-pad to help quiet things down. As is usual on upmarket-class vehicles like this, the underhood layout is poorly-done for do-it-yourselfers. The 3.6L transversely-mounted V6 fits in rather tightly, with little room to spare down the sides of the block to reach anything. The usual big plastic covers for engine, battery, and other components block easy access to practically everything else, though the filler caps/dipsticks/fluid-reservoirs are accessible.
INTERIOR:
The new 200's interior is one of the car's best features, and, IMO, an enormous improvement over the cheaply-done interiors of past versions. Pleasant, well-padded trim materials are used almost everywhere on the dash/door panels and arm rests. The headliner and sun visors are done in a nice felt-surface fabric. The steering wheel on some versions has a rare two-tone light/dark rim combination. Wood-tone trim is lavishly used throughout the cabin...though it is not the richest-looking pattern I've ever seen. The big slide-compartment cover on the console has been specially designed to give it a super-slick, roll-on-bearings feel as it slides.
Despite the official listing on the price-sticker as "Leather-Trimmed" seats and not Full-Leather, the gorgeous (and I mean gorgeous) ivory-colored seats looked and felt entirely like real leather and not a fake substitute. Not long ago, this was the kind of look/feel on the leather seats that you found in a typical Jaguar....before even Jag go in on cost-cutting and started using cheaper grades. To have seat-upholstery like this in a 25-28K car, IMO, is almost unheard of. Unfortunately, the rich upholstery covers seats that, though still fairly soft by today's standards, lack both the amount of padding and cushion-length for thigh support found in some of its Buick competition. Under the console, similar to the 3rd-Generation Toyota Prius, lies a large oval-shaped hole. In the hole, on the floor, is a rubber cover, with the Detroit City skyline molded into the rubber, that serves as a low-level cubby-compartment. (If you remember, Chrysler's new ad theme is "Imported from Detroit"). Gimmick? Maybe...but it shows the extent to which Chrysler is going to try and change its formerly shoddy image. And, at least, the Chrysler designers didn't do what Toyota did with a similar compartment under the Prius console.....put the twin heated-seat switches down on the floor.
The gauges are generally well-designed and easy to read. The stereo sound quality is quite good, but not what I would call a killer. My car did not have a sunroof, and front-seat headroom was generally good if the seat-cushion was lowered. The coupe-like rear roofline, though, as mentioned earlier, really screwed up headroom in back for larger adults, especially getting in and out. If I was sitting on the edge of the seat, the roofline would only be about at my shoulder level (and that's without a sunroof housing). Come on, designers, like I said earlier...sedans are NOT coupes. Enough of this nonsense trying to make they look like coupes....IMO, it just screws things up. If you want a coupe, then BUILD a coupe. Legroom in back was better then the headroom, but still rather limited and not limo-like. The glove-box door, unlike much of the rest of the trim and hardware inside, felt unpleasantly thin and did not seem to latch very solidly....though, IMO, still better than the cardboard-like door on the new Toyota Avalon. The controls were generally well-designed and easy to use, and I was surprised that I didn't have much trouble (or at least, not as much as usual) using the dash screen for radio and climate-control functions....backed up by large, solid, well-designed *****. Most of the interior hardware, except for the aforementioned glove box door, seemed solid and well-attached....far more so than on previous 200 and Cirrus/Sebring models. Well-done inside, Chrysler....very well done. Now just raise that rear roofline a little.
CARGO COMPARTMENT/TRUNK:
After the plushness and nice materials that went into the new interior, seems like the designers, either accidentally or on purpose, forgot about the trunk (perhaps, by then, most of the budget was used up). The size of the trunk lid, like those on many of today's coupe-style sedans, is compromised by the raked rear roofline. Inside, the cargo area is covered with just about the same kind of cheap rough-feeling gray-fabric that you would expect in an econobox. But the cargo area itself is not bad, and fairly roomy inside for this size car. Underneath the trunk floor is the usual temporary spare tire instead of a real one. Some readers think I harp on this subject too much, but, even in the Age of Roadside-Assistance, spare tires were standard equipment for decades for a good reason. If not used for actually changing flats, they could be used with regular tire-rotations to extend the life of the other four tires some 20%. Getting rid of them was little else but pure cost-cutting....as shown by the fact that most of the non-off-road vehicles that still offer real spares (like the Chevy SS I reviewed last week) charge extra for them. The 60/40 rear seats fold down for added space, and have a center pass-through for long narrow objects.
ON THE ROAD:
As mentioned earlier, I wasn't impressed with the length of the test drive the dealership offered me, but I did get enough seat-time (just barely) to write up a reasonably credible on-the-road summary. The 3.6L V6 starts up with a nice button, and idles smoothly and quietly. Under acceleration, it picks up speed well and without a lot of exhaust noise, remaining rather refined. The 9-speed automatic is enormously flexible, probably to the point of being overkill (with that many gears, you might as well use a CVT and save weight and space). I wasn't impressed with the Jaguar-style rotary shifter-**** (also used by some Land Rover models), which I found basically awkward in feel, but shift-paddles are also provided for manual-shift control. The nine speeds. as one would expect, sometimes means a lot of shifting in automatic-mode during stop and go driving. The optional AWD system (which my car didn't have) helps gas mileage by disconnecting rear axle-drive when not needed and then re-connecting and shifting torque to it when necessary. Steering response was reasonably quick and smooth in feel. There was some body roll, but not a lot. Ride comfort (something I am very sensitive to) was generally good over bumps with the 17" wheels and 55-series tires on my test car, but likely to be firmer on the optional 18 and 19" wheels on other trim levels. The sound insulation was quite effective (almost up in the Lexus and Buick Quiet-Tuning league) for road and wind-noise, though I didn't get a chance to sample it on really coarse pavement where your worst road-rumbling can often happen. I didn't notice any significant problems on the brake pedal-location with my big size-15 shoe going from gas pedal to brake (where it can sometimes catch on the edge of the pedal) and the brakes performed smoothly and effectively without a lot of mushiness in the pedal.
THE VERDICT:
After seemingly endless run of sub-standard compacts and mid-size cars, the Chrysler designers have finally (mostly) got this one right. Like with the larger Chevy Impala, this is, IMO, the first truly competitive compact/mid-size Chrysler sedan in almost 40 years. And why? Probably the same reason why we see so much improvement we do in several other new Chrysler products....Sergio Marchionne's determination that the corporation would either produce better products or that people would go out the door. Regardless of the politics or executive authority behind it, however, the real winner is the consumer....particularly those consumers waiting for Dodges and Chryslers that were something more than simply rental-grade. And all this improvement comes with pricing that, IMO, is more than reasonable considering what one gets for the price, especially for V6 models.
But a few snags remain. I've already complained about the rear roofline...I won't harp on it any more here. The underhood could do with a lot fewer plastic covers that block all that access. Use some wood-trim inside with a pattern that is worthy of the plushness of the rest of the interior. Give the trunk a little nicer/thicker covering. With nine gears in the conventional transmission, consider a lighter, smaller CVT if it will handle the V6's torque....and replace that awkward rotary shift-**** with a fore/aft lever. I also suspect some of the new 200s may (?) end up with premature loosening of the drivers'-window chrome strip from automated car washes. And, off course, being an all-new design, reliability will be unknown for a while....but Consumer Reports and J.D. Power will publish reliability data as soon as it is available. And, of course,.....do a convertible on the new platform. The old one, even with its weak points, will be missed.
But, compared with past models, this car is a staggering jump forward. Even with its remaining weak points, this car gets my wholehearted recommendation if one is willing to take a chance with reliability on a brand-new design. Money well-spent.
And, as always......Happy car-shopping.
MM
http://www.chrysler.com/en/200/
IN A NUTSHELL: Excellent value for the money, and say good-bye to the old rental-car 200/Sebring. But the popular convertible is gone.
CLOSEST AMERICAN-MARKET COMPETITORS: Buick Verano/Regal, Acura TL/TSX, Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Nissan Altima/Maxima, Ford Fusion, Mazda6, Audi A4, Chevrolet Malibu, and VW Passat.
(The 200, though, seems to be an odd size and price-range that fits in between some of these competitors in size and undercuts a number of them in price)
; OVERVIEW:
Ah, yes, the mid-sized Chryslers and Dodges. The auto press and enthusiasts loved to beat up on them. The rental-car companies loved them, period. They were designed on a budget, built on a budget, sold on a budget, rented on a budget, and it showed. They drove on a budget, rattled/squeaked on a budget, flaked-off their paint on a budget, and were in and out of the repair shop. I owned a couple of them myself in the early 1980s, and they, along with equally shoddy vehicles from GM, finally got me into the Japanese cars which I had restated for some time.
To be fair, they did improve somewhat after the K-car-based junk (for lack of a better term) that rolled off the assembly lines in the 1980s. The Chrysler LeBaron became the Cirrus and Sebring. Fuel-injection replaced the balky electronic carburetors. The structures/platforms became stiffer, with fewer squeaks and rattles. Despite their bargain prices, I still found them rather unimpressive in fit/finish, interiors, and overall refinement compared to their competitors, but that was also true, to some extent, of their GM competition as well. Only recently, after the reorganizations/buyouts, have we really begun to see truly major strides forward in quality and design from both corporations.
One version of the older models, however, did seem to really earn its keep (apart from rental companies)...and that was the popular Sebring/200 convertible. For years, it was the only low-to-moderately priced convertible available in the U.S. that had enough room in the rear seat for at least two moderate-sized adults. Convertibles, especially soft-top models, because of the room needed next to and behind the rear seat for the top-folding hinges and fold-up compartment, tend to severely compromise rear-seat room compared to sedans and coupes, and it is difficult to combine the top-fold mechanism with four doors....one reason why we haven't seen a four-door convertible here in the U.S. since the big 1960s vintage Lincoln Continental. The Sebring/200 convertibles had at least SOME room in the rear seat for small or moderately-sized adults....and a reasonable price to boot, though the budget-construction showed in other ways. Sure, you had the V6 Mustang and Camaro/Firebird convertibles on the market, too, which were also reasonably-priced, but, their pony car design made the convertible rear seat too tight for anybody taller than Munchkins. The Chrysler convertible, at least, solved that one problem. A moderately-priced, mid-sized, Pontiac G6 convertible (also rather unimpressive in the quality department) was offered for a few years as competition to the Sebring convertible, but, of course, went down with Pontiac's ship after the GM reorganization. So now, for 2015, we have an all-new 200,this time with Fiat input......the former 200 having been renamed from the Sebring a few years ago.
According to documents, when Sergio Marchionne became CEO of both Fiat and Chrysler several years ago, he personally inspected all of the Chrysler products then on the market, called his managers together, and said "We've got to do better than this. No wonder this company was in trouble. We can, and we WILL start building better vehicles." He was true to his word. When the CEO says jump, with their jobs on the line, people usually listen. And better vehicles DID start rolling out of Dodge/Jeep/Chrysler plants, though not all of their former reliability problems have been totally licked yet, especially on the Jeep Grand Cherokee.
For 2015, the totally-redesigned 200 comes in only one body style, a four-door sedan. Unfortunately, the nice convertible has been dropped...IMO a bad marketing error on Chrysler's part, as that model was very popular. Still, six different trim lines are offered...a base LX, Limited, 200S, 200C, 200S AWD, and 200C AWD. All versions come with a 9-speed automatic transmission. Two engines are offered...a Fiat-sourced 2.4L Tigershark in-line four of 184 HP and 173 Ft-lbs. of torque, and a Chrysler-Sourced 3.6L Pentastar V6 of 295 HP and 262 Ft-lbs. of torque. AWD S sand C models get only the V6, while LX and Limited models get the four. FWD 200S and C versions get a choice of the four or V6....but, oddly, seem to list at the same base price with both engines.....go figure. Pricing seems to be a real bargain, especially for V6 models, ranging from only $21,700 for base 4-cylinder FWD models to $30,195 for a top-line AWD V6 C model....although the V6 and AWD can also be had in the less-expensive S version.
For the review, a nice gray V6 FWD S model was parked right outside the showroom.... in a bright sun and typical D.C.- area 90 degree humid summer heat. So, I got the key, opened all the windows to expel some of the heat, and ran the adequate but rather weak A/C system a few minutes to get the car tolerable enough inside to where I wasn't ready to pass out. (No, no 200s were inside the big showroom where it was nice and cool). I did both the static-review and test-drive on this car, as I was impressed with what it offered for the money ($28,940) and its nice Ivory-colored real-leather seats.
Even though there were several new 200s in stock, this particular salesman, although he was otherwise a super-nice guy, wanted the miles kept down on the one I was driving. Some dealerships (particularly those that know me well) allow me to test-drive alone, but he came with me. He did allow me enough time/distance at the wheel to get a good basic idea of what the car drove and handled like, but not quite what I would normally want for a full-review. So, that's why I'll call this one a Condensed Review instead of a Full Review.
MODEL REVIEWED: 2015 Chrysler 200C V6 FWD
BASE PRICE: $25,995
OPTIONS:
Customer Preferred Group: $1950
(Interesting, as this option was listed on the price-sticker, but I couldn't find on the 200's website)
DESTINATION/FREIGHT: $995 (a little steep for a car this size)
LIST PRICE AS REVIEWED: $28,940 (a bargain, IMO)
($1000 cash allowance or 2.9% financing is available as I write this)
DRIVETRAIN: FWD, Transversely-mounted 3.6L Pentastar V6 295 HP, Torque 262 Ft-lbs. (couldn't find the RPM figures on the website), 9-speed automatic transmission.
EPA MILEAGE RATING: 19 City, 32 Highway, 23 Combined.....(not bad for a V6 this size)
EXTERIOR COLOR: Granite Crystal Metallic Clearcoat
INTERIOR: Black/Linen (Ivory) Leather
PLUSSES:
Excellent value for the money.
AWD available with V6.
Some low-optioned 200S V6 AWD models can be had in the upper 20s price range.
Relatively smooth, refined V6.
Relatively good EPA mileage figures for a V6.
Extremely flexible 9-speed automatic transmission (possibly overkill?).
Very good wind and road-noise isolation.
Fairly quick steering response.
Generally good ride comfort with 17" wheels/55-series tires...but some versions have 18/19" and lower-profile.
Excellent paint job.
Decent choice of paint colors.....but still a little dull.
Nice-quality real leather seats inside....no fake stuff.
Pleasant, soft-padded dash/door-panel trim materials.
Generally well-designed easy-to-use controls.
U-Connect dash-screen reasonably easy to use by video-standards.
Handy, rubber-lined compartment/cubby-hole below the main console on the floor.
Quality of (most) interior hardware better than on past models.
MINUSES:
Lack of a 2015 convertible is a real bummer.
Web-site seems to be lacking in some specs/options that should be posted.
Coupe-like, droop rear roofline strongly compromises rear headroom.
Relatively weak air-conditioning by Lexus or GM standards.
Loosely-applied chrome-strips near side-mirrors a potential hang-up in automated car-washes.
Cheaply-trimmed cargo area by the standards of this class.
Temporary spare tire instead of a real one.
No standard body-side moldings for ding-protection.
Glove box door and latch feels somewhat light and tinny.
Poor underhood layout for Do-it-Yourselfers.
Awkward (IMO) Jaguar-style rotary-**** transmission-shifter.
Front seats not as supportive for large people as on some competitors.
EXTERIOR:
The new 200 seems to be of a rather odd, in-between size between what is today considered compact and mid-size class....although closer to mid-size. According to Chrysler, it is derived from a slightly stretched version of the compact Dodge Dart's platform...itself, of course, derived from a slightly stretched version of the Alfa Romeo Giulietta platform. I would consider the Buick Verano and Regal to be Chrysler's closest domestic-badged competitors, and the 200 seems to fit in right between the Verano and Regal in size....closer to the Regal. That said, the 200, IMO is generally a good-looking car, although, also IMO, the auto manufacturers have to get over this silly idea of trying to make sedans look like coupes. The resulting droop in the rear roof-line inevitably compromises rear-seat headroom and ease of entry/exit for tall persons....badly so in the new 200's case. Come on, guys....sedans are NOT coupes. So quit trying to make them LOOK like coupes....it just messes up headroom, rear-visibility, and (sometimes) the cargo area.
The quality of the exterior sheet metal seemed adequate but a little thin, and, while the doors shut reasonably solidly, the hood and trunk-lid felt less substantial. The paint job was excellent (this is one of several areas where Chrysler products have vastly improved in the last several years), and the paint-color choice was decent, though, as usual, a little dull for my tastes. The salesperson claimed that the 200's assembly-plant was given an award for being the best paint-shop in the industry. While Chrysler paint jobs ARE much better than before, that's probably more smooth-talk than reality....just one more example of slick salesmanship. The chrome trim outside was well-applied except for a couple of semi-loose attachments right next to each side-mirror, where an automated car-wash system might (?) be able to pull out on them and damage them (one more reason why I only wash my own cars by hand). The side-mirrors themselves snap-swivel and lock reasonably solidly. There are no standard body-side moldings to help ward off door-dings in parking lots, and it is unclear if they are available as options or dealer add-ons.
UNDERHOOD:
Pop the rather light-feeling hood (it was hard to tell if it was aluminum or simply very light sheet-steel), and two nice gas struts hold it up for you.....no fumbling with a manual prop-rod. Underneath the hood is the usual insulation-pad to help quiet things down. As is usual on upmarket-class vehicles like this, the underhood layout is poorly-done for do-it-yourselfers. The 3.6L transversely-mounted V6 fits in rather tightly, with little room to spare down the sides of the block to reach anything. The usual big plastic covers for engine, battery, and other components block easy access to practically everything else, though the filler caps/dipsticks/fluid-reservoirs are accessible.
INTERIOR:
The new 200's interior is one of the car's best features, and, IMO, an enormous improvement over the cheaply-done interiors of past versions. Pleasant, well-padded trim materials are used almost everywhere on the dash/door panels and arm rests. The headliner and sun visors are done in a nice felt-surface fabric. The steering wheel on some versions has a rare two-tone light/dark rim combination. Wood-tone trim is lavishly used throughout the cabin...though it is not the richest-looking pattern I've ever seen. The big slide-compartment cover on the console has been specially designed to give it a super-slick, roll-on-bearings feel as it slides.
Despite the official listing on the price-sticker as "Leather-Trimmed" seats and not Full-Leather, the gorgeous (and I mean gorgeous) ivory-colored seats looked and felt entirely like real leather and not a fake substitute. Not long ago, this was the kind of look/feel on the leather seats that you found in a typical Jaguar....before even Jag go in on cost-cutting and started using cheaper grades. To have seat-upholstery like this in a 25-28K car, IMO, is almost unheard of. Unfortunately, the rich upholstery covers seats that, though still fairly soft by today's standards, lack both the amount of padding and cushion-length for thigh support found in some of its Buick competition. Under the console, similar to the 3rd-Generation Toyota Prius, lies a large oval-shaped hole. In the hole, on the floor, is a rubber cover, with the Detroit City skyline molded into the rubber, that serves as a low-level cubby-compartment. (If you remember, Chrysler's new ad theme is "Imported from Detroit"). Gimmick? Maybe...but it shows the extent to which Chrysler is going to try and change its formerly shoddy image. And, at least, the Chrysler designers didn't do what Toyota did with a similar compartment under the Prius console.....put the twin heated-seat switches down on the floor.
The gauges are generally well-designed and easy to read. The stereo sound quality is quite good, but not what I would call a killer. My car did not have a sunroof, and front-seat headroom was generally good if the seat-cushion was lowered. The coupe-like rear roofline, though, as mentioned earlier, really screwed up headroom in back for larger adults, especially getting in and out. If I was sitting on the edge of the seat, the roofline would only be about at my shoulder level (and that's without a sunroof housing). Come on, designers, like I said earlier...sedans are NOT coupes. Enough of this nonsense trying to make they look like coupes....IMO, it just screws things up. If you want a coupe, then BUILD a coupe. Legroom in back was better then the headroom, but still rather limited and not limo-like. The glove-box door, unlike much of the rest of the trim and hardware inside, felt unpleasantly thin and did not seem to latch very solidly....though, IMO, still better than the cardboard-like door on the new Toyota Avalon. The controls were generally well-designed and easy to use, and I was surprised that I didn't have much trouble (or at least, not as much as usual) using the dash screen for radio and climate-control functions....backed up by large, solid, well-designed *****. Most of the interior hardware, except for the aforementioned glove box door, seemed solid and well-attached....far more so than on previous 200 and Cirrus/Sebring models. Well-done inside, Chrysler....very well done. Now just raise that rear roofline a little.
CARGO COMPARTMENT/TRUNK:
After the plushness and nice materials that went into the new interior, seems like the designers, either accidentally or on purpose, forgot about the trunk (perhaps, by then, most of the budget was used up). The size of the trunk lid, like those on many of today's coupe-style sedans, is compromised by the raked rear roofline. Inside, the cargo area is covered with just about the same kind of cheap rough-feeling gray-fabric that you would expect in an econobox. But the cargo area itself is not bad, and fairly roomy inside for this size car. Underneath the trunk floor is the usual temporary spare tire instead of a real one. Some readers think I harp on this subject too much, but, even in the Age of Roadside-Assistance, spare tires were standard equipment for decades for a good reason. If not used for actually changing flats, they could be used with regular tire-rotations to extend the life of the other four tires some 20%. Getting rid of them was little else but pure cost-cutting....as shown by the fact that most of the non-off-road vehicles that still offer real spares (like the Chevy SS I reviewed last week) charge extra for them. The 60/40 rear seats fold down for added space, and have a center pass-through for long narrow objects.
ON THE ROAD:
As mentioned earlier, I wasn't impressed with the length of the test drive the dealership offered me, but I did get enough seat-time (just barely) to write up a reasonably credible on-the-road summary. The 3.6L V6 starts up with a nice button, and idles smoothly and quietly. Under acceleration, it picks up speed well and without a lot of exhaust noise, remaining rather refined. The 9-speed automatic is enormously flexible, probably to the point of being overkill (with that many gears, you might as well use a CVT and save weight and space). I wasn't impressed with the Jaguar-style rotary shifter-**** (also used by some Land Rover models), which I found basically awkward in feel, but shift-paddles are also provided for manual-shift control. The nine speeds. as one would expect, sometimes means a lot of shifting in automatic-mode during stop and go driving. The optional AWD system (which my car didn't have) helps gas mileage by disconnecting rear axle-drive when not needed and then re-connecting and shifting torque to it when necessary. Steering response was reasonably quick and smooth in feel. There was some body roll, but not a lot. Ride comfort (something I am very sensitive to) was generally good over bumps with the 17" wheels and 55-series tires on my test car, but likely to be firmer on the optional 18 and 19" wheels on other trim levels. The sound insulation was quite effective (almost up in the Lexus and Buick Quiet-Tuning league) for road and wind-noise, though I didn't get a chance to sample it on really coarse pavement where your worst road-rumbling can often happen. I didn't notice any significant problems on the brake pedal-location with my big size-15 shoe going from gas pedal to brake (where it can sometimes catch on the edge of the pedal) and the brakes performed smoothly and effectively without a lot of mushiness in the pedal.
THE VERDICT:
After seemingly endless run of sub-standard compacts and mid-size cars, the Chrysler designers have finally (mostly) got this one right. Like with the larger Chevy Impala, this is, IMO, the first truly competitive compact/mid-size Chrysler sedan in almost 40 years. And why? Probably the same reason why we see so much improvement we do in several other new Chrysler products....Sergio Marchionne's determination that the corporation would either produce better products or that people would go out the door. Regardless of the politics or executive authority behind it, however, the real winner is the consumer....particularly those consumers waiting for Dodges and Chryslers that were something more than simply rental-grade. And all this improvement comes with pricing that, IMO, is more than reasonable considering what one gets for the price, especially for V6 models.
But a few snags remain. I've already complained about the rear roofline...I won't harp on it any more here. The underhood could do with a lot fewer plastic covers that block all that access. Use some wood-trim inside with a pattern that is worthy of the plushness of the rest of the interior. Give the trunk a little nicer/thicker covering. With nine gears in the conventional transmission, consider a lighter, smaller CVT if it will handle the V6's torque....and replace that awkward rotary shift-**** with a fore/aft lever. I also suspect some of the new 200s may (?) end up with premature loosening of the drivers'-window chrome strip from automated car washes. And, off course, being an all-new design, reliability will be unknown for a while....but Consumer Reports and J.D. Power will publish reliability data as soon as it is available. And, of course,.....do a convertible on the new platform. The old one, even with its weak points, will be missed.
But, compared with past models, this car is a staggering jump forward. Even with its remaining weak points, this car gets my wholehearted recommendation if one is willing to take a chance with reliability on a brand-new design. Money well-spent.
And, as always......Happy car-shopping.
MM
Last edited by mmarshall; 06-23-14 at 11:35 AM.
06-18-14, 09:37 PM
#3
The 200 is not in between the Verano and the Regal. It is in fact slightly bigger in nearly every dimension than the Regal.
And your continued commentary regarding the popularity of the convertible, which, in the main 200 thread I've put some cold hard numbers to show that its time and popularity have diminished, nearly completely.
06-18-14, 09:56 PM
#4
Lexus Fanatic
This is where I tend to have issues with your reviews and commentary, you seem to be stuck on what you "feel" vs things that should be based on pretty easy to find facts.
The 200 is not in between the Verano and the Regal. It is in fact slightly bigger in nearly every dimension than the Regal.
And your continued commentary regarding the popularity of the convertible, which, in the main 200 thread I've put some cold hard numbers to show that its time and popularity have diminished, nearly completely.
The 200 is not in between the Verano and the Regal. It is in fact slightly bigger in nearly every dimension than the Regal.
And your continued commentary regarding the popularity of the convertible, which, in the main 200 thread I've put some cold hard numbers to show that its time and popularity have diminished, nearly completely.
The OP compared the car to Verano, Regal, Acura and a freaking MAXIMA, are you kidding me? Sometime mmarshall makes some ridiculous comparisons.
And finally, how can Chrysler 200 which starts at $21k even possibly compare to a Audi A4 which starts at $33k?
Last edited by Toys4RJill; 06-18-14 at 10:02 PM.
06-19-14, 04:18 AM
#5
Lead Lap
This is where I tend to have issues with your reviews and commentary, you seem to be stuck on what you "feel" vs things that should be based on pretty easy to find facts.
The 200 is not in between the Verano and the Regal. It is in fact slightly bigger in nearly every dimension than the Regal.
And your continued commentary regarding the popularity of the convertible, which, in the main 200 thread I've put some cold hard numbers to show that its time and popularity have diminished, nearly completely.
The 200 is not in between the Verano and the Regal. It is in fact slightly bigger in nearly every dimension than the Regal.
And your continued commentary regarding the popularity of the convertible, which, in the main 200 thread I've put some cold hard numbers to show that its time and popularity have diminished, nearly completely.
I think we need to dive into this a little more. Chrysler on their official website would like potential customers who are shopping to compare the 200 to an Accord, Sonata, Optima, Altima, Camry, Malibu and a Fusion. Accord is the main competitor, it is stated in their direct advertising.
The OP compared the car to Verano, Regal, Acura and a freaking MAXIMA, are you kidding me? Sometime mmarshall makes some ridiculous comparisons.
And finally, how can Chrysler 200 which starts at $21k even possibly compare to a Audi A4 which starts at $33k?
The OP compared the car to Verano, Regal, Acura and a freaking MAXIMA, are you kidding me? Sometime mmarshall makes some ridiculous comparisons.
And finally, how can Chrysler 200 which starts at $21k even possibly compare to a Audi A4 which starts at $33k?
06-19-14, 06:15 AM
#6
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by LexsCTJill
And finally, how can Chrysler 200 which starts at $21k even possibly compare to a Audi A4 which starts at $33k?
Originally Posted by TangoRed
Not that these reviews are unappreciated mmarshall,
but you seem pretty stubborn when it comes to reconciling your "hunch" vs. reality.
Well, if the paint on a car is blue, I'm not going to say it is yellow or brown. And if I find a front seat uncomfortable for my large frame, I'm going to note it......but, of course, that discomfort won't necessarily apply to a thinner or shorter person.
And if you think I'm opinionated and go out on a limb, check out Jeremy Clarkson.
Last edited by mmarshall; 06-19-14 at 06:27 AM.
Trending Topics
06-19-14, 06:30 AM
#8
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
LexCTJill, TangoRed.......All of your comments and criticisms respectfully noted. But also keep in mind that most (not all) of my reviews are done by specific CL member-request, sometimes by more than one member at a time. I get requests both by PM and publicly, in the forum (sometimes even from people who are CL moderators). So, there are people who want them, read them, and use them. And, for those who don't trust my point of view, (like you two), Hoovey 2411 is constantly posting autoblog reviews....sometimes of the same vehicle. And, last, both of you are free to do your own reviews. There is no rule on CAR CHAT about not having more competition. 
06-19-14, 06:47 AM
#9
Lexus Champion
nice review Mike, thank you!
I saw one one these on the TV show '24' the other nite and was impressed....looked very nice and high-end IMO.
the transmission selector looks like it would be very easy to bump/change...hopefully you have to press the brake pedal and depress the **** before selecting.
just out of curiosity - do ANY new cars come with full-size spares any more...even as an option?
I saw one one these on the TV show '24' the other nite and was impressed....looked very nice and high-end IMO.
the transmission selector looks like it would be very easy to bump/change...hopefully you have to press the brake pedal and depress the **** before selecting.
just out of curiosity - do ANY new cars come with full-size spares any more...even as an option?
06-19-14, 07:11 AM
#10
Lead Lap
LexCTJill, TangoRed.......All of your comments and criticisms respectfully noted. But also keep in mind that most (not all) of my reviews are done by specific CL member-request, sometimes by more than one member at a time. I get requests both by PM and publicly, in the forum (sometimes even from people who are CL moderators). So, there are people who want them, read them, and use them. And, for those who don't trust my point of view, (like you two), Hoovey 2411 is constantly posting autoblog reviews....sometimes of the same vehicle. And, last, both of you are free to do your own reviews. There is no rule on CAR CHAT about not having more competition.
06-19-14, 08:34 AM
#11
Lexus Test Driver
I agree that Mike's classification of the car is incorrect, placing it with the compacts rather than the midsize.
But let's lay off the vitriol a little bit. He hasn't shot anybody's dog.
But let's lay off the vitriol a little bit. He hasn't shot anybody's dog.
06-19-14, 09:27 AM
#13
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
let's lay off the vitriol a little bit. He hasn't shot anybody's dog.
Thanks. The SPCA isn't quite after me yet.
06-19-14, 09:34 AM
#14
I wasn't referring just to size. The 200 is a difficult car to position, both size and class-wise. Its low price (especially for a car with this kind of plushness and equipment) places it in the class of some upmarket compacts, but its physical size makes it harder to pinpoint and classify, placing it in with some larger sedans. Size-wise, it fits exactly in with come competitors, larger then others, and shorter than others....which is why I included a rather long list of potential competitors that caused some posters to strongly disagree with me. I welcome comments/questions, though, (even if they are negative), and will do my best to explain why I write what I do. I treat others that way, and expect to be treated the same.
Thanks. The SPCA isn't quite after me yet.
Thanks. The SPCA isn't quite after me yet.
06-19-14, 09:35 AM
#15
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
You're welcome. Glad you enjoyed it.
Yes, it's not perfect by any means, but once you see it and sit in it, your memories of the old disappointing, rental-grade 200/Cirrus will go right out the window. For the first time in many years, the Chrysler designers have pretty much got it right.
Yes. It has the same built-in safety-interlocks that any other transmission shifter/brake-pedal system has to have nowadays, by Federal law. I just find it a little more awkward to use than a traditional console or column-mounted lever, that's all. With a lever, you can often shift by feel, but with the ****, it requires a closer eye on it and there is less feel. Fortunately, shift-paddles are included on the column for manual functions.
You saw my recent review of the new 2014 Chevy SS, didn't you? It had a nice real spare tire and matching alloy wheel in the trunk...but not on the house by any means. It was a $500 option.
The last-generation Toyota Avalon, which was produced up to 2013, had a real spare (I remember it from my review), but I don't recall whether it was standard or an option. The new 2014 Avalon, unfortunately, seems to have gone to the temporary spare. The new 2014 Jeep Cherokee TrailHawk versions have a real spare, but it is part of the Trailer-Tow Option group.
In general, off-road-capable vehicles are more likely to have a real spare than those designed most for paved roads, as a temporary/donut spare or compressed-air bottle usually won't cut it out in the boonies if you have a flat.
I saw one one these on the TV show '24' the other nite and was impressed....looked very nice and high-end IMO.
the transmission selector looks like it would be very easy to bump/change...hopefully you have to press the brake pedal and depress the **** before selecting.
just out of curiosity - do ANY new cars come with full-size spares any more...even as an option?
The last-generation Toyota Avalon, which was produced up to 2013, had a real spare (I remember it from my review), but I don't recall whether it was standard or an option. The new 2014 Avalon, unfortunately, seems to have gone to the temporary spare. The new 2014 Jeep Cherokee TrailHawk versions have a real spare, but it is part of the Trailer-Tow Option group.
In general, off-road-capable vehicles are more likely to have a real spare than those designed most for paved roads, as a temporary/donut spare or compressed-air bottle usually won't cut it out in the boonies if you have a flat.
Last edited by mmarshall; 06-19-14 at 09:51 AM.