interior looks way more upscale than the accord and camry that's for sure.

not too thrilled about the front end but it might grow on me like the cherokee did. I'm seeing a lot more of the cherokee on the road now. That front end with the LED's actually look pretty sharp and menacing. I'm hoping the 200 takes on the same route.

but nothing beats the 300 in terms of styling and pricing. what a bargain.

 

 

I wouldn't stretch it that far. Better, yes, but 10 times? The outgoing model was so poorly done, how could it not be better? In the end, though, it still will not come close to even pretending to compete with the Camry, Accord or Fusion. It will end up just like the last one, a poor excuse for a car in this class. Chrysler has been repeating itself over and over. Their cars are getting better, there's no question. That doesn't make them good.

The initial reviews of the Dart were positive. I question where these reviews came from because when I saw it person, it was typical Chrysler, which is to say, complete garbage. How can any consumer seriously consider such crap after a test drive?

I'm sorry, but in my opinion, the new 200 will be traveling down the same path as the outgoing model.

 

I think we are missing the bigger picture here folks and that is why the OP brags in his sig about having a Corolla with a "Stage 1 Cold Air Intake" and below it has not only a B7 Alpina but a Rapide on order. LOL...sure, and I have a Veyron on order.

 

LOL. This comment couldn't be any more wrong. This won't even come close to competing with the Camry, Accord, or Fusion? How did you come to this conclusion? You are totally coming from a biased, dismissive perspective. The old 200 was nothing but a refresh of the wholly awful Sebring. It was too small and based on an inferior platform. None of those problems exist with the new 200.

The Dart 1.4L with the DDCT is crap, but the 2.4L is competitive. It's definitely at the bottom segment but no one is calling it crap. The 200 has no compromised drivetrains that will bring it down like the Dart.

Like I said before, there is no possible way the 200 will remain noncompetitive in the manner the previous model did. However, do I think its a segment leader? No.

 

Fair enough. I'd like to reiterate my very last sentence in my post, something along the lines of "in my opinion". I understand and respect differences of opinion. It remains my opinion, that no matter how much better (certainly not good) the new 200 is, it will fail to compete in it's segment. Again, my opinion.
Simple, Chrysler's history tells a long tale. They've never seriously competed in this segment. They've always been squashed like a bug by the others. Why would that change? There's no arguing that the new 200 will be better than the old one. Who knows, maybe it will "somewhat" compete with it's rivals but we're still left with the inexcusable poor quality and reliability that Chrysler has been known for. It has not changed and I don't see it changing going forward. As tolerable as it might be, we are still left with what we call best of the best and the worst of the worst. In my opinion, Chrysler still ranks among the worst of the worst.

 

Two things. First, though the older ones did have some build-quality and interior-trim issues, the newer 300's are NOT POS'es, at least IMO. Second, one does not necessarily judge a good car by its 0-60 and quarter-mile times. Case in point...the early-model Dodge Vipers could smoke just about anything else in their class on a drag strip, but, unfortunately, spent more time in the repair shops than out.

 

That interior is nice and bubbly.

But I think the main issue will be drivetrain refinement and efficiency. And of coarse long term reliability..

But having said that the new 200 defiantly has some style to it;

 

well, obviously consumers are not considering dart, as it is the worst selling car in the segment.

I would like 200 to be very competitive entry in the segment and to actually beat segment leaders.

Problem with that is that neither Fiat or Chrysler have ever had competitive entry in this segment, so I am not sure how is that going to happen.

 

I have to admit....that one's a puzzler No one in his or her right mind would say the Dart is not a vast improvement over the Caliber, which, despite its build-quality cheapness, DID sell. The only possible contributing reason I can think of is that the American version of the Dart lacks a rear hatch for utility, which the Cavalier had standard. Despite the statements of both the auto press and the so-called "market research" of companies, hatchbacks/wagons are more popular in America than they get credit for.

 

It's not that hard to make a competitive entry. Getting it to Fusion/Camry/Accord levels of sales? That's going to take multiple generations of excellence. This car will sell well but expect it to sell around Mazda6 levels, hopefully better.

The Dart's problem isn't its body style- hatchbacks really do sell poorly here. You only need to look at versions of cars that have had a hatch/wagon option- like the first-gen Mazda6. The real problem here is that the Dart's base engine/tranny combo SUCKS, and that's the only combo that allows for near-class leading economy. Asking for premium gas isn't helping either. The Avenger up until about this month has also been taking its cut out of Dart sales. It's also in the middle of a segment that his gotten MUCH more intensely competitive in recent years.

There's a ton of great entries and mediocrity on any level isn't tolerated. Hell, the Kia Forte, which is arguably one of the best compacts, is having a hard time getting traction as well. It's right at the bottom of the sales charts with the Dart and it doesn't even have the compromises the Dart has.

 

Well, that's the official line that the marketers and auto-press pundits have been giving us..... hatchbacks just don't cut it here in America. But look at how well the Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe, Ford Focus/Fiesta, Chevy Sonic, Nissan Versa, Subaru Impreza, VW Golf, and other compact hatchbacks have done here....not to mention the sales-success of the Dart's own hatchback predecessor, the caliber (despite its poor quality). The Dart, of course, competes in that class......a class where people ARE buying the competing hatchbacks.

True, the Mazda 6 hatch/wagons DID sit and collect dust while the sedans sold. But that was in a larger, more expensive class than the Dart.

Part of that is Dodge own fault (or perhaps that of its Fiat owners). Original plans were for a Dart R/T, but that seems to have fallen through the cracks....we're still waiting.


I haven't done an actual review of the Avenger, as I have on the Dart. But, just sitting on the lot or showroom, I don't find it a very impressive car. The Dart, IMO, substantially beats it in fit/finish, interior trim, and general build-solidness. Unless one wants the extra power of the Avenger R/T and its 3.6L V6, I personally see little reason to buy one over a Dart....even if premium gas is an issue.

Opinions of just what is and what isn't mediocrity, though, differ. If you go by much of what we hear from the auto press and enthusiast magazines (somewhat overdone, of course), their idea of "mediocrity" seems to be anything that doesn't go or handle like a Porsche 911.

 

Blame the government for at least part of that. The upcoming CAFE standards are causing more and more automakers to substitute turbo-fours for quieter, more refined V6s. Fortunately, though, the new 200 does have the 3.6L V6 option....a good move, IMO, on Chrysler's part. One of the (admittedly) few complaints I have about my Verano (and its Buick Regal/Encore brothers) is that Buick omitted a small V6 for less-desirable fours and turbo-fours.

 

Opinions should be based on facts, your opinions are based on fallacies therefor they hold no merit. You are dismissing a car without having any seat time and dismissing it based on preconceived notions

 

No, my opinions are based on facts. Is it a fallacy that in the past, Chrysler has built junk cars that never competed in their segment? With that, based on the fact that Chrysler has, in the past, built junk that can't compete, my opinion stands. The 200 will be a complete failure, just like the previous one. It will end up in rental fleets because that will be the only way they'll sell. Let's just call it my prediction, just as I had predicted with the Dart.