Nice review, and really looking forward to this one ^^^.

 

Load up the top level 200C, and compare all the features...

A 4-banger 200 will compare with the more economy set, and the V6 upscale version will potentially compare with more upscale cars. And especially since there are so few AWD choices in the "family sedan" category, there will definitely be people who want AWD, and will opt for a loaded 200C rather than a stripped A4.

 

Agreed....good observation, Hoovey. It is, though, IMO, if you check out what you get for the money, especially in the V6 FWD/AWD versions, a great value for the money. In that sense, it meets or exceeds its GM rivals.....though, over at Ford, the new Fusion, despite its MPG controversies and customer complaints with the MyTouch system, is also an impressive car for the money.

 

Lines up almost exactly to Ford's Fusion (V6 being differentiating factor), which was Chrysler's intent.

 

Thank you for the review Mmarshall, Chrysler 200C looks like a interesting car but Chrysler cars have been pretty risky buys for a while, they don't tend to hold up well and don't hold their value well at all. They normally do look nice and have some interesting designs 300M, LHS, but one thing I notice is you hardly ever see those fairly popular models on the road anymore compared to a lot of other cars from the mid to late 90's and on, if you do occasionally see one it looks in really bad shape and on its last leg.

The 200C interior looks like look a decent design but the materials look a little cheap plus I read reviews where the drive and handling is not very good and it is very heavy for its size making it pretty slow.

 

The 200 is far more plush inside, though, than the Fusion, and drives more like a traditional luxury-biased mid-size American sedan. The Fusion, in contrast, is more Germanic in looks and feel, inside and out. It drives somewhat more like an FWD/AWD Audi (AWD is also option on some Fusions with the EcoBoost 2.0L), though not quite equalling a classic BMW or Mercedes suspension.

 

Glad you enjoyed it.

Just like with Hyundai/Kia 10 years ago, and GM more recently, Chrysler is having trouble convincing some buyers that they actually do have better products today. That they have products that are designed better, assembled better, and drive better is pretty much a given.....there's not much debate about that. What is still a queston mark, though (?), is the long-term reliability of some of the newer models. So far, there has been both good news and bad news in that department, and, of course, with other brand-new designs like this 200, we won't know for a while.

The interior materials, granted, aren't quite what you would find in a Audi A8 or Range Rover, but for a 25K car, are, IMO, stunning....especially compared to the cheap junk plastic that Chrysler used for so long. Check out the leather on the seats and all of the soft-padded trim used all over the interior, and I don't think you will find it cheap. The wood-tone trim though, is somewhat of a letdown...I stated in the review I thought it could have been better-done.

In my experience, the C model, with 17" wheels and 55-series tires, has a fairly plush ride by today's standards, combined with decent steering response/handing. Other models, with the 18"/19" wheels and lower-profile tires, can be expected to ride more firmly and handle more sharply. It's heavy for pretty much the same reason that the Buick competition is...a lot of added sound-insulation in the structure. Although automotive tastes differ and are objective, personally, if a car is going to be stuck with some excess weight, IMO, that's the way to do it.....with a quiet ride. (I generally dislike a noisy car).

 

Though the Audi has probably a more tested and proven Quattro AWD system than the 200, it's hard to ignore the big difference in value the 200 gives you for your money. Just try and find a new A4 with V6, AWD, and that kind of equipment for 28K. In fact, even base-level A3s start at 30K.

 

So I guess we should just compare the 200C to IS, 3 series, and maybe a C-Class? I cannot believe the level of incompetence from some.

The 200C is nowhere near any of those three. The bumper to bumper warranty is not the same among other things.

A fully loaded maxed out 299c awd comes in at $32,180....how can you honestly say someone will be cross shopping with a Audi? Let alone a Lexus or Merc.

Buick is not even a luxury car and the 200C still doesn't compete with a Verano.

This is why citizen journalism is bad for society.

 

OK, you don't agree with him. Your points are valid, I agree that the 200C is not in the same class as the others.

Let's just avoid attacking Mike.

 

finally saw the commercials on this vehicle and it sure resembles the ford fusion and sonata on the body lines.

 

I never compared a 200 to a Lexus or Mercedes....those were your words, not mine, It does have some comparison with entry-level Audis an an entry-level semi-luxury sedan....only, IMO, offers more for less money.

I have owned a Verano for two years, and know what compares to it and what doesn't. The 200 compares in some ways, and in others is larger and better equipped.

So now you are speaking for society? I'm not touching that one.........have a nice day.

 

Actually, Brettjacks, my point was that the 200 is a rather difficult car to classify. No matter what you compare it to, there will be pros and cons. It DOES, though, deliver a LOT in the way of being a semi-luxury, borderline-mid-sized car for not a whole lot of cash compared to those from other makes. (and I never compared it directly to a Lexus or Mercedes like the poster claimed, though it does have some similarities in the interior trim, drivetrain, and refinement department).

Thanks. I appreciate that.....and your courtesy. I'm used to attacks, though....they come and go. Like some other CL members who also talk about cars at length, I've survived my share of them. I did my first static auto review when I was 14 years old (not even old enough to drive)....and, trust me, that was a long time ago.

 

Thanks.


BTW....just got a review-request from another CL member for the new Acura RLX. That review will be coming right after the A3.

Despite its very low sales, I was a fan of the former Acura RL, and had enormous respect for its tank-like construction. I wasn't very impressed with its RLX successor at the D.C. auto-show, in the static-display, but I admit I haven't test-driven one yet. Sometimes (as with the Buick Verano) I initially have an unfavorable impression at first, but then change my mind when I get to examine and drive it.

 

Yes......it is becoming mainstream-sedan design nowadays to use the humpback, droop-down rear roofline and raked trunk-lid, trying to make the sedans look like coupes. It may help aerodynamics a little, but it also screws up back-seat headroom and ease of entry/exit....and to get back seats for adults is (usually) one of the reasons why one buys a sedan in the first place.