I was in the third grade when my classmate and neighborhood friend, Amy, and I had found a couple of bright blue robin’s eggs outside that appeared to have been discarded and just left there. She and I took compassion on these eggs and after some internal discussion, we decided that we were going to save, warm, and nurture them to healthy hatching, essentially become their bird-parents. We were so determined in this mission that we brought these eggs to our teacher, and it became a pseudo-experiment for the whole classroom. In doing a little research about how mother birds keep their eggs warm by sitting on them, we had the eggs placed on a bed of soft material in an unused terrarium and kept a heat lamp handy for what we believed would aid in incubation.
Downtown, The Loop, Chicago, Illinois. Wednesday, August 25, 2010.
This is probably the third or fourth time this year I’ve made reference to my former gifted elementary school, but it’s relevant also to this story in that this was the kind of “scientific” exploration and creative thinking that was fostered there. As I think about it now, it must have seemed like such a foreign idea at the time to a kid like me that something I cared about was interesting to an adult. Importantly, no one had tried to kill Amy’s or my hope by telling us that those robin eggs were just not going to hatch. Our wonderful, caring teacher and our fellow classmates simply allowed us to believe that with our love, care, and attention, we might help bring some little examples of our Michigan state bird into this world.
Following years of therapy, it has become clearer to me how my tendency to want to be a “rescuer” and my empathic nature had been developed and triggered in many scenarios throughout my life. I had probably wanted to save others the way that I, myself, had wanted to be rescued from a broken family system. This had often played out in me trying to become the savior to some person or thing – whether to abandoned robin’s eggs, broken or unloved toys, other unpopular kids, or even a few emotionally damaged romantic partners over the years. (Spoiler alert: it is never your responsibility to “rescue” a potential love interest from their issues, nor should that ever be your thought process.)
With all of that said, my first instinct when I saw our featured car sitting at the curb was one of pathos. That poor Sebring! My second thought was that its trunk lid left ajar by a moderate rear impact made the car, at least in profile, resemble a grounded bird with a broken wing. Here was an example of a generation of model that had seemed almost universally unloved upon its introduction, and the condition of this example indicated that this particular car was not exactly someone’s prized possession.
The third-generation Sebring sedan arrived for model year ’07 on the JS platform, but the convertible didn’t join the roster until later that year as an ’08 model. One period test I had read before putting this essay together had said that their sample convertible had steering and road feel akin to that of a ’95 LeSabre (ouch), in addition to having an interior that looked and felt cheap. This was all for a hefty price tag of $36,000 ($52,000 in 2024), and that was without the optional $2,000 retractable hardtop. There wasn’t entirely bad news in that profile, with the MyGig infotainment center and stereo system getting high marks.
A family portrait, including the equally-unloved 2008 Dodge Avenger on the same JS platform.
Other reviews from the time were tepid at best, but the interesting thing is that owners of these convertibles, produced for just three model years between 2008 and 2010, seemed to have a lot of nice things to say about them, including that they were comfortable, reliable cruisers. I’ve actually sort of warmed to their styling a little bit, though at the time, it depressed me. The day of this writing was the first time I could recall having seen pictures of the 2003 Chrysler Airflite concept car on which the design direction of these Sebrings was loosely based. The Airflite was a four-door hardtop fastback that leaned heavily into the familiar, retro territory that Chrysler had mined for years by that point, but it was still very attractive. The Sebring we got, though clearly influenced by the Airflite, ultimately came off as its Temu-sourced knockoff.
1988 Chrysler LeBaron Premium convertible.
That may sound harsh, but I’ve been a little disappointed with every mid-sized convertible Chrysler has introduced since the still-stunning J-body LeBaron that had made its debut for ’87. Yes, I did write a few words in defense and admiration of the second-generation Sebring convertible a few years back, and I do like the soft-top PT Cruiser. It’s just that I had such high hopes for what was to follow the gorgeous LeBaron, even if that car did shamelessly crib its style from the TC by Maserati (which, ironically, came to market after the LeBaron). Chrysler progressively mucked up the LeBaron’s stylistic details the longer it stayed in production (all the way through ’95), with a tacky amber-and-red rear taillamp panel and exposed headlights toward the end, but its basic shape was still good. With fingers crossed, I had secretly hoped the next midsize convertible from Chrysler would be an evolution of the LeBaron’s basic look, proportions, and visual identity. Instead, it took me a while to warm to the looks of the cab-forward Sebring that replaced it.
When this gen-three Sebring convertible arrived in mid-’07, it seemed effectively like one hundred eighty degrees from the ’87 LeBaron. Instead of a gracefully, down-sloped hood section, there was this blunt, blocky, upright, almost truck-like appearance up front which was accentuated with a vertically-slatted grille. The sides of the car seemed unusually tall and thick as the side character lines tapered upwards toward the rear. The trunk area, which I thought was the least offensive part of the car, looked overinflated, and with taillamp sections that looked like they came from two different cars. The numbers don’t lie: Compared with an ’87 LeBaron convertible, the ’08 Sebring is 9.0 inches longer (193.8″) on an 8.4″ longer wheelbase (108.9″), only 2.3″ wider (71.5″), and a whopping 7.5″ taller (58.4″). It’s this last dimension that kills my ability to see any “sport” in these.
Edgewater, Chicago, Illinois. Thursday, February 5, 2015.
As mentioned earlier, I love an underdog success story, and maybe that’s why I’ve always rooted for Chrysler no matter what its ownership situation was over the years. I really wanted to like this Sebring when it was new, and in today’s climate of tall CUVs and SUVs populating the streets of my neighborhood, the basic look of this two-door convertible has started to seem a lot more “correct” (or less incorrect) to me in recent years. I have never driven one, and have ridden only in the sedan version which was a perfectly okay ride, though unimpressive. Back in 2013, I rented a 200, the Sebring’s heavily overhauled successor on this same JS platform, and it surprised me by winning me over and making me genuinely like its style, performance, and appointments.
Getting back to this particular car, I understand that its being both sixteen years old and also parked on the street near the local university meant that it was going to have nicks and bruises on it. My unchecked, innate rescuer disposition would want better things for it as an example of a Chrysler that isn’t a minivan, with the Pacifica as the sole, remaining model on the make’s new-car roster in 2024. This Sebring will never be revered for its beauty. Other things will likely break on it before more things get fixed. Will another new Chrysler ever be produced in the two-door convertible configuration? If I had unlimited funds, would I want to pluck one of the final Sebring convertibles off the street, give it some repairs and attention, and keep it for future generations to observe and admire? I could see someone doing that, but it won’t be me, and it wouldn’t be this car.
Edgewater, Chicago, Illinois.
April 2024.
A friend bought a used LeBaron convertible, loaded out, and from Eastern Ky (where I assume a Coal Mine Owner’s wife or daughter was the first owner). 2.5 turbo.
It developed a miss.
Curious, I took it apart.
One valve had adhered to the guide and was happily going up and down with it.
A reman head and, because the impeller had play in it, a turbo.
With an oil line, timing belt, gaskets and head bolts it came to about $500 which he covered.
On reassembly I found the vacuum lines made sense but were routed nothing like the underhood diagram, which made no sense.
I put it back stock. Perhaps some hillbilly hot rodding had cooked the head.
Soon after this it developed low oil pressure so he traded it on a leased Dakota 3.9 shortbed.
Sam, I know nothing about the cost of such repairs, but it sounds like you gave your friend a great price for the work. That’s so weird about the vacuum lines being different than how they were supposed to be. I’m curious now about how old it was at the time of your friend’s purchase and how many miles. I, too, would have been tempted by a nice example back then. I think a used LeBaron convertible was briefly on my potential shopping list before I got my ’94 Probe.
Joe, I too have a tendency to want to rescue, although with me it’s largely limited to physical objects and occasionally dogs. In the category of the former, I eventually (although sometimes not fast enough) realize that there are only so many pieces of equipment, old furniture, kitchen supplies, appliances that I can effectively use and that (somewhat) limits my acting on the instinct and I just let things stay in the waste stream where they (unnecessarily, IMO) are. As for dogs…well, I have 3. So, yeah, I get it.
I will applaud your elementary school experience yet again. Every time you write one of these pieces directly and indirectly referencing that experience, you’re paying tribute to and giving light to the success of those teachers and the system – if even only relatively briefly – that gave them and their ideas a place to exist. That’s a very good thing.
Car-wise, I’ve just never been a fan of that generation of Chryslers. Plus, seeing how the trunk hatch now sits after a rear end collision gives me the heebie-jeebies. I can imagine if that collision had happened at higher speeds and what might have happened to occupants as that trunk hatch entered the passenger compartment. Yikes.
Thanks, Jeff! The phenomenon you describe in the first part of your comment with regard to saving things is still something my default setting struggles with just a little bit. For me, it’s vintage stores. I have to now ask myself before I get something else: a.) if I already have something like it; and b.) What I need to rotate out. (I like dogs, but have never owned one.)
And your last thing is a sobering thought. I’m sure the trunk was engineered for safety on impact, but still…
A guy I know here loves these things, having just replaced a gen 2 model with one like this (sans the erecto-set hard top). I wonder if it’s just the quasi-sporting nature of the top down config, and he’s no enthusiast driver, but he babies it and even hung on to the old one (not sure why as it’s gotten a bit tatty). Anyhow in this genre of semi-sporty converts, I’d much prefer a V6 Mustang, it has the ‘Stang pur sang and is much more fun to drive while still being a practical and durable soft top.
I like and respect this. It reminds me of the theme of Curbside Classic – “Every car has a story”, and to expand on that, I’d wager to say that every car also has a fan.
@Joseph: End the suspense! What was the outcome of the “Mother Robin” episode (although I’m already sure of what happened!) Inquiring minds want to know!! 🙂
Moparman, absolutely nothing happened with those eggs!! I remember being sad about it, and maybe I cried (honestly can’t remember), but to the credit of the adults around me, I cannot remember anyone saying “Told you so, Kiddo”. I would have remembered that! 🙂
I too have a frequent urge to rescue things that are likely to be destroyed soon, but my urge to rescue cars was tempered by actually trying to do that as a teenager. I’m sure I’ve shared this story before, but when I was 14, I bought an old MGB from neighbors in order to restore it. That was way over my ability in terms of both money and skill. Lesson learned, there. I may still daydream about buying older cars and rescuing them, but I know better than to actually do it again.
I actually like the Sebring’s design. I don’t find it quite as pleasant as the 1980s LeBaron, but the chunkiness doesn’t bother me much – I see it as kind of a semi-retro take on the concept of a mid-size convertible. I’m not sure I’d enjoy owning one, though…
Eric, what I can appreciate about your MGB story (and like I say to my friends all the time, “Tell it the way you want to tell it…”) is that you learned a lesson earlier probably at a time when it had fewer adverse consequences than if you had attempted such a project later.
I do like a meatier-looking car. I think the thing about this one for me, though, is that it’s just too tall for its width. Just too tall, period – I’m not sure making it wider would have been any kind of aesthetic solution. Those Mitsubishi Galant bones were only going to go so far.
Definitely true. Other than damaged pride, there weren’t too many consequences from that episode. If I remember correctly, I paid $250 for the MG when I was 14. I worked on it for a year or two but then it just sat… and sat. When I was in my early 20s I found someone who wanted to buy it for parts, and he paid me $500. (I didn’t even negotiate… I just wanted it gone.) I wish all mistakes could end that way!
I have owned my 2008 Chrysler Sebring Limited retractable hardtop in Brilliant Black over gray leather, since 2012. Although it’s not the “looker” some other convertibles are, it’s also been one of the most reliable vehicles I’ve owned…and, bonus, the top goes down with the push of a button, which is the whole point, I guess. Hope to have it for a few more summers.
I’d actually like to have a ‘convert” without the ‘power top”. Mine is power but I’m always worried it’s going to fail during the “up or “down” process.
I hadn’t , till now, considered a “rear end impact” on the car top.
Eeek!
Don, I like that you enjoy yours, and that your positive experience with it seems to echo what I read about from owners’ ratings. I also firmly believe that a car’s well-kept condition can make it all the more attractive – much more attractive than a conventionally beautiful car in un-cared-for condition.
Would love to get one of those “90’s, era, Chrysler converts. Couldn’t afford one in those days.
Drove one as a “rental”, was soo enchanted.((spiffy blue one))
Still like them to this day.
JT, did you mean the LeBaron or Sebring? Just curious. I wonder how many nice examples of either still exist in the secondhand marketplace.
The 87 LeBaron convertible was a beaut, but it’s successor (95 ? Sebring) was a knockout. Then this. Chrysler’s styling under the Daimler regime was kludge and awkward. Then you got inside and became nostalgic for Mopar interiors of about 1971, which were merely bad.
I will confess to wanting to rescue many cars, but I could never develop any feelings for these, which absolutely murdered Chrysler’s standing in convertibles for fun-loving older folks.
I share your lack of enthusiasm for certain aspects of Chrysler’s Daimler-era vehicles, especially after such strong styling leadership on cars that seemed to possess genuine quality. I liked the LaBaron better than a Sebring, but I also understand that the Sebring was longer and had more livible interior space. That would have been important to many buyers, exterior proportions be darned.
A bit late to the party here, Joseph. Busy day, and all that…
I feel sorry for the bird. No surprise there, as we keep chooks, ducks, geese, quail, budgerigars and a cockatiel. The last three are my daughter’s province, but you get the idea. My three: utility. Her three: beauty. We’re old-style country nature lovers, in the fortunate position of being able to surround ourselves with beauty, whether flora or fauna. We ‘birdscaped’ our garden (it is a thing) and nature responded, with loads of New Holland Honeyeaters (twenty near the clothesline on Monday! – pic), wattlebirds, crested pigeons, plus several families of rainbow lorikeets, not to mention the magpies, currawongs, and the ever-present sparrows. And wrens. Occasionally I hear plovers. Sometimes swallows nest in my shed. And those blasted flocks of corellas which infest the sugar gums at the end of my street some nights. Infest? Yes. You haven’t lived till you’ve heard the racket several hundred of these things make! Not my favourite bird. At all.
Enough with the wildlife.
We didn’t get these Chryslers here in Australia, though I did once see an Avenger sedan. Once only. Owned by a guy who sold them. Hmm, much choice there? Of which I will only say that once you took away any home-team incentive, there didn’t really seem to be a valid reason to purchase. In short, the Japanese did it better – and with vastly superior parts and service backup here. Likely build quality too, but few were sold. The Neon and PT were popular (I saw an immaculate PT last week), but not the later Daimler-era cars. Aside from the 300. Which isn’t exactly popular, but you don’t exactly go “Oh, look – there’s one of them!” either. Unless it has flashing red and blues on it. Then you notice it, and wish it wasn’t sold here.
A Chrysler convertible? If you can set aside the styling (I couldn’t – no surprise there) there’s still the matters of build quality, reliability, how it drives, and the parts and service backup. Given the position of the trunk lid/roof cover after what would appear a minor bingle, it doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in structural strength or body engineering.
But I wonder what made somebody choose this car in the first place? Utility? Surely not beauty….
Peter, I love the idea of birdscaping and descriptions of all of them. Even, reluctantly, the corellas, which I now have to look up. Just reading your comment has me thinking I may hit a bird sanctuary not far from me during what will be an extended weekend (Memorial Day) for many in the U.S.
It’s interesting, too, that like JP Cavanaugh had referenced above, you pointed out a drop in quality and/or popularity of the Daimler-era Chryslers. I have seen examples of these Sebring convertibles that looked really good, in a decent color and well-maintained… and others that looked just ghastly. I think many selected them because they were a comfortable convertible with more space and ostensibly more refinement than other domestic convertibles on the market.
Thanks, Joseph.
Yes, Chrysler really seemed to be making a comeback here with the first Neon and the PT. Stylish cars that were different. I noticed them. They couldn’t help put a smile on my face. I thought Chrysler was really going places, aln looked forward to seein g the bigger cars. I’m not quite sure what happened here after that, but the cars (as I saw them in Car and Driver) seemed to lost that sense of playfulness, the visual distinctiveness, and became sort of ‘Oh yeah, there’s them as well, I almost forgot’ kind of cars. Serious and forgettable. Sad.
When these JS Sebrings first were released in 2007, I thought these things were terrible looking, inside and out. Who thought the hood strakes and the apparently random tailights were a good idea? The interiors were just depressing. Just another reason for me to condemn Daimler’s stewardship of Chrysler. However, to Sergio’s credit, FCA did a lot to uplift the brand and the vehicles.
Lately, I’ve been dreaming about a hobby car again (bad idea, I know) and I’ve become interested in this era of Chrysler convertible. What surprises me is that what I found objectionable years ago, I’m now finding unique and maybe even attractive. I got to drive a nearly immaculate 2016-era 200 hardtop convertible a few years back. Much had changed since the 2007 models I’d seen and I was pleasantly surprised.
Up until that moment, I hadn’t thought about a Chrysler convertible in a positive fashion since the release of the JS series, but this car changed my mind. So, these cars have been occupying my daydreams about a hobby car. The pre-Fiat era cars are very attractively priced, but will probably come with a host of issues. However, as strange as it sounds, I think I might get one, just for the hood strakes alone, LOL.
Until I had read this comment, I had completely forgotten there had been a 200 convertible! I’m embarrassed by this… Oops!