(first posted 2/21/2017) When Chrysler launched its rear-wheel-drive 300 in 2005, it was an immediate success and not just in North America. Despite (or rather, because of) its brash American styling and large dimensions, the 300 successfully grabbed market share in places that were usually averse to large American sedans, like Europe and Australia. There were high expectations for the redesigned 2007 Sebring to both arrest the nameplate’s sales slide in North America and, with its more manageable dimensions, appeal to consumers throughout the globe like the 300 had done. The Sebring wouldn’t meet either goal.
It’s easy to blast the Sebring for having abysmal interior quality, unrefined and weak engines and ungainly styling. But let’s talk about what the Sebring did right.
Umm. Uhh. Give me a second here…
Oh! It had heated and cooled cupholders. It was also styled in a very distinctive fashion. In a market full of bland Camcords, that was an accomplishment. Unfortunately, the styling cues borrowed from the 2003 Airflite concept translated much better to the lithe Crossfire than they did to the larger Chrysler JS platform. And even the sporty little Crossfire wasn’t universally praised for its styling. Uh-oh.
I remember when the Sebring launched in Australia. We don’t get too many American cars here other than SUVs—during the 1990s and early 2000s, the only passenger cars we received were the 1996 Ford Taurus, Ford Probe, Chrysler Neon and Voyager and (briefly) the Ford Mustang. As a high-schooler who was becoming more and more interested in American cars, I was excited about the launch of the Sebring and its platform-mate, the Dodge Avenger.
I even went to the local Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep dealer to check out the Sebring and the Avenger. The first thing I noticed was how bizarrely proportioned the Sebring was. While the Avenger looked relatively chunky and masculine, if a bit too tall, the Sebring was stylistically all over the place.
The hood strakes were rather gauche but the headlights were neat and reminiscent of both the Crossfire and the Airflite concept. Alas, that front bumper stuck out like a bad overbite and the hood and the cowl looked much too high.
Moving to the side, things got worse. While the almost fastback-style rear deck is a common look on intermediates today, it was awkward on the Sebring as the front overhang appeared longer than the rear. That high hood line and cowl made the side look wonky and ill at ease with the swoopy roofline. The Sebring looked smaller than it was—whether that was a good or a bad thing is up to you.
Finally, the rear. Those taillights could be seen from the International Space Station and the licence plate surround mimicked them for reasons unknown.
I don’t usually dedicate multiple paragraphs of an article to the styling foibles of a car. After all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One man’s Gremlin is another man’s Gran Turismo. However, I was someone who really wanted to like the Sebring and yet I found that every time I looked at one, I saw something else wrong with its looks. Even this featured Limited, with its attractive alloy wheels and black paint, is more cubist than futurist.
The convertible shared the sedan’s garish strakes and overbite but was at least blessed with better proportions.
When I stepped into that Sebring at the dealership, I was even more displeased with the interior. The design itself was attractive, almost Art Deco in its detailing. The use of tortoiseshell on the upscale Limited model recalled the larger 300 and the two-tone treatment on the seats helped brighten the interior up. But take a look at how the stereo is just plonked down in the center stack, its black plastic clashing poorly with the preponderance of silver metallic trim. The seats were flat, hard, slippery and shiny. Worse still was the actual material quality—this was the worst-quality interior I had sat in since my sister’s old first-generation Kia Rio. I’m talking Fisher-Price grade plastic here and I’m not even being hyperbolic. The Avenger was even worse—the same poor quality materials with a blander design and, on base models, virtually no brightwork. Blech!
If I had test-driven the Sebring, I would have probably been more disappointed. Several years later, I rented a 2013 Chrysler 200, the heavily redesigned version of this Sebring. Despite massive improvements to the interior and the exterior, the 200 retained the base 2.4 World Engine with 173 hp and 166 ft-lbs. And it was loud, thrashy and unrefined, and really detracted from the rest of the driving experience. The 2011 redesign tidied up the handling, which was rather soft in Sebring guise, with ample body roll. Australian and European-market models employed a firmer suspension tune that improved handling somewhat over North American Sebrings. What a shame the base engine was so charmless, not to mention mated to an old-tech four-speed auto.
Sebring shoppers in both North America and Australia could upgrade to an optional 2.7 V6 to give their ears a break. Gas mileage went down from 21/29 (24 combined) mpg to 19/27 (22 combined) mpg. Oh, if only it had the extra power to make the higher price and lower fuel economy worth it! The venerable 2.7 mustered only 189 hp and 191 ft-lbs of torque, pretty hopeless numbers in a world of 268 horsepower Camrys. Again, the only transmission was a four-speed automatic, although Aussie buyers were spared this transmission and instead given a six-speed automatic.
Probably its best angle, but how often would you look at it from up here?
If you wanted anything near Camry/Accord/Altima/Malibu V6 power, you had to go all the way up to the top-spec Limited V6 with its 3.5 mill (not available in Australia) with only 235 hp and 232 ft-lbs, 30-40 hp and ft-lbs less than those rivals and around a second slower from 0-60 (7.7 seconds). Fuel economy was pretty rubbish too, with an EPA-estimated 16/26 (19 combined) mpg. So not only was the most expensive engine option weaker than its rivals’ optional V6s, it was thirstier too. Chrysler offered a Limited variant with all-wheel-drive and the 3.5 V6 in 2008. It had absolutely abysmal fuel economy (15/24 mpg) and it sold like bibles in a whorehouse. Just 0.7% of 2008 Sebrings came in the V6/AWD specification and it was quickly dropped.
How most Sebrings looked: the base LX. Photo courtesy of Schaumburg Motor Cars
The Sebring went nowhere in Australia and, despite the availability of a Volkswagen-sourced 2.0 diesel four and a 6-speed manual in Europe, it sold poorly there as well. Even in its homeland, it flopped—while sales ticked upwards for its debut year, from around 69k units to 93k, they slid dramatically. By 2009, with Chrysler in crisis and the global economy floundering, the Sebring was down to just 27,460 sales. Considering in the early 2000s it was selling over 100,000 units a year, this was a disaster. The Sebring was nowhere near as popular with private buyers as the 300, which also meant most of these sales were to fleets or heavily incentivized.
The Avenger didn’t sell much better during this time, which shows it wasn’t just the Sebring’s unfortunate styling that sunk it. Reliability was worse than many rivals, particularly those from Japanese makes. Assembly and material quality were subpar. The powertrains were disappointing. You could also probably blame buyer scepticism of the flagging Chrysler Corporation, although it’s worth noting the moribund Pontiac G6 from similarly beleaguered General Motors sold well over 100k units per year. And while the redesigned and renamed 2011 200 retained the thrashy base engine, it was otherwise so much better in every way that sales soared back up to 100k+ annual units.
If the Sebring had looked like a mini-300, as some initial styling studies did, it might have sold better. Part of the allure of the 300 was its large size and available V8 engines but a large percentage of those sold were humble V6 models and, in overseas markets, diesels. But really, if the 300 had looked like a Camry, it probably would have flopped badly in Europe and Australia. Its square-jawed, chop-top, expensive and expressive styling was what really made it sell, even if its interior was little better than a Sebring’s. If Chrysler designers had, at the very least, given the Sebring styling like the 300, it might have been more successful both at home and abroad. Instead, its abundance of curves and swoops and strakes all pointed downwards. Like its sales.
Related Reading:
Future CC/Driving Impressions: 2015 Chrysler 200 – Better, But Just How Much Better?
Curbside Classic: 2002 Chrysler Sebring LXi – Fading Hope
Future Curbside Classic: 2015 Chrysler 300 SRT – Coming To A Classic Car Show Near You, Eventually
Only seen one of these – someone in my town must work for a Chrysler dealer as they have a continual procession of new Chrysler vehicles. Never seen another one, anywhere.
They are weirdly common in Brisbane. Not Camry or Mazda6 common, mind you, but more common than say an Epica. Maybe I just notice them more. I found the Taurus to be surprisingly common here too, and it sold about as well…
Totally agree with you. It did officially sell here in Austria but never soared, despite a 140 hp diesel being offered. The cabrio offered an interesting alternative to the German usual suspects at a discount price though (and looked even better as the Lancia Flavia, see below). In a way it was like the corporation’s stodgy-looking late 40s early 50s models. Only without the quality and reliability…
The fact that these were badged as Lancias (and Flavia too! The infamy!) takes this to a whole nother level of Deadly Sin.
FCA, thy name is mud.
Ah. You just opened another can of worms… I referred only to the improvement in the car’s looks:)
Ah. Sorry. That would be “Daimler, thy name is mud.”
I agree with you. I wanted to like the Sebring, but the styling was blocky and awkward. They even carried it into the interior. Ruined the whole look. Sad.
I think the convertible EDP hardtop convertible looks nice. Can’t comment on interior quality but that last interior pic of steering wheel shows a pleasing layout. U Aussies got a ,6 sod auto too.
Yes! A design that appears more discombobulated than a 1994-97 Camry! The C-pillar(or is it D or E-pillar??) treatment on that Sebring is a hot mess.
The front end is typical mid-2000s, but the rear-end looks slapped together, incomplete. The tail lights look straight off a 2003-08 Corolla, but over-scaled, almost bug-eyed. Like Chrysler tried too hard. The 200 that replaced it, or the current 200, is a vast improvement, but is easily mistaken for a 2011-14(YF) Hyundai Sonata. Frying pan into the fire, as they say…
Yeah these are fugly. Its the only thing I think when I see one of these.
Have to agree on the interior in these and other Chryslers. They are horrible places to be. What were they thinking? Protons have nicer interiors.
Typical DaimlerChrysler, including Mercedes at the time
Thank you, Daimler-Benz. I cannot think of a single thing that I like about these. That styling job was truly unfortunate. Ugly, awful interiors, poor driver and horrid reliability – doesn’t leave much room for anything else.
A young friend is trying to recover from his ownership experience with an Avenger. It is sad when a car is totalled by mechanical failure a month before it gets paid off. A real turd.
He lucked out if he only got out of it with the cost of a monthly note. Most folks were way belly up on these and took a bad hit when they traded.
When these came out, I wanted to like them. Yet I just couldn’t, and for all the reasons stated here.
I will give Chrysler credit for the Avenger – it mimicked the Charger well enough to drive the point home, but the Chrysler comes across as rather unconfident.
A coworker has a 2012 Chrysler 200 she bought new in 2014; yes, it sat around on the lot for that long and she got a screaming deal on it. With the 2.4 she is seeing about 20 to 22 mpg in mixed driving and she just had to have the radiator and heater core replaced. I hope the cooling system hiccup is the only problem she has with it.
I honestly have nary a good word to say about these.
As a fan and owner of Chrysler vehicles in the 80s and 90s, I had higher hopes when this Sebring model came out, and was immediately dashed to pieces.
Clearly designed on a serious budget, the shortcuts were everywhere, and nothing seemed to work from a design perspective. I WANTED to like these, and although the refreshed version was nicer due to trim improvements after Sergio took over, I could never see myself in one, although the convertible version was a bit more tolerable.
Sorry, Chrysler, no deal.
These came from the end of the Daimler days, a dark time at Chrysler indeed. The “merger of equals” was mostly a ploy to suck the money from Chrysler Corporation to bail out Daimler, and by this point the mandate had come for the Chrysler part of the business to cut 40 percent from the interior design budgets.
These dreckmobiles, still ubiquitous in Southeast Michigan, are the result. The styling was a mismashed mess outside, and cyanide seems a preferable option to a late-2000s Chrysler interior.
Deadly sin indeed!
I recall reading that Daimler dumped much of the responsibility for engineering on these cars to Mitsubishi. Daimler had zero experience in designing cars in this class and price point but by this time had completely taken over Chrysler’s processes so that Chrysler was ill equipped to do so as well. The Chrysler flexible team setup of the 90s that had turned out several successful cars on a reasonable budget was replaced by a rigid system being controlled by Daimler-Benz. The Chrysler-designed cars certainly had their weaknesses, but they were strong sellers that could have been refined and improved. Instead, we got these.
I think Mercedes did/does have experience with this class. The C class is not high end nor the B class. Smart car is low end.
But weren’t they all expensive for what they delivered? They certainly were in the US. There has never been an M-B sold here that is a credible competitor in the Camry/Accord/Taurus/Sebring price-finish-performance class. Yes they were the same size, but a small Mercedes tried to be, above all else, a small Mercedes.
Perhaps those with better knowledge of the German market will argue with me. And perhaps the German market demands more of a car in that size class than we do here in the US. And besides, is the W203 loved any more than one of these Sebrings as an older used car?
Well, you have to consider that in Germany, the MB E class is the main taxicab, while here it is considered a status symbol. MB is good at de-contenting a car for “lesser” markets. A friend who lived in Thailand explained that MBs were pretty cheap there, and thus sold very well there. You could pick one up for less than $20K there when a similar was well over $30 here.
Well, when Mercedes cuts the corner, they cut all the way to the bottom of the universe.
Don’t forget the A-class, between the Smart and the C-class.
BTW, Mercedes are cheap in Thailand because they are built there. They’ve had an assembly plant in the country since the early ’60s. Any car that’s imported (especially from non-ASEAN countries) gets a massive tax slapped on it, up to 300% for high-end products such as Lambos or Bentleys.
According to Bloomberg, it was a 45 percent cut. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2009-04-29/chryslers-chapter-11-raises-management-questions-for-future
“Then there is the oft mentioned Wolfgang Bernhard, former COO of Chrysler and the guy who ordered the 45% cost cuts in Chrysler’s interiors that helped get every model knocked off Consumer Reports’ recommended list. ”
That paragraph gives us a bit of insight into DaimlerChrysler, too. “Maybe he can do better now without the Germans barking over his shoulder.”
And that all jives with everything I’ve seen-the Germans micromanaged and sucked the wealth out of Chrysler so they could fix and focus on the Daimler half of the business.
According to Bloomberg, it was a 45 percent cut.
That tends to support a theory I have been working on: that, after being directed by Mercedes, then run into the ground by Cerberus, Chrysler no longer has the engineering capability to turn out a really satisfying car.
Meanwhile, Marchionne has been cost cutting at Fiat. Fiats used to be well regarded for an engaging driving experience. Now, when I read a road test of a Tipo, the bottom line is “well, it isn’t terrible, and it’s as cheap as a Dacia”.
I really like the styling of the recent FCA products, from the Renegade to the 200, but they all seem to be reliability pits, compounded by dealers and corporate customer service not terribly inclined to address their customer’s frustrations. One example: the 9 speed automatic. How many years has Chrysler used this trans? I read owner feedback on Edmunds for 2016 models and it appears they *still* don’t have the programming right for that trans.
That. M-B bought, pillaged, and may yet have killed Chrysler. They wanted two things: Chrysler’s superb design studio…and the giant pile of CASH Chrysler was sitting on.
“I recall reading that Daimler dumped much of the responsibility for engineering on these cars to Mitsubishi.”
If correct, it goes a long way to explaining what happened to the Sebring. At some point in their history, Mitsubishi went full-gonzo cheap, particularly with the overwhelmingly cheap plastic in their interiors. In that regard, the Sebring seems like a rebadged Mitsubishi product that was styled to look like a Crossfire.
OTOH, cheap, hard plastic interiors at DaimlerChrysler didn’t start with the Sebring. The first one I can recall was the Caliber (and Jeep Patriot/Compass variants), which had very hard plastic everywhere, as well. It’s worth noting that they would eventually improve the interiors, but it was only after poor sales left them little choice.
Someone in an earlier post mentioned they knew a woman who bought one that had sit on the lot for years, and got a good deal because of it. Even then, I can’t imagine buying one of these. They did virtually nothing well, and it seems like regretting the purchase would be a daily occurrence on each and every drive. They really were a fleet special in every way.
I did a little more reading, it appears that the Sebring was based heavily on the smaller Caliber platform. The Caliber began as a Mitsubishi development but which was mostly taken over by Chrysler. So, There was certainly some Mitsubishi involvement, but the rest was from a Chrysler engineering department that was now being run in a top-down authoritarian style. Allpar does not yet have a definitive information on this era, but the thrust there is that budget cuts and significant talent losses hollowed out Chrysler’s ability to do all of the vehicles that it needed to do. Some (larger cars, Jeeps and trucks) came off OK while smaller vehicles were just not competitive from the beginning.
One can’t help but see a similarity between former GM-executive Bob Eaton’s actions when he took over at Chrysler after Iacocca retired and Roger Smith at GM, particularly the Chrysler/Daimler merger, with the biggest head-scratcher being simply, “Why?”. From what I can gather, Chrysler was in better financial shape than Daimler at the time, so it doesn’t seem logical for Chrysler to take them on. Then, the whole idea that Daimler began calling the shots. This was the environment in which craptacular stuff like the Caliber and Sebring were born.
Just another “what might have been” if Lutz hadn’t been so hated by Iacocca, and it had been Lutz, and not Eaton, who took over from Iacocca. Lutz made plenty of mistakes, too, but I’m not sure he would have been a champion of a Daimler merger.
“One man’s Gremlin is another man’s Gran Turismo”
Nice turn of phrase!
Both of which I wouldn’t mind having. Make mine a Gremlin X please
I too had high hopes for these when they came out but was immediately wanting the ho-hum previous generation to come back once I started seeing these on the ground. I don’t have much to add, as your assessment of this car is comprehensive and spot-on.
My mom and I rented a 2010 model in the summer of that year while looking at colleges down in the D.C./Baltimore area. This black Limited model that I selected over Ford Fusion which Enterprise also had available because it had leather. I didn’t get to drive it as I was not on the rental agreement, but riding in it was nothing memorable. Not horrible, but not impressive.
What sticks out most in my memory was the mass of rubbermaid-grade plastic on the dash staring you in the face and how fake the “leather” felt. Leatherette in most cars is more pleasant than the Sebring’s “leather”.
Interior
These cars were a real disappointment. Obviously hindsight is 20/20, but knowing what we do now it should have been obvious that Chrysler was going to fail in the midsize segment eventually. The only non full size, front wheel drive car they got right (at least in terms of styling) was the Dart.
And the dart is not a Chrysler development. Its Italian.
The Dart is actually the best driving rental car in its class, based on my recent rental car experiences.
That’s why you can pick these up all day long on CL for $3k or less while similar aged/mileage Camcords and even Malibus go for double or triple that.
That said, if I just wanted a truly disposable late model car or was an Uber driver, I’d consider one of these little beasts. They’re not THAT bad as a cheap appliance. And with the modern safety equipment and low price of entry, they’d make a decent first car for a teenager.
Life is too short for boring cars!
It’s interesting how “boring” is a relative term when it comes to old cars. I used to think K-cars and GM A bodies were boring when they were new. Now when I see one, I find them interesting and nostalgic.
I doubt I will be nostalgic for a Chrysler Sebring in 2037. They will have all long gone to the crusher.
I’m not sure I would have invested this many characters in a design analysis of this generation Sebring, but the author hit all the salient points, for sure. I can recall seeing these hit the streets of Fort Lauderdale while living there in ’07,as the vast majority of them seem to have been rental fleet vehicles. The first few I saw were convertibles in typical rental mid-spec level, and while today I can see the relative attractiveness of the convertible versus the sedan, at that time I could only look on in horror at what had befallen a formerly attractive if not exciting model. The sedan? Godawful, and frankly a shameful eyesore for which someone at DaimlerChrysler should have been tarred and feathered. The interior quality of Chrysler products of the mid 00’s has been addressed here many times before, but yeah: Ridiculous.
I cannot put my finger on it, but some how Chrysler/Dodge products have the ability to look fresh & new when the model first comes out. You see them on the road and you think OK Chrysler cars have great presence. Think 300M, 300C, Sebring convertible,Neon, Intrepid etc.
However, the new-ness, and luster-wears off quicker than any other car maker. The cars soon look dated and cheap, car fleet rental-ish within say the first year of owning one new. Most people I know do not stay in Chryslers that long. They are good for Avis car rentals, and government fleet worker cars..Don’t even get me started on depreciation.
They look dated since they wear out sooner than what’s considered “normal” now. Cheap paint and plastic like a 1987 Hyundai Excel.
But also, BHPH fodder, and most get dented up from abuse sooner.
Utter garbage.
True, I have a friend who owns the Dodge version of this, and her horror stories are mostly related to the dealer she bought it from – who is now out of business, otherwise I’d identify them as they didn’t deserve to be in business!
But she had over 100,000 miles on it and had been satisfied when she traded it on the 2015 Lincoln she owns now.
What I keep hearing and reading is that electrical system failures are increasingly common on ALL Daimler-Chrysler to present FCA cars, once they get some years and miles on them. A mechanic friend has some doozies…like how replacing an ignition module (on vehicles so equipped) requires a $100 reprogram at the dealer.
I can’t help but wonder if Jeep and Ram will be all that’s left of FCA in another decade.
They were made to be rental fleet cars, especially the convertibles, which were ubiquitous in Florida. Crap cars, built cheaply, and it showed.
You and I are thinking the same about mighty Mopar. My thought is that it will go full blown Fiat/Alfa for cars and vans, with the pickup truck Ram and Jeep remaining “American”. Guess it would be Fiat level platforms for Dodge, with Chrysler getting the Alfa platforms. All you have to do is look at how Lancia was killed by Fiat to see how it will play in America. Cheap rebadging, little to no changes from the donor, and wait for them to sit on the lot until they close down the brand.
The sad thing is that this car was *not* intended to be a rental fleet special. Go to Allpar and look at the info coming out of D-C at the time touting all the features like bluetooth, special music software on a hard drive connected to eh entertainment system, rear DVD system, heated leather seats, a cabin air filter and all kinds of other stuff designed to appeal to the higher-end customer in late 2006.
In contrast, my mother’s 06 LaCrosse did not even have an auxiliary jack for the stereo input.
The really pathetic part is that D-C was really trying with this car.
They may have been trying, but did anyone not named Hertz, Avis, Budget, Thrifty, etc. buy these?
Blaming “Chrysler” for these is a mistake. It was a product of the arrogant “ve vill do it our vey” DaimlerChrysler. How was that pronounced? The “Chrysler” was silent.
Another unspoken motto at DaimlerChrysler: “Take the money and run.” How does that translate into German?
As with many, my experience with these was as rentals. For some reason I didn’t get to rent them until its last year of production. They were a pleasant drive by then, if only you didn’t have to look at them, insude and out.
Oh just wait till you review the 2007 Ford Edge, if ever. Outside looks ok enough for what it is. But interior is a horrid sea of craplastic. Yes I own one and hope that the plastic holds up. It looks sorta like a soft touch surface, but only soft surfaces are the leather interior. And it’s no the bestest leather. With all that said, the Edge is a tool (car) that my wife & I needed without buying a pickup which is too much of what we need.
The Sebrings et al are just not a car that I would give a passing glance to other than knowing what it is. Too much of nothing that I need or want and I do like Chrysler stuff. Although with all the Euro parents now, probably never own another one. I would love a Challenger or Charger though. Even a stripper model. I don’t see me needing 692 hp for anything at my age.
I’m still trying to like the 300 and my feelings for Chrysler anything made any time with in the last 25 years….well at least I’m trying.
My wife got stuck with one of these as a short-term rental…fridge white exterior, black cloth, crap seats and the tallest dashboard/cowl I’ve seen in a newish car. She went from a ’13 Honda Civic to that crapbox…it was jarring.
Thankfully she only had to drive it for a week.
This has to be the only car on earth where black is the most unflattering color. Look at it in profile in the 6th pic, the fake C pillar window blends right in and you just see the awkward shape of the door and it’s protrusion into the roof.
My neighbor directly across the street has ran a small business out of his house, and his business partner would come by and park it his silver Sebring exactly like this on the street every day, and what a property value plummeting pile of junk that car was. Most notable feature I observed was that the fuel door was never closed. Quality.
Total agreement on all points. When the JA cars debuted in ’95, they were a breath of fresh air especially after the moldering K cars. Chrysler had a modern car and the Contour never became popular and GM didn’t really have much until the new Grand Am/Alero came out.
The second generation got blander and cheaper, but was still tolerable. No real advantages over the competition. Chrysler went for that Anonycar insurance commercial car style. Nothing is more forgettable than a second generation JA car.
Then they decided to go in the complete opposite direction. Ugly is not exciting. Weird surface excitement really is not attractive at all, it’s just odd looking, and they were hideous inside and out. if the outside was unattractive, cheap ugly plastics and cheap contours on the inside made it so much worse. Additionally, many were saddled with the sludgy 2.7v6.
I agree that Sergio is basically doing what has always been done to Jeep’s partners, he’s gradually stripping away “unprofitable” car lines or allowing them to die on the vine while searching for a suitor. Right now Chrysler sells the Pacifica , although traditional Chrysler buyers have been shocked at the price, and the 300 which is aging. Dodge has the Durango, the fleet special grand Caravan, and the ancient Journey, and that’s about it. Clearly the plan is to sell Jeep and Ram and let the cars die.
It’s sad. The Pacifica is class leading in a declining market. So they can make great vehicles when they put their minds to it, but there are such huge gaping holes in their product lineup you really have to wonder what the heck they were thinking.
In a word, profit. I have no doubt that Sergio looked at the high prices Toyota and Honda were asking (and getting) for the Sienna and Odyssey, and wanted a piece of that action. So, he moved the brand-new and certainly improved Pacifica into that territory.
The problem is, as improved as the new Pacifica might be, it’s still got that poor Chrysler quality heritage, which is a huge hurdle to overcome when compared to the class-leading Japanese. A real shame they couldn’t have come up with a down-market Dodge version (maybe with a new name, too) to replace the bargain-basement Grand Caravan. I think it was a grave error to underestimate the market for a family-friendly, low-priced domestic minivan. Even today, it seems that the old Grand Caravan is enjoying great sales numbers (particularly in Canada), and it’s not just fleet sales, either.
A real shame they couldn’t have come up with a down-market Dodge version (maybe with a new name, too) to replace the bargain-basement Grand Caravan.
In a press conference at the Detroit auto show last month, Marchionne said that when the Caravan runs down, they will be looking at a decontented Pacifica to take it’s place at that price point.
Rudiger: indeed. I work for an Italian corporation and am familiar with the mentality. Once the Capo decides something, no deviation is allowed as this would result in loss of face. Same short-term cost-cutting, de-contenting and worsening workplace conditions (we are being moved into a new and deliberately crowded office block, where everyone is sharing huge floors, sitting in cramped cubicles – all very much like those offices you see in 30s movies). It all looks good on the balance sheet for a while, hopefully long enough to sell the good bits to some idiot. The result is a demoralized workforce and crappy cars or crappy services (in my case). I just hope the next stage of job cuts happens once I’m over 60 and it becomes difficult by (Austrian) labor law to sack me.
I honestly thought these photos of the Sebring were taken in a parking lot in southern California until I looked closely and saw the Queensland (Australia) license plates. These Aussie photos can be so deceiving!
I actually preferred the styling of the Sebring to that of its platform-mate, the Dodge Avenger.
I’m not saying I ever thought this Sebring was any beauty-winner, but I sort-of liked its exterior in a mid-Aughts, “machinery” kind of aesthetic, in the same way I’d find a bathroom scale from, say, Sharper Image, attractive.
What kind of killed its looks for me were (as Will mentioned) that high cowl and hood-line, combined with those super-thick window frames. Did I misread (or misremember) that these were related to the last Mitsubishi Galant? I thought I remembered having read something about some common DNA, there.
I know this is about the Sebring, but we rented the restyled 200 before the redesigned models came out, and I’m not going to lie – I actually liked it. The interior was comfortable, it ran really smoothly, had decent pickup, and while it was a bit smaller inside and out than other midsize cars, it was a good car for the duration of that five-day trip. It was far from an embarrassment. And no, it wasn’t because of those “Imported From Detroit” commercials that gave me goosebumps when I first saw them during the Superbowl that year. The 200 is what this Sebring should have been from the get-go.
Great piece, Will.
Thanks, William for covering these.
I am in the minority in liking them. It checks all the marks for DS and disdain from the public. That’s like catnip to a cat for me.
The back story makes it interesting as well. Hmmm….. DCX, Cerberus or FCA version ?
I have an interest in these because they’re so reflective of what was going on at Chrysler during this period.
It doesn’t hurt that the the Sebring/200 have similar styling to my 05 ION. I liked the room, the retro interior styling, ease of getting in and out, great headroom, long running World Engine and very common automatic.
Dismal plastics, below the grade used in above mentioned ION, but very stout in the crash ratings at the time.
Cheap wheels would be the right term. Lots of them on the “buy here pay here” lots.
But I did see a 14 200 @ the local Chrysler dealer in “Autumn Bronze” that reminded me of my parent’s cordoba brown 72 Ambassador Brougham. I pulled a u-ie and went back to look more closely. Very handsome car.
However, I thought the convertible was far more awkward in it’s styling and the cut lines in profile distract.
I’ve been tempted. And have read hundreds of owner reviews on various sites. From all the internet trashing of these and the Avenger, one would expect worse reports by owners.
I’d buy one and keep it for a personal crusade to have the last one on the road 20 years from now.
We rented a silver one the last time we were in Hawaii. I’m afraid I don’t have much to say about it that hasn’t already been repeated numerous times in this thread. It would have been totally forgettable if it weren’t so unstylish inside and out. The fact that we hit a stretch of hot, humid weather that had the locals all sweating and complaining didn’t help, of course….
Every. Single. One. of the 2007-2009 Sebrings I see in traffic now has a falling down sagging headliner at the edge of the rear window – 1980s GM style. Seriously, I thought that problem had been banished with the discontinuation of the Cutlass Ciera? They also rust really bad at the front edge of the hood – I remember seeing one starting to bubble up around 2011, thinking “Can a modern car still rust in 4 years flat?” The answer is yes, thanks to the magic of DaimlerChrysler.
Utter disposable garbage, I see more 2006-2009 Kia Rios in good condition. These plummeted to lowest rung of automotive beaterdom in no time flat. They are some of the only post-2007 midsize sedans that can be spotted in the most poverty stricken parts of town because they are simply worthless after 100k miles. It’s weird seeing such a new car being advertised for $1500 – $2000 on Craigslist. Meanwhile Camcords, and even Fusion/Malibus of similar vintage cost $5k – $6k minimum.
In defense of the front end styling, the Australian version definitely looks like it got a larger and uglier front bumper to meet regulations there. I could be mistaken but that doesn’t look to be the same tooling we got in the US, which is visible in some of the press photos in your article. Still a hideouts beast, but I do have to admit I kind of like the “mini Charger” vibe going on with the Dodge version. The improved 2012+ version would be a tolerable ride, but I would still be concerned about it lasting very long.
Amazingly, the export front bumper is bigger and blockier than the USDM one.
Nobody’s mentioned the battery-swapping procedure yet? At least on the V6 models, you had to go in through the rectum. Well, sort of. From the original LH cars through the last 200 the battery was accessed by jacking the car up, taking off the right front wheel, and taking out the fender liner. At least an hour’s labor for what should be a 5-minute DIY job.
Jon Stewart hit the nail on the head when he called the Sebring “a car that looks like an Edsel f***ed a Pinto.”
Reminds me of how someone described the Aztek as looking like the offspring of a Daewoo Lemans and a garbage truck.
I’m guessing that hood flex wasn’t an issue with these cars…
Likely the car’s only redeeming quality…
I remember the first time I sat in a 2007 Sebring…Fall 2006, Seattle International Auto Show. The interior looked interesting while peering into the windows. Opening the door, climbing in, and sitting down? Massively huge disappointment. The seats felt weird-almost convex. Aren’t you supposed to sit in the seat, not roll off the raised center section that had been designed into these seats? Okay-let’s see how the interior material feels? Hard plastic that goes “THWACK!” when you touch it. The headliner looked like it was made out of tube sock rejects. The switchgear felt like it would snap off in your hand after 2-1/2 uses. Badbadbadbadbad….
“As a high-schooler who was becoming more and more interested in American cars, I was excited about the launch of the Sebring and its platform-mate, the Dodge Avenger.” Well I was long out of school, but that’s otherwise exactly how I felt across the ditch in New Zealand at the same time William. And I remember going to the showroom to see them and feeling the same as you – the Avenger was a tad tall but tolerable, but the Sebring, oh the Sebring… After the fab-looking Gen1 and 2 (which we didn’t get in NZ), the Sebring was a disjointed disproportionate mess. The only thing I liked was the hood strakes.
I don’t know if we got the base Sebring in NZ, as I’ve only ever seen the Limited. We did get an Avenger R/T – my cousin bought one a few years ago, it certainly looked mean in black with black wheels etc, and she loved it.
One of the managers at one of my former employers chose a new Sebring as their company car, and I got to drive it a couple hundred kilometres a year or two later. It lived down to my expectations, as the quality of the interior plastics was well beyond awful and out into the realms of abysmal. Everything felt awful to touch or operate – even the leather felt like a sheet of slip ‘n’ slide plastic…
But having said that, driving it showed it did have good points. The heated/cooled cup-holders worked a treat, the touchscreen stereo was excellent, and the V6 went well and sounded great. I was shocked to find I actually enjoy driving it. But even an enjoyable driving experience couldn’t make up for the horrible environment inside and bad proportions outside.
It always seemed to me that whoever was responsible for allowing the Sebring (and, to a lesser extent, Avenger) on the market like that was trying to bring Chrysler down from within…
These Sebrings are far removed from the 1965 Newport that was considered the “best” of the ‘upper mid’ cars in Road Test magazine.
Ah yes, the elusive Sebring, usually found in its natural habitat… the BHPH used car lot.
I have to stifle a chuckle, reading that Pontiac outsold Chrysler with its similar (although less-clunky-looking) offerings in Oz – considering that, as GM’s lone holdover RWD division, most of its offerings were re-badged Holdens in the first place. 🙂
If I misread something, my apologies…but I think I got it right!
I don’t follow? If you are referring to the Pontiac G6 sales figure example, that was the US market I was referring to. We didn’t have any Pontiac-badged vehicles sold here after the 1960s.
From the article: “When Chrysler launched its rear-wheel-drive
300 in 2005, it was an immediate success and not just in North
America. Despite (or rather, because of) its brash American styling
and large dimensions, the 300 successfully grabbed market share
in places that were usually averse to large American sedans, like
Europe and Australia.”
America was teaching the rest of the world bad habits when it came to cars. ?
Been driving my Limited for 9 years now. Replaced the ECU and a wiper motor. I’m not wild about the hard plastic interior trim pieces and the front seats could be more comfortable, but it’s no big deal. I’m averaging 26 mpg. I like the way it looks. Nobody else has a ragtop for me. Am I the only one here that actually owned one?
I’ve driven two recent (ie last ten-twelve years) Chryslers. In fact they may be the only Chryslers I’ve driven. Anyway, both were rentals, one a 300 and one Sebring of this era. I actually liked the 300 quite a bit, and driving the Sebring down 280 on the SF Peninsula at night after my colleagues were in no state to drive, wasn’t bad. It seemed quiet and comfortable, and the dash lighting was great.
If the Internet is to be believed, Chrysler will no longer be selling passenger cars as of 2024. Just a single minivan, wearing two different nameplates. RIP Chrysler.
The company is now Stellantis and not Chrysler Corp. You Tube channel Donut Media was going on how “one of the big 3 will be gone” if the Chrysler brand name goes away. But, it’s just a brand, not the whole company. The reminder brands, Ram and Jeep bring in the profits. So, such goes the business.
Yes, I meant the brand, not the company.
A lot of problems with this car. First off, it was not a growing market. It was a saturated market – oversaturated in fact. Investing in anything in this shrinking oversaturated market was a wasted investment.
It was the wrong design. Had Chrysler presented the Sebring/200 as a compact CUV, that would have had a chance. There was really nothing special about this car other than its unconventional styling. Fifty years earlier, AMC could get away with unconventional styling because the market they were shooting for was large enough to sustain a niche. That wasn’t the case by this time.
There was no new idea being presented. If you want to grab a part of a shrinking oversaturated market, at least have a vehicle designed with a new idea. There was nothing new about this car. “Me too!” won’t fly. Being weird isn’t enough. This car needed to present to the buying public something not found in the competition. It didn’t even try.
The following Chrysler vehicle, the Dart, showed that the Sebring didn’t have a chance, because even with a conventional design like the Dart – Chrysler had a flop for the same reasons mentioned above.
You don’t invest in a dying oversaturated market. That is what has happened over the past twenty years.
Now, wait just a minute! That’s not true! These cars did so have a new idea: those dumb, ugly, random hood strakes.
A northern UK Chrysler dealer was selling the last of the Dodge Avengers 2 for 1 !. A father and son shared
Neons were brought by retires ,Calibre’s by some one…. The 300C was the big hit in the UK mainly with livery car companies as a cheaper alternative to a Merc E class . Sad individuals went on line and brought a Bentley grill because they’re thought it looked like one. Yes from the other sidevof the pub car Park, squinting with a few pints of beer in you.
I rented a Sebring convertible for my wife and I on our honeymoon. It was a relaxing drive with adequate power to climb Nevada mountain roads that other vehicles struggled with, though it felt dated compared to the European and Japanese cars we drove at home.
The biggest disappointment was that it wasn’t the Ford Mustang shown on the website. The car rental firm really stretched the definition of ‘or similar’.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to chat with the head of the design team about the Sebring?
They must have been working under budget constraints. This company has produced better designs leading up to the Sebring. And the 300 is an example. Perhaps the bulk of design money went to the 300 design team.
I drove one of those as a rental when my Saturn was in the shop. It was terrible both in the look and feel of the interior and the driving experience. I’m sure Enterprise’s fleet of Sebrings cost Chrysler a lot of buyers.
I rented one for a couple of days while my Focus was in the shop. It wasn’t a spectacular car, but it did get me to work, which my Focus did not.
A co-worker has one, he bought it used when he needed a cheap car quickly. I don’t think he would have bought it new, but has got him places for the past 10 years, his daughter learned to drive and eventually to not hit things with it. It’s on it’s last legs and looks terrible but still doing the job.
That’s what some people want in a car. Not too many people regularly on this site, mind you. 😉
Chrysler had the perfect identity in the Cirrus body design, it was a bad move throwing it away in favor of something so common and uninteresting as the next Sebring and it seems they put so much effort to make it even worse in this generation.
It is difficult for me to think of the Cirrus as anywhere near perfect by any measure.