(first posted 12/12/2017) What was the first-generation Sebring coupe? It wasn’t a direct rival for cars like the Toyota Celica and Honda Prelude, lacking any pretension of sportiness while boasting a rather spacious cabin for four adults. It wasn’t a direct rival for the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry coupes, as it wore a different name to Chrysler’s mid-size sedan, the Cirrus, and had its own distinctive styling. No, the Sebring coupe was a Cordoba for a new era.
While Ford and GM were producing plenty of V6 Thunderbirds and bench seat-equipped Monte Carlos, there was almost always the lure of extra performance or sportiness in cars like the Thunderbird Super Coupe and Monte Carlo Z34. Not so for the Chrysler Sebring Coupe and its platform-mate, the Dodge Avenger.
Underneath these coupes’ shapely sheet metal was the Mitsubishi Galant’s platform, the Mopar coupes sharing the Galant’s 103.7-inch wheelbase. However, while the mechanically related Eagle Talon offered all-wheel-drive and turbocharged engines, the larger Sebring and Avenger were available with only two engines. The 2.0 four-cylinder in the base coupes was shared with the Talon and Dodge Neon, and produced 140 hp at 6000 rpm and 130 ft-lbs at 4800 rpm. The upgrade engine was a Mitsubishi-sourced 2.5 V6 producing 163 hp at 5800 rpm and 170 ft-lbs at 4400 rpm. A four-speed automatic was available in both, but you could only get the 5-speed stick with the 2.0. Not very sporty.
The Avenger was a rather puzzling replacement for the defunct Daytona, considering its aggressive name, relatively sporty styling, yet underwhelming engines. After all, the Daytona had a long history of offering punchy turbocharged engines, culminating in the wild IROC R/T. Painted in red and photographed with the rest of the Dodge passenger cars, most of which had styling elements inspired by the Viper halo car, the Avenger looked like it fit in with the 1990s coupe world.
The Sebring leaned into Chrysler’s long history of plush, upper mid-market cars, as did the Sebring convertible that was introduced in 1997. Despite vaguely similar styling, the convertible was based on the Chrysler Cirrus and therefore shared virtually nothing with the coupe other than the optional Mitsubishi 2.5 V6. Conceptually, however, the coupe and convertible were similar.
1995-97 Sebring coupes carried a very Dodge-esque crosshair grille. This was, of course, a heritage throwback to the letter-series Chrysler 300s – in fact, the Sebring coupe was originally planned to be called 300 – but the last time the crosshair was used on a Chrysler was, yes, on a Cordoba (the 1980-81 LS).
Space efficiency and fuel economy were, naturally, a lot better than the Cordobas of yore. So was handling, the Sebring coupe comporting itself well in the curves but retaining a compliant ride thanks to its four-wheel independent suspension.
Chrysler’s advertising touted the Sebring as following the “Goldilocks principle”—as spacious as a luxury coupe without being as expensive, as capable dynamically as a sport coupe without riding as harshly, while offering a rear seat that could actually seat adults. There was no overt messaging about the Sebring being sporty, instead Chrysler’s advertising highlighted how sensible a purchase it was.
The base Sebring was a not-insignificant $2k higher than the base Avenger. But that extra outlay netted you standard air-conditioning and anti-lock brakes, which were only optional on the base Avenger. Otherwise, the two were similarly-equipped, with standard dual airbags, power steering, electric mirrors, and a split-fold rear seat. Opting for the Sebring LXi got you an upgraded suspension, the V6 engine, four-wheel disc brakes, cruise control, and power windows and locks. To justify its $2k premium over the Avenger ES, the LXi offered an 8-speaker Infinity sound system and keyless entry. All Sebring coupes also came with gigantic fog lights as standard.
Initially, the base coupe and LXi retailed for $16,500 and $20,000. At a time when coupe sales were declining but there were still plenty available, competition was fierce for the Chrysler, particularly from Ford and GM.
It was priced right up against the Monte Carlo LS and Z34 coupes which, although larger, didn’t offer that much more useable space and had ugly interiors. The Z34, however, offered a lot more performance than the milquetoast 2.5 V6 in the Sebring. So, too, did the 1997 Pontiac Grand Prix, while also boasting curvaceous, eye-catching styling. Ford’s Thunderbird had almost all of the Sebring LXi’s equipment for $2k less and offered the option of a V8 engine. The Chevrolet Beretta was even cheaper and similarly-sized to the Sebring, but looked very old-fashioned. Finally, the Ford Probe featured Japanese engineering like the Sebring, but had less interior space and standard equipment.
The most obvious import rivals were the Honda Accord coupe and the Toyota Camry coupe. Both were rather plain to look at, very clearly resembling their sedan counterparts. That changed with the redesigned ’98 Accord coupe and the ’99 Camry Solara, which now looked much more distinct from the sedans. Even better, both the Accord coupe and Camry Solara were competitively priced and more powerful than the Sebring.
Chrysler gave the Sebring coupe a rather classy freshening in 1998, with a revised grille and the brand’s new winged badge. The two-tone exterior treatments were gone but ribbed cladding now appeared. The elegant proportions remained unmarred and the Sebring now looked more at home in showrooms next to the dramatic new Concorde and LHS.
A pity the interior used such naff fake wood trim, something very reminiscent of the Cordoba. At least the interior was well screwed together, even if some trim pieces weren’t as high-quality as the Accord or Solara.
Sales remained remarkably steady throughout the car’s run, selling around 30k units each year and, towards the end, outselling the Avenger. This, however, was often under half the number of Monte Carlos sold each year. As for the Accord coupe and Camry Solara, using the same name for the coupe variants of their mid-size sedans meant Honda and Toyota didn’t have to report the sales breakdown. Of the scarce data available, it appears Toyota sold 50,000 Camry Solaras in 2000. That, however, includes the convertible variant, indicating the Sebring coupe perhaps was an acceptable seller for Chrysler, especially in a declining coupe market. The Sebring also skewed more towards female buyers and brought in younger buyers to the brand.
The Sebring coupe was a Cordoba for the 1990s, offering coupe style and a tempting price. Alas, the market had moved on from personal luxury coupes, so the Sebring could never reach the dizzying heights of its ancestor’s success.
1995-97 Sebring photographed in Clinton Hill, Brooklyn, NY. 1998-2000 Sebring photographed in Chelsea, Manhattan, NY.
Related Reading:
Curbside Classic: 2005 Chrysler Sebring Coupe – A Mitsubishi In All But Name
Cohort Classic: 1990 Eagle Talon TSi AWD – The Eagle Has Landed
CC Capsule: 1996-97 Thunderbird LX – Counterpoint
Curbside Classic: 1995-99 Chevrolet Monte Carlo – Lumina Coupe Two
Nice write-up on some puzzling cars. I have to admit, I never quite understood why these cars were based on the Mitsubishi Galant, rather than Chrysler’s own platform. Seemed like a lot of effort to re-trim a Japanese sedan into quasi-American personal luxury coupes for a shrinking market.
One thing that always bugged me about most Chryslers of the late ’90s early ’00s is the front license plate mounting. It looks terrible and tacked on, almost like the car is “eating” the plate. Ruins the design, and is more common than not, as most U.S. states require front plates.
Where were these built? By Diamond Star? I assume they were built in the States, since if they had been fully imported they would probably have been more expensive.
Here’s a theory: The Cirrus and Stratus were intended to replace the J-body cars, which included the solidly popular LeBaron convertible, so the possibility of a convertible version was probably baked into the platform from the start. That was NOT true of the contemporary Galant platform; when the first Eclipse Spyder came out, reviewers said it was awfully willowy, and a longer wheelbase probably wouldn’t have helped.
So, why not a JA-platform coupe? IIRC, the Dodge Colt finally disappeared around the time the Neon arrived. Chrysler may have offered Mitsubishi another platform-sharing deal to make up for that loss, and since Diamond Star was already building the mechanically related Talon/Plymouth Laser, a Galant-based coupe was a reasonably straightforward extrapolation that wouldn’t directly compete with any existing U.S.-market Chrysler or Mitsubishi product. Having two same-named, apparently related products on different platforms is still odd, but Chrysler was no stranger to that, and may have figured that buyers wouldn’t really care.
I haven’t researched this and I don’t know if it has any basis in reality, but it seems plausible as a theory.
Yes, I was thinking there might be a Diamond Star angle on these cars. They were in fact built in that plant in Normal, IL. There was probably some sort of contractual agreement between Chrysler and Mitsubishi to ensure a certain volume of output. From what I’ve read, the plant never came close to operating at capacity, and was ultimately a big money loser.
I can’t say for sure but I believe you are on the right track with your thinking. The Sebring coupe and Avenger were Diamond Star cars and the Laser/ Talon weren’t setting sales records. Chrysler was looking for a way to recoup some of the money it spent on the Diamond Star venture. The Avenger also bridged a gap for Dodge in NHRA between the Daytona and Neon in Pro Stock.
Speaking of NHRA, the Sebring/ Avenger are somewhat popular in the GT classes which is for FWD to RWD conversion running one of several different crate engines.
There was only a 2 year overlap DSM-built Chryslers, and the coupes picked up the mantle through the Stratus/Sebring run-out in 05 or 06. So, yes, contractually these replaced the Laser/Talon as Galant-based DSM-built Chryslers.
These were truly the oddball in Chrysler’s lineup during the mid-to-late 1990s. There was little to no styling unity with any other contemporary Chrysler model, especially the 1995-1997s. Their components, from platform to powertrain to switchgear and other interior components, were pure Mitsubishi, and the fact the the Sebring convertible was completely unrelated only confused things more.
The fact that Chrysler chose to introduce a large coupe when the coupe segment was already on sharp decline, and following its exit of the segment after 1993, was all the more perplexing. I’m not going to look up exact figures right now, but IIRC, the Sebring convertible outsold the coupe by something like 2 to 1.
On a personal note, my mom’s best friend, Anne, owned a brand new one (a 1999 LXi) for a few years that I rode in several times as a kid. Anne always drove coupes including Mustangs and a series of Thunderbirds before getting the Sebring. She had actually gone in shopping for the convertible, but found that her very short stature made rear visibility even worse than the convertible top’s blind spots did. So she went with the coupe instead.
It was a comfortable car, and I really liked its styling. The low, slung styling was very attractive, and dare I say the ribbed body cladding actually worked here and enhanced its design. On an interesting note, leather-equipped Sebring coupes only had leather seating surfaces in the front. The rear was all-vinyl.
As one who was in the market for a coupe in 1996, I did look at these for about three seconds. The ones I remember seeing where loaded up and quite pricey and I was able to get a V8 (a very important commodity to me at that time) Thunderbird for noticeably less.
Overall these weren’t horrible cars but nothing about them jumped out and made a person take notice.
I will add to the chorus of voices who asked . . . “Why?”
The Sebring convertible was a very attractive car in its day, so why wouldn’t Chrysler build a fixed roof variant? The Sebring coupe seemed like a stepchild that offered no standout features. It was attractive but not beautiful and performed decently but not great. There was a lot of popular buzz about Chrysler’s homegrown stuff that did nor seem to carry over to these.
A friend of mine had a 98 LXi. Got it from his in-laws that bought it new. Not a horrible car, but had lots of nagging little issues, including a check engine light that was always on because it kept throwing a code for a problem that simply didn’t exist. Leave it to Chrysler to screw up “Japanese engineering”
I always thought these were attractive, although the lack of a V-6/manual combination was a turnoff and I didn’t like the fake wood. The obvious rival, aside from the others listed, was probably the Mazda MX-6, which was somewhat more capable, but a lot more expensive, comparably equipped.
I knew someone in the ’90s who would have been a perfect candidate for the Sebring or Avenger coupe, but the Chrysler brand made it a no-go for him, even though it was basically a Mitsubishi underneath. I got the feeling it was probably somewhat troublesome, as R&DMan experienced, so he may have had a point.
The otherwise-nice frontal facelift of the 1998 Sebring is completely ruined for me by the resolutely horizontal hood seam. Talk about clashing…
Do you know what is worse than fake fender vents? A fake grille, and the Sebring coupe had one from 1995 to 1997. It looked like it was made by Rubbermaid.
Yes, I agree. Just terrible.
Even the ’98-above “open” grille was fake; the Sebring was a bottom-breather. The revised grille definitely helped aesthetically, but all it did otherwise was add drag.
A young coworker of mine bought one of these coupes to replace a tired Explorer Sport. While a very attractive car, I remember it as being full of niggling little faults, requiring lots of visits to the dealer. She ended up trading it after two years for a V6 Camry Solara, which was much smoother, far faster and better assembled and she ended up keeping that car for many years.
Regarding the Sebring convertible, a high proportion of sales must have been accounted for by rental fleets. I remember renting one of these in Hawaii. The National fleet in Maui seemed to consist entirely of Sebring, Mustang, and Cavalier convertibles.
My youngest sister had one of these, in a roundabout way it was a replacement for her much loved 70 Malibu 2 door hardtop (307 with Powerglide). Her’s was a 4 cylinder LX coupe which I imagine she bought because it looked sporty and the price was “right”. It wasn’t bad looking in it’s very Chrysler dark blue paint, but it did stick out for being the only Chrysler car owned by any family members in decades (Dodge and Chrysler minivans having been owned by 1 BIL until Honda put a 6 cylinder engine in their minivan).
Like others here, thought it was odd that the coupe and convertible used different platforms. I realize they were replacements for the LeBaron coupe and convertible, but with different platforms, why not different names? Oh, yeah, styling was nearly identical between coupe and convertible.
Oddly, the convertible makes a case for itself with only Toyota building a direct competitor. The coupes, however, come across as just being a sort of “companion” car for the Avenger.
As coupes, these would have been at the bottom of my shopping list….with the Probe at the top.
Just hope Toyota follow the ” new ” trend of hacthback cars like the (opel insignia) Buick SportBack but in tudor form .
The car pictured looks like the former Scion tc, now that the Scion brand has disappeared do they still build this? (Sell it in the U. S).
With each passing year the number of 2 door models with or without hatchbacks melts away like snow on a warm day….to be “replaced” by CUVs.
still avalaible in arabia as a toyota Zelas : http://www.toyota-global.com/showroom/vehicle_gallery/result/zelas/
I am imagining the silky smooth sound of the 2.0 four as it revs to 6,000 rpms to get all of its 140 horses.
Nope. Sorry. My imagination has its limits.
Maybe it wasn’t effortlessly powerful in an old V8 sort of way, but it was extremely smooth for a 90s (or late-80s-designed) I4, owing to its Mitsubishi design with dual balance shafts, and it was a legendary engine in its own right – the vaunted 4G63 – giving it direct lineage to WRC victories, record-setting power levels, and a number of still-standing automotive firsts (direct injection, the balance shafts).
I agree with the consensus, these were an ‘also-ran’ car. Not terrible, but unnecessary. And when you find out they’re mostly a Mitsubishi, just run away.
I’m surprised by the distaste for these (except the early Sebring had the ugliest wheel choices ever). I had two friends who owned a variation of these; Whitney had an early Avenger 2.0/MT and Steve had a facelifted Sebring 2.5. Both red. They liked them, and the Avenger lasted forever for a Mopar of that era; 240,000 miles. If you have never been in one, the stats on the backseat do not convey how spacious these were. Easily as comfortable as a contemporary Camry – and bigger than any MN12 Ford I’ve been in. The dash is the exact same unit from the Gen. 2 Eclipse / Talon twins. I have a third friend who had one of those, Michael’s Eclipse GS, and I would much prefer Whitney’s Avenger. Way more useful if you had passengers in that it rode better, had an actual backseat, and the trunk seemed larger. They are basically the same car underneath but had vastly different compromises. Form versus function in a very blatant display. I don’t think Chrysler did anything wrong with these; waayyy better than the LeBaron coupe they replaced.
“It wasn’t a direct rival for the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry coupes as it wore a different name to Chrysler’s mid-size sedan, the Cirrus, and had its own distinctive styling”
I disagree, it was trying to compete with the Camry and Accord coups and I think it might have influenced Toyota with their Solara. The Solara like the Sebring coupe looked different then the sedan. Also other the owners manual and brochure and Toyota marketing, the Camry name does not show up at all on the car. The car simply says Solara on it and nobody ever called the car Camry Solara.
Being a fan of most / almost all Cordobas, the opening paragraph sucked me right in. I can kind of see this premise – that the new Sebring coupe was a new expression of personal luxury for the ’90s.
One major problem I had with it was that the outgoing LeBaron, even after sticking around for far too long and with it’s details increasingly sullied with each passing model year, still looked way, way better.
The duplicated “Sebring” model name uses for two distinctly different cars always left me with the impression that someone at Chrysler just didn’t do their homework the night before. All the same, I am glad these were not ultimately called “300”.
As for the Daytona-to-Avenger transition over at Dodge, I love(d) the Daytona, so the notchbacked Avenger was sorely disappointing for me to look at. They look okay today – I just far prefer the Daytona, any of them.
I realized as I read this that even though this is a Mopar town i I only remember seeing one of these. It was a guy in my exes complex who bought it to replace a tired early eighties charger. I know it disappeared a few years ago but it was so uninteresting I can’t even remember when.
I remember seeing a road test of the Chrysler comparing it to the Honda Accord Coupe and the Toyota Camry Solara and the Chrysler came in third place. It wasn’t a bad car, but probably not up to the same levels of ride, handling and reliability as the Accord and Camry.
Although you’ve compared it to a number of mid-sized coupes, I tend to think that the Chrysler was really more of a competitor to compact coupes like the Pontiac Grand Am and G6, Oldsmobile Achieva and Alero, and Buick Skylark and maybe the Nissan Altima Coupe.
Did you mean to include the G6 in there? Remember that the G6 was a large mid-size coupe/sedan in the mid ’00s.
Yeah. The G6 wasn’t that big. It was about an inch or so shorter than the Camry Solara and 9 inches shorter than the Grand Prix of that time. Also about an inch longer than the ’94-’97 Accord Coupe.
The G6 was about 2 and a half inches longer than the ’95-’96 Sebring Coupe and about an inch shorter than the ’97-2000 Sebring Coupe.
These coupes were based on the Eclipse, and actually used the same door skins (but different window glass) and most of the dash. I found it cleaver to do that and just extend the wheelbase for a bigger rear seat!
I’m late to the party, but came to post this. The platform is related to the Galant, but I think these were basically stretched Eclipses. As such, although there was good length in the back seat, it was still low and not easy to get in and out of. To my eye the front fenders, headlights and maybe the windshield are common too.
My dad had a 98+ Sebring and I wasn’t terribly impressed with it. Slow, relatively hard riding but without a really big payoff in handling. Plus a ridiculously large turning radius that meant even routine pulling into a parking lot space became a three point turn at times. All the downsides of a sporty car but with the unrealized pretense of the comfort of a personal luxury car.
Hmm, in the SF Bay Area of California these were very visible on the road in their day, at least in Sebring guise, perhaps mostly rentals. Between San Jose airport (Silicon Valley business travelers) and Yosemite/Muir Woods/Golden Gate Bridge view points (tourists) there are places around here that seem mostly populated by rental cars. 10-15 years ago Sebrings, now Mustangs … or Nissan Rogues.
As a lover and previous owner, I’m obliged to throw out a reminder about the (FWD) G-body Buick Rivieras (94-98 MY). They were priced higher than the cars discussed here (28-32k then) but offered very good value in a full size luxury coupe when compared to similar offerings from Ford (Lincoln Mark VII) or Toyota (Lexus SC / Soarer). My low mile 1994 was beautiful, super comfortable and very well built with plenty of power from the supercharged 3800. It got compliments almost daily. It met a sad end about a year ago but the accident did prove the G Platform was indeed very solidly designed/built as GM was very proud of back then – they cited the W124 Benzes as the solidity mark for the chassis, and everyone who ever set foot in one knows those things were as solid as a bank vault.
Anyway – as for the subject Mitsu-Chryslers, a buddy had an 94-95 Avenger in 1998 or so. As has been discussed here, I recall that the styling was attractive and distinctive, but the interior was a rattly and creaky plastic fantastic mess. I remember distinctly how the door panels felt like they would come off in your hands every time you shut the doors. Oh well, you get what you pay for I suppose. 🙂
I’ve had my eye on getting a supercharged Riviera for some time now. 20 years down the road and they’re still attractive cars.
@Drzhivago138 – thanks for the reply. I assure you, find a nice one (I know where one is although its bordello red inside and out) … And you won’t be disappointed. The one I unfortunately stuffed was a 40k example and I was stunned by how nice it still was 20 years down the road. The old man I bought it from is a super nice dude and the owner of said red one, along with several Grand Nationals … GM guy through and through. He’s a retired engineer from McDonnell Douglas and wouldn’t push anything but a big GM car, mostly Buick. He apparently had a Cadillac CTS coupe as well at one time – which is also cool since I have a CTS4 sedan as my daily driver today. Small world eh! 😉
I’ve had 2 Accord V6 coupes, a ’98 and a ’05, but I never even glanced at these visual nothing mobiles. To my eyes they simply vanished as, IMO, they had styling that was instantly forgettable; therefore the car was simply not worth considering. Yes: STYLING $ell$!! 🙂
Oh my: I totally forgot about that blue Civic for my wife behind my ’05 Accord EX-L V6; makes 69 cars not 68 that I’ve owned! DFO
Good eye!
I would have never noticed this car. It looks like just another Chrysler product from the 1990s – never would have noticed how it was different.
In 1995, special ordered a new 1996 Sebring LXI, fully optioned and white over silver. Spacious interior with split fold down rear seat and large trunk was great for long distance driving with my pets (multiple large pet carriers plus litter box in the trunk). Its size and style sold me first time I saw one. Yes, it could have used a more powerful engine but never found it lacking in normal city / highway driving. In fact, cruising at 90 mph on the Interstate it never seemed stressed. When I traded it for a new white 2011 Camaro 2LT the Sebring had 101K trouble free mostly highway miles and still looked showroom new, solid body and not one squeak. Frankly, I would have kept the Sebring after getting the Camaro but also had a pearl white 1998 supercharged Riviera and did not have indoor parking for three cars.
I have a passion for white coupes. Does the style cause me to glance back after parking and walking away? Does it have unified flowing interior elements because that is where I spend most of the time? Power is nice but never a reason I bought a new car.