Chrysler Sebring Cabriolet 2.7 V6

[VenSeattle]

Jeremy Clarkson Review: Chrysler Sebring Cabriolet 2.7 V6
From The Sunday Times - October 5, 2008
Link to Article

Many people imagine when they rent a convertible in America that they’ll be thumping down Highway 1 under a blazing sky in a throbbing Corvette or an evocative Mustang. Yum yum, they think. Freedom. Sunshine. A V8 bass line. Engineer boots, leather jackets and tight blue jeans. The American dream.

Sadly, however, most tourists end up with a Chrysler Sebring convertible, which is almost certainly the worst car in the entire world.

My journey in this automotive horror story began in Wendover. Famous for being a base used by the Enola Gay back in 1945, it lies on the border between Utah and Nevada. So half the town is full of man mountains emptying what’s left of their savings into MGM’s shiny and very noisy slots. And the other half is full of Donny Osmond. As you can imagine, I was in a hurry to leave and so I piled, along with my Top Gear colleagues, into the rented Sebring and set off for Denver.

Immediately, I was annoyed by a nonstop whining sound from the back. This turned out to be Richard Hammond, who, despite being 8in tall, claimed that he had never been so uncomfortable in his life, apart from when he was being born. “Only that,” he said, “was more spacious.”

After several hours of continuous moaning, he changed his tack. I’d selected a “classic vinyl” station on the car’s satellite radio and this did not meet with his approval. As a fan of Westlife and Girls Aloud, he didn’t see why James May and I were air-drum-ming our way across the salt flats to a nonstop selection of brilliance from Supertramp, Yes and the Allman Brothers. Eventually, Hocus Pocus by Focus drove him into such a frenzy of whingeing, we could take no more and drowned him out by turning up Steve Miller to the max.

I can only presume that when Steve went from Phoenix, Arizona, all the way to Tacoma, he was not at the wheel of a Sebring, or the song would have been rather different. “I went from Phoenix, Arizona, to the other side of the city and then I went home again.”

Certainly, we only got as far as Salt Lake City in our rented car before we ditched it and resorted to the services offered by Delta. It had been 120 miles of abject misery, and not only because of the unswervingly pissed-off Richard Hammond.

Let us look, first of all, at the car’s only good point. The boot is bigger than the hangar deck of a Nimitz class aircraft carrier. However, the drawback of driving a car with an aircraft carrier on the back is that it doesn’t look very good. No. That doesn’t cover it. It looks terrible. Hysterically awful. Anyone thinking of drawing up a list of the ugliest cars ever made will be forced to put this one at the top. I have seen more attractive boils.

And disappointingly, if you push the button that lowers the roof - and then push it again because it isn’t working properly - you will find that a) all of the carrying capacity is lost, and that b) with no roof in place, everyone can see you at the wheel. This is very bad. Some, for sure, give you pitying looks. Mostly, though, they point and laugh.

So how much do you have to pay for the privilege of being a laughing stock? Well in the US, it’s around $29,000 (£16,400). You could buy a clown suit for less and achieve much the same effect. Here, however, a 2.7 litre drop-top Sebring is £25,100 and at that price, I simply don’t know how the salesman keeps a straight face.

Power? There isn’t any. Spec sheets show that in Britain, a 2.7 litre V6 will do 121mph and 0-62mph in 10.8.

But 10.8 what? Years? Let me put it this way. It develops 185bhp, which is pretty much what Volvo can get these days from a 2.4 litre diesel.

I’m afraid I have no idea which engine was fitted to my rental but I can tell you that all it did was convert fuel into noise. Put your foot down hard and after a while of nothing happening, the gearbox would lurch down a cog and the volume would increase. That was it.

Sadly, there’s more bad news. Turning petrol into motion, as we know, is an expensive business, but turning it into sound is even worse. We managed just 18mpg. Quite why anyone would buy this rather than, say, a Volkswagen Eos, I simply do not know. You’d have to be so window-lickingly insane that you’d be banned from handling anything other than crayons.

A Sebring can do nothing well. It was hopeless in crosswinds and the only option you need on a twisty road are sick bags. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , however, while the ride is very soft, the suspension still manages to crash about like a drawer full of cutlery when it is asked to deal with a small pothole.

And of course, being an American rental car, it came with a warped disc brake and steering that was so out of whack it kept making a beeline for Wyoming. But the worst thing was the overwhelming sense from everything you touched that it had been built by someone who was being deliberately stupid or who was four years old. Life inside that bag of crap plastic gave me some idea of what it might be like to be a boiled sweet.

We see this with so many American cars. Dynamically, some of them are pretty good these days. One or two are even a match for what the Chinese are doing. And by and large they are still extremely cheap. But there’s a very good reason for this. They are simply not built to last.

I spent most of my time in America this time in a new Corvette ZR1. It is a fabulous car. Mesmerisingly fast, good looking and amazing value. But after three days the damn thing was beginning to disintegrate. It made me growl with annoyance and despair.

But I think I know the problem. Because America is a new country, the people who live there have no sense of history. And if you have no concept of “the past”, it is extremely difficult to grapple with the idea of “the future”.

If you think a bar established in 1956 is “old” then you will not understand the idea of next week. So why bother building for it?

We see this short-termism in everything from the average American house, which falls over whenever the wind gets up, to the way chief executives are treated. In Japan, you are given 25 years before you are judged on whether you’ve turned the company around. In America, bosses are given two months. And if there’s been no financial about-turn, they are fired.

AIG and Lehman Brothers got caught out because they were being run by people who live only in the here and now. They couldn’t see that it would all come crashing down in the future because there’s no such thing.

I suppose eco-mentalists would use this argument as a stick to beat the pickup driving masses. But how can Hank and Billy-Bob think about the world ending in a thousand years when everything they know, everything they are, began a week last Tuesday?

And this brings me on to the war in Iraq. They went in there, knowing that pretty quickly they could depose Saddam Hussein. But nobody in power stopped for a moment to think about what might happen next. And there you have it. The insurgency problem in Baghdad and the wonky gearlever on the Chrysler Sebring. They are both caused by exactly the same thing.

And the only cure, frankly, is time. Give them 2,000 years and they might just start to understand what I’m on about. Until then, do not buy a Sebring. Do not rent one either. Close your eyes, hum and, hopefully, we can make it go away.

THE CLARKSOMETER
ENGINE 2736cc, six cylinders
POWER 185bhp @ 6400rpm
TORQUE 188 lb ft @ 4000rpm
TRANSMISSION Six-speed auto
FUEL/CO2 26.9mpg / 248g/km
ACCELERATION 0-62mph: 10.8sec
TOP SPEED 121mph
PRICE £25,100
ROAD TAX BAND G (£400 a year)
RELEASE DATE Out now

Clarkson’s verdict
All that’s missing is the clown suit Chrysler

Sebring Cabriolet 2.7 V6
(No stars)

[VenSeattle]

Rebuttal from Autoblog:

Yep, that's Jeremy Clarkson talking up the Chrysler Sebring convertible in his column for The Sunday Times today. What, you expected anything less than a wholesale evisceration? Clarkson weighing in on the astoundlingly sub-par Sebring is pretty much the motor-journalistic equivalent of using a Stinger missile to take out your kid's SpongeBob birthday piñata. It didn't stand a chance.

The laughs come early and often as the Chrysler gets mercilessly worked over like one of Mike Tyson's sparring partners in the '80s, but be forewarned: by the time Jezza puts down his pen, America's Number One Fan has managed to work in AIG, Lehman Brothers and the Iraq war as he slips in his obligatory jabs at the country, which the Chrysler becomes symbolic of.

The way Clarkson sees it, quality sucks in the Sebring and other American cars because we Americans have no sense of history and are thus incapable of planning for the future (by making something built to last). Whatever -- he's entitled to his opinion. Speaking for myself, I can deal with the crappy Sebring in the grand scheme of things; that's a miniscule tradeoff for having something to celebrate on July 4th. Besides, it's not all tea and cookies in the former motherland, anyway...

[vonVeezelsnider]

He's funny but sometimes I want to run him over with my car.

[Croc]

His insecurity is really quite transparent, huh? Yeah, the Americans really need to build cars that last, like the British...WAITAMINUTE!

[CARBIZ]

Just like his TV show: full of laughs, but the shots are cheap. He's the Chamberlain of the car biz: lots of hot air, Brittanic arrogance but no substance.

I"ve driven this convertible, and although I don't think it's Chrysler's best effort, it's not its worst either.

[Drew Dowdell]

Yeah... the Sebring is FAR worse than any British car......

OH WAIT!!!

Maybe if it had Lucas Electronics, it'd be better....

[NeonLX]

It is asking a lot of the 2.7L V6 to yank a big tub like the Sebring Convertible around with any kind of gusto. It ain't the torquiest engine ever built, though it would do fine in something 1000-lbs. lighter than the bulky Sebring 'vert.

To add insult to injury, the engine has to twirl its feeble torque through Chrysler's mashed potato-drive 4-speed ATX. I guess it's a little better than a Dynaflow because at least the torque convertor locks up at highway speeds.

[Drew Dowdell]

And yet they put that same 2.7 litre in the LX cars?

[FAPTurbo]

I'm accustomed to calling Chrysler's the 'world's worst cars' , but even I think this review is harsh. Plus, he's a d-bag.

[loki]

To add insult to injury, the engine has to twirl its feeble torque through Chrysler's mashed potato-drive 4-speed ATX. I guess it's a little better than a Dynaflow because at least the torque convertor locks up at highway speeds.

it says it's a 6 speed on the "clarksometer"

eh, i'm not surprised.

[Robert Hall]

I had one of these a rental in July in Florida...not the worst car by far, IMHO...a Chevy Aveo would be infinitely worse, IMHO. Drove smoothly enough, had comfortable seats. Driving one of these I felt like a tourist, driving an Aveo I'd feel like I was on welfare.

The interior plastics were blah, but that's expected with a current Chrysler product.. some oddities is how tall the rear is--the decklid is a long reach to shut when open (and I'm 6 ft tall!)... with the top down, the trunk space is very tiny..enough room for my rolly carryon bag and backpack, but that was it. I did have a problem with the driver's seat, after folding it forward to let a rear seat passenger out, the plastic release came off in my hand when I was trying to get the seat back rest back to the normal position.

The styling is very odd, the proportioning very odd. The 2 previous generations of Sebrings were better looking cars, IMHO. Overall, though, the 3rd gen is not a bad car...I'm sure there are much worse cars out there, in the US and the UK (don't they have some horrific tiny 1-litre Suzukis and Protons in the UK?)

Edited October 6, 2008 by moltar

[SoCalCTS]

Utter Rubbish! His Corvette ZRI fell apart after 3 days?? This guy is a liar. If his Sebring needed an alignment job, he could have switched it out for a different one. The Sebring is no gem but I have driven rental cars in Europe and guess what??? They suck too.

Edited October 6, 2008 by SoCalCTS

[pow]

This, apparently, must be it... there's a silver Sebring convertible (and a silver TrailBlazer), I guess as their camera car.

http://www.autoblog.com/photos/top-gear-uk...he-u-s/1046387/

The vehicles they're filming in are the ZR1 (Clarkson), Challenger SRT-8 (Hammond), and CTS-V (May).

[CMG]

LOL!!!!

Shock journalism! How shocking!

Yup, ALL AMERICAN CARS ARE JUNK!

Thanks for the link.

[Satty]

Can we all agree that its the worst V6, FWD, folding-hardtop optional convertible made by an American company?

[Robert Hall]

Can we all agree that its the worst V6, FWD, folding-hardtop optional convertible made by an American company?

Well, maybe..I haven't driven a G6 convertible yet, though. But the G6 definitely looks better, IMHO.

[Satty]

G6 has a standard folding hardtop. And the G6 sucks pretty hard.

[frogger]

Ah convertibles that drive like overweight family sedans.. Lovely.

[CMG]

I think those who don't know who Jeremy Clarkson is are at a disadvantage here...

His review of the Sebring was humorous, but it's not his MOST HATED American car by far I bet....

He didn't blow it up with a helicopter at least.... :AH-HA_wink:

[CMG]

Ah convertibles that drive like overweight family sedans.. Lovely.

He's Jeremy Clarkson. A 2006 Corvette Z06 is a completely unroadworthy car to him that he once compared to HERPES.

[Robert Hall]

I think those who don't know who Jeremy Clarkson is are at a disadvantage here...

His review of the Sebring was humorous, but it's not his MOST HATED American car by far I bet....

He didn't blow it up with a helicopter at least.... :AH-HA_wink:

What did he blow up with a helicopter?

[CMG]

What did he blow up with a helicopter?

A Corvette! With a Gatlin gun! lol

He's done numerous Corvette "reviews" and always finds a way to absolutely hate them. The Z06 he deemed "unroadworthy" and claimed the 2006 version lasted three days before it started to "fall apart". He hates all American cars, and usually isn't bashful about letting his view be known...

:AH-HA_wink:

[MyerShift]

The current Sebring may be rather unpleasant to look at and it really isn't up to any sort of par against the competition aside from the gadgets that it has.

I have decided that a Chrysler (Company) without good styling is nothing.

There is no way they could sell cars the way Toyota does... modelling them after lumpy potatoes and calling it a day.

Chrysler needs flash and substance. The latter which is severely lacking in all but the LX cars.

[loki]

Chrysler needs flash and substance. The latter which is severely lacking in all but the SRT and LX cars.

fixed. lol

[CMG]

fixed. lol

LOL

That sums it up for me too mostly right now, though the new Rams sure look nice. I haven't driven one but those who have sure seem impressed.....

[MyerShift]

fixed. lol

Haha! How could I forget the MorePower MOPARS!?

[CMG]

Chrysler's entry level stuff is lacking, but not by the exaggerated amount I frequently see posted ...

Calibers aren't anything special until they get to the SRT level for me, the CVT trans is great as a novelty as far as I'm concerned but neither the performance or mileage is GREATLY affected, so it's not that big of a deal to me.

Most of the Sebrings and entry level vans are utilitarian as far as I'm concerned, they are useful and inexpensive. They aren't stunning pieces of art lookswise, they don't have Ferrari performance or Bentley interiors. They aren't aimed at hardcore enthusiasts, they are aimed at the commuting masses who have budgets in mind.

The new Dodge Ram sure looks good, which could be a nice vehicle that could sell in numbers. I want to see what the "redesigned" LX cars look like. Could be great, or could be like the "redesigned" Dakotas and Durangos of a few years ago- a step in the WRONG direction, styling wise, as far as I'm concerned....

Time will tell.....

[Blake Noble]

Can we all agree that its the worst V6, FWD, folding-hardtop optional convertible made by an American company?

I can agree to that.

I can also agree that Clarkson's verdict on a lot of modern, recent American cars is somewhat correct, and especially true of American cars made during the 1980s and 1990s. I've agreed with his "disposable standard" comment in a GM-related rant a long time ago.

Edited October 12, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[Z-06]

Chrysler should be treated with less criticism for a while especially after they were treated like a stepson for almost a decade. I think the company deserves a second chance for a couple-three years till their products start showing up under new design chief. I hope it survives till then.

[A Horse With No Name]

Ditto-they have built some great cars in the past....

Chris

[VenSeattle]

Chrysler should be treated with less criticism for a while especially after they were treated like a stepson for almost a decade. I think the company deserves a second chance for a couple-three years till their products start showing up under new design chief. I hope it survives till then.

Great! Are you willing to go out and buy a new one right now? That's the problem. Regardless of the "respectability" Chrysler deserves, it's still lacking class leading products (or in some cases, any product at all) in most markets. That will not allow Chrysler to maintain credibility or market share until it can come out with more competitive products.

[Blake Noble]

Chrysler should be treated with less criticism for a while especially after they were treated like a stepson for almost a decade. I think the company deserves a second chance for a couple-three years till their products start showing up under new design chief. I hope it survives till then.

Criticism is given where criticism is deserved.

At least I can say that Chrysler does build cars that are appealing to me in the LX models. (That's one more car than I get from GM, by the way.)

However, most of Chrysler's other offerings are enough to make my eyes bleed.

Great! Are you willing to go out and buy a new one right now? That's the problem. Regardless of the "respectability" Chrysler deserves, it's still lacking class leading products (or in some cases, any product at all) in most markets. That will not allow Chrysler to maintain credibility or market share until it can come out with more competitive products.

+1

Edited October 13, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[MyerShift]

I'd go out and get something like the Avenger or Sebring if they offered a manual transmission and dark green paint.

[Z-06]

Great! Are you willing to go out and buy a new one right now? That's the problem. Regardless of the "respectability" Chrysler deserves, it's still lacking class leading products (or in some cases, any product at all) in most markets. That will not allow Chrysler to maintain credibility or market share until it can come out with more competitive products.

Those products can only come out under this new management after two or three years not within six months.

Yes I will definitely buy Challenger or Ram or GC. Heck I might even consider the Patriot considering it gives almost 30 mpg without sacrificing utility. The stick shift is really under rated, and those looking for a compact SUV should definitely give it a shot.

It is not about going and buying one of Chrysler vehicle right now. It is about what circumstances have lead to the current product laconicity. Didn't Chry make efforts in improving the interior of the of Compass and Liberty? As a matter of fact all these current products were conceptualized as neutered and spayed vehicles under Dr. Baldy and his cohorts along with strangling the brand although granted Chrysler top management did not have balls to talk against the Diamler Deutsche cronies and stand up against them.

The current reality might be true about Chry being a dog now but writing it off for the future is not a genuine proposition.

And do not be surprised if it beats GM in Volt game.

[NeonLX]

it says it's a 6 speed on the "clarksometer"

eh, i'm not surprised.

You know, maybe they are putting the six-speed trans behind the 2.7L engine now. I don't think they were when the new Sebring was introduced; I think it was only the 3.5L V6 that got the 6-speed tranny. I could very well be wrong though. I honestly haven't been paying a lot of attention to Chrysler products over the past two years. Which is a sad statement, given my decades of driving Mopars, starting with my '66 Plymouth Belvedere...

The six speed would help a little, I suppose. But a car of that stature really should have the 3.5L as standard, with the torquier 4.0L V6 optional.

[CMG]

Great! Are you willing to go out and buy a new one right now? That's the problem. Regardless of the "respectability" Chrysler deserves, it's still lacking class leading products (or in some cases, any product at all) in most markets. That will not allow Chrysler to maintain credibility or market share until it can come out with more competitive products.

We did.

We bought a Magnum R/T and LOVE it. We have had it for over a year, couldn't be happier.

[SoCalCTS]

I would love to see Volkswagen and Chrysler merge! Wasn't the great little Dodge Omni a collaboration with Volkswagen?

[CMG]

I would love to see Volkswagen and Chrysler merge! Wasn't the great little Dodge Omni a collaboration with Volkswagen?

Nope.

Chrysler bought engines from VW and elsewhere until their own 2.2 was viable to take over.

Beside, the minivans have Chrysler and VW merging anyways!

lol

[MyerShift]

You know, maybe they are putting the six-speed trans behind the 2.7L engine now.

The six speed would help a little, I suppose. But a car of that stature really should have the 3.5L as standard, with the torquier 4.0L V6 optional.

Chrysler is teeming the new 6-speed automatic transmission to the 2.7L engine only in export models.

The U.S. versions continue to use the very aged 4-speed automatic.

I disagree witht he 4.0L unit being used.

What Chrysler ought to do is have the 1.8, 2.0, or even 2.4L World Engines in various states of turbocharged tune. It would most likely help the efficiency ratings of a Sebring Vert over a hulking 4.0L V6 in everyday conditions and imbue the car with a more spunky personality. That is, supposing they could get them refined and pleasant enough to use and to employ manual transmissions and the new automatic instead of the ridiculous CVT or 4-speed.

[NeonLX]

I'm still not a fan of smaller displacement, turbo'd motors yanking around big heavy tubs like the Sebring, at least with auto trannies. I'm kind of old school; I'd prefer a larger, torquier engine that's able to loaf along at highway speeds and return reasonable fuel economy from not always having to drive with a heavy foot. The turbo engines are certainly better than they were a decade or two back, but I still like the extra (and immediate) torque of a larger engine in a heavy-ish vehicle like the Sebring (or my current Malibu).

Now, your idea of pairing the turbo with a nice manual tranny--that certainly has merit!

[VenSeattle]

We did.

We bought a Magnum R/T and LOVE it. We have had it for over a year, couldn't be happier.

Wow... that's a rare sight... However, I can sympathize with you. I understand being completely satisfied with a discontinued make/model.

[A Horse With No Name]

Yeah... the Sebring is FAR worse than any British car......

OH WAIT!!!

Maybe if it had Lucas Electronics, it'd be better....

Given that EVERY British Sports Car enthusiast has told me to NEVER buy a British car...maybe his wining is a little misplaced.

However, compared to the G6 and the Mustang, it is no comparison. I'd buy a clean older Sebring regtop for $1500 for my teenaged daughter to drive, but I wouldn't pay $30,000 for the Sebring.

Clarkson was in some ways more charitable towards the car than I would have been.

Chris