Chrysler Sebring Convertible spy photos

[mphmag]

If anyone's interested.
http://www.mph-online.com/web/spyphotos/0026

[CSpec]

It looks like the G6 will have a much larger back seat, but this has more trunk space.

[Sixty8panther]

Well, we can see the rims.... and a hint of character line. Not much else though. I wish Chrysler made the 4dr 300 ragtop they showed off last year.

[Croc]

I like the Sebring convertible. It's fun and breezy. If GM hadn't cheaped out on the G6 interior the convertible would be great. As of now, the only good midsized conv. is that of the SAAB 9-3.

[Croc]

We already know the Sebring is a chick car. But as far as chicky convertibles go, it isn't half bad. First time I was in Cali my mom and I upgraded to the convertible at the rental car place and we drove the 405 from LA to San Diego and back...quite the drive and surprisingly traffic didn't suck too much. Lots of fun...and I got a decent neck tan. -- As for the G6, I don't care about launch problems...I am working under the assumption that yes the vehicle is coming, but that no, they didn't fix the interior at all. The Sebrings always had at least decent interiors.

[mphmag]

i see it more as a grandma, we just moved to florida, car. (and I'm from florida so don't complain) I'm very surprised Chrysler is going through with a sebring. But maybe if they keep a sedan at a fusion size FWD, the larger 300C RWD then Dodge will keep the small cars, caliber. And not bring in a Sebring clone. Thoughts? I'd like to see one company stop with the badge engineering. And I think the bad sales of Lincoln mercury rebadge jobs might force Ford to stop the badge madness.

[Croc]

i see it more as a grandma, we just moved to florida, car. (and I'm from florida so don't complain)
I'm very surprised Chrysler is going through with a sebring. But maybe if they keep a sedan at a fusion size FWD, the larger 300C RWD then Dodge will keep the small cars, caliber. And not bring in a Sebring clone. Thoughts?

I'd like to see one company stop with the badge engineering. And I think the bad sales of Lincoln mercury rebadge jobs might force Ford to stop the badge madness.

[post="51868"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

As of now, the supply shortages somewhat undermine your argument for the Milan and Zephyr. The Fusion is the only one NOT facing a shortage as of now.

[mphmag]

I meant more the SUVs But the shortages aren't all from demand as I understand it. I'm not won over by that trio yet. The mazda 6 is still a better car! and it's sales are dropping. Can't wait to drive the mazdaspeed 6 that just got dropped off.

[sciguy_0504]

I don't mind platform sharing but blatant rebadging is annoying. Mercury's are pushing the limit for me and the CSV's are rediculous.

[Northstar]

Is it just me or is that rear overhang rediculously long? I guess it's good for trunk space though.

[CSpec]

Is it just me or is that rear overhang rediculously long? I guess it's good for trunk space though.

[post="51887"][/post]

I guess they want it to look like its predecessor:

[BrewSwillis]

i see it more as a grandma, we just moved to florida, car. (and I'm from florida so don't complain)
I'm very surprised Chrysler is going through with a sebring. But maybe if they keep a sedan at a fusion size FWD, the larger 300C RWD then Dodge will keep the small cars, caliber. And not bring in a Sebring clone. Thoughts?

I'd like to see one company stop with the badge engineering. And I think the bad sales of Lincoln mercury rebadge jobs might force Ford to stop the badge madness.

[post="51868"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I don't know what you mean by "I'm very surprised Chrysler is going through with a sebring", but the Dodge Avenger will look nothing like the Sebring. Well, maybe as much as the 300 looks like the Charger.

[PurdueGuy]

I don't mind platform sharing but blatant rebadging is annoying.

I agree. Car companies really can't survive without platform sharing, but when it's just a difference of a grill & tail lights, then it gets stupid. Where it gets more iffy is when there are more notable changes, but the company tries to command a much steeper price for one model over the other.

[BrewSwillis]

I would say that's probably going to be an overstatement.

[post="51952"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

O.K., well, my friend works there, but I guess we'll see. It won't be how the Sebring and Stratus look right now.

[frogger]

I was just looking over my full rez, raw images again and I think its very possible that the soft top material is totally fake and hiding a folding hard top.

[post="51970"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I dunno, part of why it does so well in rental fleets must be because of its decent interior and trunk space (for a vert) needed for road trips.

One nice thing about this car, doesn't look like it will look like a Solara at all. Edited December 3, 2005 by frogger

[Drew Dowdell]

Oh goodies.... powered by chrysler engines..... does that mean I can have the 2.7 litre Chrysler Hemi-magnum powerhouse die on the Florida Turnpike with 3,000 miles on the clock again!?!?! Oh please let it be so! Seriously, why doesn't anyone ever address the crappiness of the Chrysler engines <not including Hemi> The 4 cylinders make a Quad-4 with no oil look like a swiss watch. The 2.7 is gutless The 3.5 lacks refinement and reliability The 4.0 in the jeeps always have oil leaks I agree that is may be time for the 3800 to die, but it still seems to do it's job better then any V6 Mopar is producing.

[Flybrian]

The 2.7 is indeed a gutless mill.

[BrewSwillis]

The 2.7 is indeed a gutless mill.

[post="52114"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yeah, 200 HP and 188 ft/lbs in the older Chrysler cars in the mid 90's is really weak for a 2.7L, that get's upwards of 28 MPG. :rolleyes:

It's was retuned for more torque on the heavy LX cars and now gets 190 HP/190 ft/lbs. while still getting 28 MPG. However it will be replaced very soon. Why complain about old engines that are just about to be replaced? The GM 3800 only got 205 HP out of 3.8L.

[Drew Dowdell]

Yeah, 200 HP and 188 ft/lbs in the older Chrysler cars in the mid 90's is really weak for a 2.7L, that get's upwards of 28 MPG.  :rolleyes:

It's was retuned for more torque on the heavy LX cars and now gets 190 HP/190 ft/lbs. while still getting 28 MPG.  However it will be replaced very soon.  Why complain about old engines that are just about to be replaced?  The GM 3800 only got 205 HP out of 3.8L.

[post="52192"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

What are they replacing it with? The killer of that 200hp 188ft/lbs torque is that you have to spin the engine to 5800rpm and 4850rpm respectively to get that. With the 3800 you got 225 ft/lbs at 4,000 RPM, and a substantial amount of that was available at 2000 rpm. Don't compair HP per litre. It isn't a convincing argument.... unless you're another one of those that wants to dump the S2000 engine into an LX car. :rolleyes:

[ocnblu]

Of course we'll have to wait until we see it sans camo, but so far, I don't like the high beltline on this car. I mean, I love the LXs to death, they look great, this, though... ehhh. It looks high and narrow, like the Caliber. I really hope Chrysler can keep the momentum going, we'll see.

[BrewSwillis]

What are they replacing it with? The killer of that 200hp 188ft/lbs torque is that you have to spin the engine to 5800rpm and 4850rpm respectively to get that.  With the 3800 you got 225 ft/lbs at 4,000 RPM, and a substantial amount of that was available at 2000 rpm. Don't compair HP per litre. It isn't a convincing argument.... unless you're another one of those that wants to dump the S2000 engine into an LX car.  :rolleyes:

[post="52236"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

There will be and upper/midlevel engine making at least 250 HP & 250 ft/lbs, and there will be a top level engine making what I will guess as upwards of 280 HP. Those are class leading numbers for this size vehicle.

[The O.C.]

Oh goodies.... powered by chrysler engines..... does that mean I can have the 2.7 litre Chrysler Hemi-magnum powerhouse die on the Florida Turnpike with 3,000 miles on the clock again!?!?! Oh please let it be so!
Seriously, why doesn't anyone ever address the crappiness of the Chrysler engines <not including Hemi>

The 4 cylinders make a Quad-4 with no oil look like a swiss watch.
The 2.7 is gutless
The 3.5 lacks refinement and reliability
The 4.0 in the jeeps always have oil leaks

I agree that is may be time for the 3800 to die, but it still seems to do it's job better then any V6 Mopar is producing.

[post="52104"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'm curious.....are you speculating, or have you DRIVEN each of those engines? I think you have not....

I have however.....and the 2.4L L4 was a nice and smooth motor in the Sebring sedan rental car I had.

The 2.7L is not overpowered, but at 190hp, it's not that bad for its small displacement. BUT, the 2.7L is pretty quiet and smooth.....certainly more so than GM pushrod V6s.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the 3.5L. It DOESN'T lack refinement, revs quite freely and smoothly, and is in every way comparable to GM's 3.6L HF V6.

Finally, I've had two Jeeps with the 4.0L I6 and have NEVER had an oil consumption/leak problem.

I'm glad you are a GM fan and it's okay if you are not a Chrysler fan.....but let's talk from real experience, not speculation, okay?

(AND if you HAVE driven all those engines and still have your opinions....then it is what it is....but I suspect you haven't....or you don't have much of an open mind.)

[Drew Dowdell]

I have driven all those engines.

1. Stratus rental car with an I4 while my Cutlass was at the dealer.
2. Multiple Sebring convertibles with the 2.7, including the one which died on me on the Florida Turnpike while at a 75mph cruise.... the car had about 3,000 miles on it, I picked it up with 2100 miles on it.
3. A 300 with a 2.7.
4. A 300 with a 3.5.
5. A company Jeep with the 4.0 began leaking around 12,000 miles.
6. Observations of the neighbor's Jeep which leaks oil all over the pavement in front of my house. It's a 98ish Wrangler with the 4.0, but I can't remember it not leaking.

The Stratus was a fairly beat to hell rental. I'm perfectly willing to admit that perhaps I didn't give it a fair shake, but there has yet to be a Chrysler I4 that has changed my mind.

My opinions of the 2.7 are based on just the Sebring Convertible and the 300. I don't know what it would be like in a lighter car, but both of those are just too much car for that engine. Sure it puts out respectible numbers for it's size, but it is just not enough engine for those cars.

The 3.5 I found to be nothing great. I picked up this rental with 250 miles on the clock. It's got the punch and the power, but it seemed to be on par with a S/C 3800 in terms of refinement. I'm not a 3800 hater, but I do believe it has served it's company well and now needs to retire. Two co-workers blew the 3.5s in their Intrepids in 2005.

I have no problems with the performance of the 4.0. It does an ok job at what it's ment to do. It's not a sports car engine, and don't I expect it to perform like one. What I have a problem with is the big oil stains in front of my house that make it look like the Valdez crashed on my curb.

Frankly, I'd love to be a Chrysler fan. I love the looks of the 300C from the outside. I hate the ergonomics of the inside. The cruise control location alone gives me pause at the rental car place.

I'd love to love the Sebring convertible. Few days go by where I don't miss my Cutlass Convertible 2+2. The 3.4 DOHC had punch. Chirping the tires in 2nd was very easy. It was a big, comfortable, convertible with balls. The Sebring isn't as roomy, doesn't have as much trunk space, doesn't have as much engine, and has about the same quality interior..... yet the Cutlass came out in 1991. When Chrysler can meet/beat a 1994 Oldsmobile convertible in terms of performance, interior space, trunk space, and interior design... GM will lose a customer, because I'll be trading my CTS in on that.

So yeah... no speculation here. Edited December 3, 2005 by Oldsmoboi

[Robert Hall]

Agreed about the Jeep 4.0L oil leaks...my '00 Grand Cherokee (67k miles now) has leaked for years...I've had seals replaced, oil pan gasket, etc and it still leaks. My g/f's '02 Wrangler has the 4.0 also and leaks as well..

[Croc]

Eh, the Sebring convertible has a better interior than the 1991 Cutlass hands down. I agree with the other shortcomings, though.

[Drew Dowdell]

Eh, the Sebring convertible has a better interior than the 1991 Cutlass hands down.  I agree with the other shortcomings, though.

[post="52318"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Then a 91, yes.... by 94 they got pretty good. Top of the line models especially.

I had the 4 bucket seats in mine. Most comfortable and supportive seats I've been in.

Edit: Chrysler has to beat my '94... not at '91 Edited December 3, 2005 by Oldsmoboi

[frogger]

The 2.7L was too small to power most cars its been put in other than a plain Stratus/Sebring 4 door sedan which are quite a bit lighter than the vert, Intrepid etc.