Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Thoughts on Chrysler 200 ?
4 views
Skip to first unread message
S.LaRocca
Mar 21, 2013, 5:36:50 PM3/21/13
to
The wife has been looking at mid size cars and I told her to take a look
at the 2013 Chrysler 200...It seems like a lot more car for the money
than the Chevy Malibu.
Any thoughts on the 200, good or bad ?
Thanks in advance.
--
Dr. Skeezix LaRocca, D.B. (Doctor Of Buffoonery)
Registered Linux Novice & Abuser #526706
We aren't cheap, but we're reasonable
No appointment needed
at the 2013 Chrysler 200...It seems like a lot more car for the money
than the Chevy Malibu.
Any thoughts on the 200, good or bad ?
Thanks in advance.
--
Dr. Skeezix LaRocca, D.B. (Doctor Of Buffoonery)
Registered Linux Novice & Abuser #526706
We aren't cheap, but we're reasonable
No appointment needed
Ashton Crusher
Mar 21, 2013, 6:05:53 PM3/21/13
to
On 21 Mar 2013 21:36:50 GMT, "S.LaRocca" <fatl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The wife has been looking at mid size cars and I told her to take a look
>at the 2013 Chrysler 200...It seems like a lot more car for the money
>than the Chevy Malibu.
>
>Any thoughts on the 200, good or bad ?
>
>Thanks in advance.
Where does the new Chrysler Dart fit in the lineup?? I'd take a look
>The wife has been looking at mid size cars and I told her to take a look
>at the 2013 Chrysler 200...It seems like a lot more car for the money
>than the Chevy Malibu.
>
>Any thoughts on the 200, good or bad ?
>
>Thanks in advance.
at it too.
James Rau
Mar 21, 2013, 7:35:34 PM3/21/13
to
>The wife has been looking at mid size cars and I told her to take a look
>at the 2013 Chrysler 200...It seems like a lot more car for the money
>than the Chevy Malibu.
>
>Any thoughts on the 200, good or bad ?
>
>Thanks in advance.
I've owned my 2012 Chrysler 200 for just over a year now and I really
>at the 2013 Chrysler 200...It seems like a lot more car for the money
>than the Chevy Malibu.
>
>Any thoughts on the 200, good or bad ?
>
>Thanks in advance.
like it (I have the two-door hardtop convertible coup). At the risk of
sounding like a shill, it handles well (provided you don't take the
corners too fast or too tight--the rear end tends to slide).
The car was made for both light crusing and city driving. It's
definitly NOT a sports car, so don't drive it like one. You (or your
wife) might find the suspension a little stiff. MPG is a concern, as
I only average 17mpg in the city (I do mostly city to city driving).
General fit and finish is good, and the maintenance seems to be low
(although that's to be expected with a new car). Seems solidly well
built and has a good "road feel" to it. The V6 Pentastar engine (I
opted for the 3.6L) delivers good power and torque. Just had the oil
changed at 3,500 miles.
Overall, I recommend it, but your mileage may vary.
James Rau
Joe Pfeiffer
Mar 21, 2013, 8:53:37 PM3/21/13
to
it's a compact (based on a modified FIAT platform), and a very nice
little car at that. There's a good chance Heather and I will be getting
one in the near future.
Ashton Crusher
Mar 22, 2013, 4:00:37 AM3/22/13
to
course, the sometimes like anything new a lot so buying first year is
always a little risky.
S.LaRocca
Mar 22, 2013, 9:34:03 AM3/22/13
to
a GM retiree and supporting GM might throw a penny or two at me in my
pension check, but I've always wanted a Chrysler Minivan, and went ahead
and bought a 2013 Grand Caravan, and love it so far...I figured if GM was
not making what I needed, why should I buy something I did not want ?
Even when GM made minivans they were sub par.
I became interested in the Chrysler 200 because it really does seem like
a lot of car for the money.
I was always suspect of Chrysler's build quality, but it seems to me that
they have come a long way, and they do make very nice looking
vehicles...I imagine it would not be hard for me to become a Chrysler guy.
Tony
Ashton Crusher
Mar 24, 2013, 2:14:32 PM3/24/13
to
money and satisfied all my criteria. It easily ranks (at 40K miles so
far) as good or better built than any other new car I've had. I also
had a 2005 Crown Vic, which I liked a lot, but truthfully the PT
actually is more comfortable and less tiring on a long trip. Only
real deficiency is lack of power.
James Rau
Mar 24, 2013, 9:52:59 PM3/24/13
to
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 11:14:32 -0700, Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net>
wrote:
>>I was always suspect of Chrysler's build quality,
>
>I was too but bought a 2009 PT as it was the most car for the least
>money and satisfied all my criteria. It easily ranks (at 40K miles so
>far) as good or better built than any other new car I've had. I also
>had a 2005 Crown Vic, which I liked a lot, but truthfully the PT
>actually is more comfortable and less tiring on a long trip. Only
>real deficiency is lack of power.
I traded in my 2002 PT when I bought the 2012 200 and I can't begin to
tell you HOW MUCH I MISS that great little car! It only had 46K when I
traded it in. You're correct: Nice and comfy, even on long trips.
My only major complaint with the PT is the same as yours: Even with
the 3.0L 4-banger it was still very underpowered, and the 5-speed
stick did not help (still damn fun to drive though).
James Raui
wrote:
>>I was always suspect of Chrysler's build quality,
>
>I was too but bought a 2009 PT as it was the most car for the least
>money and satisfied all my criteria. It easily ranks (at 40K miles so
>far) as good or better built than any other new car I've had. I also
>had a 2005 Crown Vic, which I liked a lot, but truthfully the PT
>actually is more comfortable and less tiring on a long trip. Only
>real deficiency is lack of power.
tell you HOW MUCH I MISS that great little car! It only had 46K when I
traded it in. You're correct: Nice and comfy, even on long trips.
My only major complaint with the PT is the same as yours: Even with
the 3.0L 4-banger it was still very underpowered, and the 5-speed
stick did not help (still damn fun to drive though).
James Raui
0 new messages