This time, it's a Chrysler 200. This was a reasonably well-featured model, but with the Tigershark 2.4 liter I4. It had a 9-speed ZF automatic which is now officially my Arch Nemesis. I think I'd rather have a Nissan CVT. Yeah.

It looked like this:


Styling
5/10
I don't really care for FCA's current über-round styling scheme, nor the oversized-cabin proportions. (Isn't this the company that created elegant "cab forward" models like the 300M? What the Hell happened????) Chrysler's details are distinctive but bland; I recognize them as Chrysler but they don't really say anything particular. The c-pillar/decklid/backlight area is spectacularly blah. Not BAD, just blah. Too much round. Not enough style.

Interior
5/10
It tries. It employs some neat ideas. It also employs some exceedingly terrible ideas. The layout is utterly nonsensical. There are very few physical buttons, while most functions are buried in menus--a monumental Cardinal Sin that I thought we had moved past years ago. It's an incredibly distracting car in which to perform basic operations (like changing the HVAC vent mode).
The gear selector is a Jaguar-alike knob, except nowhere near as well executed. The gear knob is moronically located on the same chunk of console as the knobs for HVAC and volume. It's also the most driver-ward knob of the bunch, so it's the one your hand finds first when keeping your eyes on the road. I'd be stunned if there weren't people who accidentally turn the volume down to "Park" while cruising on the highway. Terrible, awful, abysmal layout.
The gauges are (like so many wannabe-upscale cars these days) ringed and highlighted with unnecessary blue. It looks tacky and is hard on the eyes.
The center console, absent the shift lever, is very minivan-like. It has TONS of storage space and is slightly reconfigurable. Unfortunately, despite the clever sliding multiposition cupholder, the arrangement of the storage spaces is such that they're not really beneficial while in motion. I can see the cubby under the dash being useful for purse or backpack storage, but not for anything needing retrieval while in motion. There is a smart cable passthrough from the lower console section where the power outlets are.

You can see the shift knob here, as well as the touchscreen which houses most of the controls. The touchscreen has six discrete modes, which is a huge waste of display real estate. It's impossible to view media info (song title, etc.) alongside HVAC settings. One or the other. Technically there's a tiny fan speed and temp display at the top when in Media mode, but to see anything more you need to hit the button for "climate" mode. Even my dad's now-older Maxima with the LCD screen showed media info, HVAC info, compass, temp, time, etc. all at once. The Chrysler doesn't even try. It's very tedious, especially with the discrete mode select buttons scattered around the bezel.
The temp and fuel gauges are vertically arranged between the tach and speedo and bordering a small LED screen. They consist of INDIVIDUAL ENORMOUS LED LIGHTS which illuminate one at a time as the gauge fills. It's like my 1984 DeVille all over again, except without the touch of class. The 200's fuel gauge is THE SINGLE TACKIEST INTERIOR ELEMENT I have ever seen in a car. Just unbelievable. Who pushed it through to final production? What are they doing working on automobiles? Who gave them permission to think?

There's an LED display between the tach and speedo, which is far more useful. Irritatingly, though, when using cruise control, it shows text updates to override the current screen for a few seconds ("Cruise control now available" or "Cruise control set to 80" -- utterly unnecessary and redundant).
Oh, also, I had a hearty chuckle at the very prominent labelling of the gauges:

Thanks for the tip, Chrysler. I wasn't sure WHAT those numbers meant.

The seats sucked. Absolutely zero support. Even moderate corners left me sliding all over. No bolstering anywhere. The seat bottom felt too short, too. Wide and short, just like all modern cars. Exactly backward and exactly wrong.

Powertrain
PICK A DAMN GEAR AND STAY IN IT out of 10.
This was easily one of the most unpleasant and inconsistent powertrain combos of any car I have ever driven. It was really miserable.
As noted above, the 200 has ZF's new 9 speed auto. It has exactly 3 too many gears, but it shifts exactly forty-seven billion times too often. It shifts ALL THE TIME. ENDLESSLY. UNCEASINGLY. INCESSANTLY. Shifts, shifts, shifts, shifts, shifts, shifts. It REFUSES to stay in a gear and just cruise there. Even on perfectly flat, straight, even terrain at freeway speeds under cruise control, it is constantly dropping to 8th. It feels BIZARRE and really unnatural. It's an unexpectedly offputting sensation. You set the cruise at 80, and the car spends the next hundred miles dropping to 79, downshifting to 8th, accelerating back to 80, then dropping to 79, downshifting to 8th, and you get the picture.
The SLIGHTEST hint of even moving your toe toward the accelerator drops at least one gear.
Here's the problem:
This engine is GUTLESS.
It has the peakiest powerband I've seen outside of a 1973 Yamaha 250 two cycle.
Not only is it gutless, making absolutely NO usable power below 4000rpm, but the transmission also REFUSES to let it actually make any power.
That effing ZF abomination does everything it can to keep the car under 3000rpm. The Tigershark makes approximately 3 llamathrust at 3000rpm. For those not familiar with Imperial conversions, that's about enough power to lift an empty McDonalds fry container 3 milimeters.
So, you end up with a car that's constantly shifting to find power, never actually finding any, and struggling desperately just to maintain a constant speed.
In stop-and-go city traffic it's a complete nightmare. You'll shift 3 times before you get through the crosswalk at an intersection. And every shift is accompanied by a palpable, jolting absence of power. And every time the engine starts to feel on the cusp of making power, it shifts AGAIN. And again and again. And again.
ALWAYS.
F@#%ING.
SHIFTING.
It's like some kind of bad '70s made-for-TV horror movie. It's not even scary but it WON'T GO AWAY. IT WON'T STOP BEING TERRIBLE.
JUST SHIFTING ALL THE TIME.

It's hard to articulate exactly why it's so uncomfortable feeling. But when you're used to driving real cars that make real torque and have real gear ratios divided between a sane number of cogs, the behavior of the 200's powertrain is jarring and distracting and makes you feel like you're driving it wrong. The constant-but-barely-perceptible shifts in inertia really mess with the sense of feedback from the car. It's like the car doesn't want to actually go anywhere, it just wants to shift a whole bunch and feel damn good about it.

The kickback for all this gearbox obscenity is that the car manages a cool 32mpg combined. For a midsize car, that's not too shabby. However, as I'm always quick to say: if you're buying a car for MPGs, you're doing it wrong. And the tradeoff here is absolutely, unequivocally, undebatably NOT WORTH IT. The cost is orders of magnitude greater than the return.

The engine itself is really harsh. The idle is ridiculous, and it grinds and groans under "power" (heh). The fact that it's forced to stay in the low rev-range certainly does nothing to disguise this undesirable trait. At least the exhaust note doesn't sound like much of anything at all. You can pretend it's not there, for the most part. Or, well, you could, if that GODAWFUL TRANSMISSION WOULD LET YOU.

I would honestly, sincerely, absolutely genuinely rather have a Nissan CVT than this 9-speed monstrosity.

Handling
Something out of 10
I really can't speak of the handling. It wasn't sporty, and it wasn't luxurious. It was exactly neutral. You steer the car and it goes that direction. That's really all I can think of to say about it. I can't even rank it out of 10 because I don't understand what I'm ranking.

Features and extras
This 200 had power seats, bluetooth, XM, HID headlights, and single-zone manual climate control. It had a manual-dimming mirror of a different aspect ratio than the rear view itself, with strange plastic protrusions at the top and an oversized housing. The sound system sounded muddy and dull, and no amount of tweaking (i.e. tapping at the inane touchscreen) corrected this.
The bluetooth audio link also exibited a highly obnoxious trait I have never encountered in any car before: skipping. Songs would occasionally skip for half a second before resuming, sometimes just once, and sometimes several times in succession. I have no idea how bluetooth can skip, but the 200 managed it. It's not my phone, as it has never done this in any other car, and I tried it with another device as well.


Overall:
Give me a CVT or a cyanide pill out of 10
Don't buy one of these.

They're horrible.

Nice read man, you got a few chuckles out of me on the seat bottoms part (something that drive me crazy, too!) and your eloquent description of the transmission.

A co-worker had one as a rental last week. Took it to lunch a few times. Damn thing never even got into 8th or 9th gear.

And cheesus titty f*** christ was that thing horrible in a parkinglot. Its just like you said, it's main purpose in life is shifting. Going from reverse to drive, it must have shifted 4 times. I've been in smoother rides while teaching someone how to drive a manual trans.
I found the engine note to be loud and unsatisfying during acceleration. Granted it was loaded down with 4 people too. Acceleration was abysmal.

I wanted to call Seth right away and just see how he lives with the thing.

The ZF 9-speed is a generally good piece of hardware. Land Rover uses the same unit. Difference is, LR's software is properly developed. The 200 and Jeep Cherokee struggle with this box.

I find the styling to be pleasingly sobering compared to the wacky insect look that Hyundai is trying to pull with the Sonata. It does remind me of the beautiful cab-forward 90s Chryslers, but without the benefit of a massive interior. The 300M, Vision, and Intrepid had more interesting details and some elegant proportions but the general cabin-oriented large-greenhouse theme is the same.

The 200 is generally well regarded considering its lackluster competition (Altima, Camry, Malibu) but I'd prefer an Accord or Optima. The 200's fuel economy doesn't live up to expectations either.

PapaSmurf2k3 wrote:A co-worker had one as a rental last week. Took it to lunch a few times. Damn thing never even got into 8th or 9th gear.

And cheesus titty f**king christ was that thing horrible in a parkinglot. Its just like you said, it's main purpose in life is shifting. Going from reverse to drive, it must have shifted 4 times. I've been in smoother rides while teaching someone how to drive a manual trans.
I found the engine note to be loud and unsatisfying during acceleration. Granted it was loaded down with 4 people too. Acceleration was abysmal.

I wanted to call Seth right away and just see how he lives with the thing.

I don't have to live with it.. my wife drives it.

Honestly aside from the transmission (which might be the worst transmission ever built), it's a nice car.. I like the style and the gadgets.. and the premium leather package is pretty high end.. I dig the C model with the heated and cooled seats and steering wheel and the memory seat position stuff. She loves the center console with all the space and USB connections and stuff. The NAV package with the 8" screen is really good.

But that transmission...

I told her to keep taking it to the dealership.. maybe they will lemon it for us.

Thank God it's a lease.. it's fully warranteed until after I can hand the keys back to them. I would never consider actually owning this transmission.. I mean.. car.

Jesda wrote:The 200 is generally well regarded considering its lackluster competition (Altima, Camry, Malibu) but I'd prefer an Accord or Optima.

What exactly does that say about our current midsize segment? That's embarrassing. Nobody actually makes a GOOD midsizer, just less intolerable ones. This is the segment that carries the most volume across the market, and it's utterly forgettable. Pathetic.

Jesda wrote:I find the styling to be pleasingly sobering compared to the wacky insect look that Hyundai is trying to pull with the Sonata.

This, I certainly agree with. But we're talking about two poles here, and there's something better in the middle: interesting but not overdone.
I think one of the key things that the 200 gets wrong but the old cab-forward cars did right is the rear end. Like most modern cars, especially those trying to ape the "coupelike" fad of luxury bands (Altima, Sonata), the 200's rear third is a mess of compound curves coming together in an undeliberate haphazard mess. The 300M, by contrast, was sharp and clean, despite being a round car. Even they very round Concorde at least had a method to its curviness. The 200 is just...blah. So blah. There's no styling there, just a desperate struggle to converge unrelated lines into a single shape.

I somehow forgot about the Mazda 6. That's really the perfect midsize family car. No compromises on style, space, or driving enjoyment, superb fuel efficiency, and a decent reliability record. Plus, Mazda is trying to build some momentum so they're often competitively priced.

Good review. I don't find them to be hideous. I thought they looked better than the last gen, but the searing image of the convertible coupe version is the first thing that comes to mind. I always wondered about the transmission and I'm glad to read what you posted. At some point, there just too many gears for a small amount of torque or HP. You also run into more issues with the shift points so that's why you shifted 4 times reversing into a parking spot. I would love to meet the guy that approved the final programming of the shift points since they have to sign off on that. I think each one of these cars that I've seen though were all rental cars. Can't see how a person could buy one after test driving one if it is shifting as much as you say.

Jesda wrote:I somehow forgot about the Mazda 6. That's really the perfect midsize family car. No compromises on style, space, or driving enjoyment, superb fuel efficiency, and a decent reliability record. Plus, Mazda is trying to build some momentum so they're often competitively priced.

THIS.

The 6 is really impressive across the board. it's deceptively enormous inside (James and I put a 42" flat panel TV in the trunk with the seats folded and there's a was still a ton of room). It turns most heads on the road, fit and finish is stellar, and it's fun as all hell to drive (even while being somewhat underpowered). They certainly learned how to incorporate "WOO HOO!" into a car without just loading it up with horsepower.

As others have said, I like the styling. I don't know anything else about it, but as soon as I hear 9 speeds, I'm not interested. Give me a CVT. I'll take rubber bands over endless shifting. But it doesn't matter because if I was in the market for a car in that segment, the Mazda6 is the ONLY vehicle I think I would consider.

AZhitman wrote:They certainly learned how to incorporate "WOO HOO!" into a car without just loading it up with horsepower.

"Just" being the critical operative word, here. Power doesn't compensate for a lack of what the 6 has, but it need not be omitted in favor of them, either.

Sorry, but without a modern high-tech V6 or at least boost, the Mazda 6 is not even a contender.

Say what you will about increasing power output, but the one fact all my recent rental experiences has reassured me of is that even the very best four-bangers are still intolerably unrefined and I have no need for them in anything I drive save perhaps a small, crude truck. Boost might add power, but it does nothing for refinement. The Mazda 6 has neither.

Strongly disagree.

I wouldn't call the competition's V6 powerplants any more "modern" or high-tech" than a SkyActiv 4 (which is also far from "unrefined" - in fact, it's probably the smoothest in the segment for the price).

BTW, it hits 60 in 7 flat. Doesn't need boost - that's not the intended market for this car. Lighter weight (which you yourself always clamor for) is the key, and why it handles well.

Oh, and it has a 6-speed AND perfectly-arranged pedals for autocross or just blip-shifting into the grocery store parking lot.

Sorry, you won't convince me on that one. I've driven the 2015 6, and it's quite refined. More so than the Fusion, the 200, the Malibu, and the Altima (for comparable, or less, money).

In fact, dollar-for-dollar, I can't think of a sport sedan I'd buy over it. Pretty much every publication concurs - it's besting the Passat, the Accord, the Camry, and every other sedan on the market in everything I've read of late.

No, it's not a contender. It's already knocked everything else out and walked out of the arena.

...and Chrysler is still desperate to convince us the 200 isn't a continuation of the Neon / Sebring / Dart 'Trifecta of Suck.' I ain't buyin' it.

AZhitman wrote:I wouldn't call the competition's V6 powerplants any more "modern" or high-tech" than a SkyActiv 4 (which is also far from "unrefined" - in fact, it's probably the smoothest in the segment for the price).

"Smoothest in the segment for the price" is just another example of tolerating unnecessary compromise. Certainly, what you've said here is mostly true--because most of the competition doesn't even offer a V6. And most of the V6 options out there are based on engineering that's older than some of our members. But that's exactly my point: being the least unrefined is not boastworthy, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. I'm waiting for someone to impress me by being GOOD, not the least bad. If the SkyActive 4 is the smoothest in its segment for the price, I'd rather have that degree of excellence in a V6 instead. Whatever you do well in a 4 will be done better in a 6. Always. Universally. Physics don't change because the EPA wants higher fuel economy numbers.

AZhitman wrote:BTW, it hits 60 in 7 flat. Doesn't need boost - that's not the intended market for this car. Lighter weight (which you yourself always clamor for) is the key, and why it handles well.

Yes, but why is it a compromise? This is what I don't understand: so much of modern auto engineering is building in excellence in one place to make up for inadequacy in another. Why not just do it ALL better? Why not have a lightweight sedan with a superb powerplant? WHY SETTLE?

I'm not arguing it's not the best in its segment.

I'm arguing that the segment has devolved to be complete s*** and can take a hike.

I'm arguing that I'm sick of pointing out that a car could be better and having it justified with "it's good enough for what it does."

I have never wanted "good enough" in my life. "Good enough" is for Toyota and Apple. I expect better from Mazda.

Anyway, Mazda is the company that gave us 2.5 and 2.3 liter V6s just a couple decades ago. Let's see THAT kind of thinking again.

I'm not interested in a car with an idle that can mix my drink for me.

Gotcha - I just don't think the buyers of the demographic they're targeting need (or want) a V6. If the 4 has 180hp, gets 30+mpg, and does so without shaking like an old Chihuahua, than they're happy. Remember, there's a lot of nitwit attorneys and pencil-pushers they have to appease, before they appease the Dark Lord of Car Enthusiasts and The Old Guy Who Commutes Like The Last Lap of Daytona.

Personally, I'd like to see the 6 with the engine that's in Becky's Speed3. Smooth (yes, smooth), tons of torque, and a friggin' hoot to drive. Considering the 6 is possibly the lightest car in the segment, it'd be even more grin-inducing.

It's plenty refined - and you're right, the segment (under $25k midsize sedans) doesn't have a lot of stellar cars... but you're NOT their target demographic. You're asking for a direct-injected 250hp V6 in a sports sedan. That's gonna put you in the $30k class, and even then, there's some turds in that lineup (which is even more appalling - why can't they get it right for $5k more?)

Sure, it could be better. BUT, I can't think of a car on the market that couldn't. I've owned a slew of great cars, and every single one needed *something* to be just right.

I find it pretty hard to find fault with the 6, and the one gripe I have with it will be addressed with the Speed6 (and some sticky tires).

AZhitman wrote:I find it pretty hard to find fault with the 6, and the one gripe I have with it will be addressed with the Speed6 (and some sticky tires).

Other than the 6 being wrong wheel drive and being a little light for grunt, I like it too. I had student with a previous gen Zoom-Zoom 6 at Summit Point and was pleasantly surprised by the car. It simply did everything well. And if you like stealth, (I don't think it stands out that much in terms of styling, sorry) it's certainly a compelling choice.

As far as the Chryslers go, I think Eikon went the wise route by leasing. That's always been the rule I've followed when I had Chryslers for my wife's DD. To me, Chrysler vehicles have always been smartly designed, well engineered, comfortable, cruising cars (certainly not canyon carvers, unless we're talking Vipers)...and still are. But I would never want to own after 60K miles. Sounds like that hasn't changed much since Fiat entered the picture.

AZhitman wrote:I find it pretty hard to find fault with the 6, and the one gripe I have with it will be addressed with the Speed6 (and some sticky tires).

I didn't realize the Speed6 was coming back. Definitely great news. Hopefully it stays FWD this time, to retain the car's agility.