Chrysler Pondering Whether Sebring/Avenger Replacements Should Go RWD

RWD definately yes. Especially if the platform invites AWD Anything to make the Avenger and Sebring better in its arena would welcome. Chrysler needs to dump the Avenger and Sebring names also.

Avenger maybe, sebring, no. The sebring isn't a sports car. Nor does it try to be one.

Great idea Chrysler! I think both names should be canned. If the 200C does become a RWD car, then Chrysler should revive a name that they used in the past. A 200C convertible would be nice too because there will not be a Challenger convertible.

No brainer.

It seems like the Phoenix V6 is somewhat advanced enough. I think at this time, it would be smart to go with V6 with varied displacements.

Interesting. If Chrysler did this move it would set them apart since GM and Ford run from RWD like Ebola.

I don't think this is the first time I have seen you do this UAW, but please, it's Camaro, no Camero.

Don't leave out GMs upcoming Alpha chassis, a 3 series sized Ecotec and V6 powered RWD chassis.

Great point.

The best selling RWD sedans happen to be BMW 3 Series, Mercedes C Class, and the best selling vehicle on the planet the Ford F150. They sell everywhere. What is the point?

If that picture is 90% of what the new Sebring will look like I will be astonished. It almost has an Infiniti G or M styling to it.

RWD would be a YES, and AWD would have to accompany it. Why Toyota and Honda have yet to put AWD in there sedans is beyond me. The TL already has SH-AWD optional, and it shares platform with the Accord. And if Toyota can squash an AWD in my Matrix, I am sure they can do so in the Camry.

The TL SH-AWD is pretty exclusive and expensive. In some ways, it was marketed toward Audi's Quattro System (as it seems Acura has been the answer for Audi in that they are unique like Audi in the Japanese marketplace). The issue is, if you need performance, AWD plays a big role in limited performance models. Out side of that, AWD is mostly used in trucks or SUV's. FWD is good for inclement weather in most places, so AWD is then needed in most RWD applications when sold in such areas. Toyota doesn't really need to offer AWD on their FWD sedans plus it adds cost and weight and other disadvantages to a vehicle that is economical from the on set.

Yes you idiots, make all cars RWD.

They should be pondering how to get their productivity back from the UAW!!..

FWD torque steer is actually very dangerous, and BTW your little Hyundai Accent doesn't have enough power to torque steer.

The only advantage to FWD is low manufacturing cost. The cars are out of ballance when it comes to outright performance. As far as RWD in the snow, now thats fun.

I think everyone can agree that HyundaiSmoke is just speaking from inexperience and bias.

RWD can be driven quite well in snowy weather, in fact people did just that for a long time in the US, Canada, Germany...because there were no FWD models available.

That being said RWD requires the drive to monitor their vehicle must closer in poor driving conditions and since most people pay so attention to the road to begin with it makes sense that most of the public should drive FWD cars. But to say that RWD=accident is pure stupidity.

Quick question for you HyundaiSmoke: If RWD is SO terrible then why did your precious/perfect Hyundai develop the RWD Genesis chassis and why has the Equus been RWD for so long?

A 03 Park Ave is a FWD 3.8L V6 w/ a 4 speed automatic. It isn't a fast car AT ALL, it is a slow and comfortable old mans full size sedan.

Here is a test of a MODIFIED Yaris running 16.975 in the 1/4 at 81 mph.
http://www.yarisworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11021

A 1980 Firebird turbo Trans Am with the 4.9 Turbo V8 ran 17.0 according to this site.
http://www.carforums.net/showthread.php?t=10251

The 1978 Firebird w/ the 400 cubic inch Pontiac V8 went 15.3. But go to 1989 and the time drops to 14.2.

I understand that the current crop of economy cars have plenty of power to move around, I never said they didn't. The difference is that they aren't fast, PERIOD. My 1998 Chevy Malibu V6 base model is faster off the line to about 60 than a 2006 Scion Tc, and would likely DUST your car. But that isn't the point is it?

The point is that some people want more power, some people want more economy. You would bash people pretty bad if they told you that it was stupid to want more economy wouldn't you? Different strokes for different folks. Imposing your ideas on others shows that you think you are smarter, better, or more important than they are.

BTW I wouldn't go around bragging that you beat an old, underpowered grandpa car on the highway and saying you nuked him. This shows you are young and immature. BTW it isn't really safe to race on the streets, that is why race tracks are around.

Don't be an idiot and cause someone to die because you think you are tough shit and want to impress yourself, keep it on the track where other's won't get hurt.

BTW I like small cars, IF they are well styled and have nice performance.

The interstate is a public road, with moms and dads and kids driving safely, it is a street. Do your racing at the track before you make yourself or someone else into a statistic.

It is pretty obvious that despite whatever may be said to contradict your opinion or to suggest another way, you aren't going to listen. So be it, enjoy your blissful ignorance. When you can afford a truly fast car one day then you will understand, until then you are just an il-informed internet troll.