PDA

View Full Version : Sebring 2010 is a GOOD Car



looneytuner
12-08-2010, 03:14 PM
I have put 180 miles on so far. Super quiet, 3/4? of a tank left 180 miles city/highway driving, passenger seat folds flat for desk, comfortable for me at 6' 2". lumbar support for old geezers like me.

It is almost a crossover vehicle as far as height. 2.4 vvt engine. Yeah you will have to pull the left front tire to change the battery.
It is "Candy Apple Red".
The bad is it could use a rear view camera to back up.

I call BS to all the mags that say they suck. :nod::thumb::love:

Good job to Fleckster and all the others that designed this one. :love::hail:

shadow88
12-08-2010, 10:29 PM
Agreed, it's a nice car as well as the Avengers. Any media source who doesn't like them was probably paid off by another manufacturer.;)

Vigo
12-13-2010, 08:12 PM
Eh, i liked the stormtrooper concept avenger they did with the white leather and blue glass tint, but other than that i think those cars are just what everyone has called them.. mediocre in their segment.

For one thing, anytime your idea of progress is making a motor lose 25hp compared to what it had 12 years ago, it irks me. In the same time period, Nissan's v6 has gained 147 hp.:confused:

I also dislike the styling 'disconnect' between the front and back of the sebring, where it starts at the front with some angles and ends at the back with blobs.

BUT, its always helpful to keep in mind that its hard to find a BAD car these days. My brother walked out the door with an '09 hyundai accent for $7500 last year and that thing is a perfectly decent car.

looneytuner
12-13-2010, 08:16 PM
It's 175 hp for 2010 for the 4 cyl.

thedon809
12-13-2010, 09:41 PM
I think he is talking about the 2.7. It has been tuned to give more low end torque than peak horsepower.

Vigo
12-13-2010, 10:22 PM
Actually i am talking about the 3.5L v6, but that is not what most of them end up with anyway.

ShadowFromHell
12-14-2010, 02:42 PM
We have a 2.4 08 avenger. It has been a great car. Gets good mpg (26-32) and has plenty of power. I really think it would have blown the doors off of my wife's old vtec v6 accord from a light. You had to wind that accord to the moon to get it to move. The 2.4 in the avenger will spin the tires if you leave a light to hard and the road isn't clean. ;)

contraption22
12-14-2010, 02:45 PM
It's a nice car. Just kinda fugly, thats all.

dwh4784
12-14-2010, 04:48 PM
180 miles? Is that all they're good for these days?

ShadowFromHell
12-14-2010, 06:19 PM
It's a nice car. Just kinda fugly, thats all.

Lol, The wife and I kinda wished we would have bought a sebring instead of the avenger. It reminds me of my old 86 lancer. They stand out, both the avenger and the sebring. I like having a car that stands out, instead not bieng able to tell 10 feet away if its a honda, kia, or toyota! But chryslers been known for building ugly cars... look at the late 50's/60's. Those cars stand out, and people use to rag on them. Now they pull good money!

GLHS592
12-14-2010, 07:43 PM
I have a 2010 Avenger car that my employer provides for me. After driving it for a while, I cannot figure out why all the car magazines rag on the Avenger/Sebring. It has been great for the 22,000+ miles I've driven it. Other than a couple ergonomic issues, the interior is great. It rides and handles great. I love the seats. I had a 2004 Stratus and since I swapped it in, my hip problem has almost vanished. The 2.7 has plenty of power for a commuter car. I'm not too fond of the way the car looks in the rear window/rear doors area, but it isn't bad looking over all. Dad still loves his 2008 4 banger. I really wouldn't mind owning one myself.

Vigo
12-14-2010, 10:19 PM
I dont think they hate the car, i think they view it as not relevant or competitive.

The new hyundai sonata for example either gets you 35mpg hwy rating from their n/a 2.4 (related motor i think?), 270+hp from their turbo model, six gears in ALL of them, and a hybrid version. Its not the most universally loved car in the segment but at least they are current, and they are trying. The Avenger/Sebring wasnt impressive when it came out and the gap has only widened since then.

thedon809
12-14-2010, 11:05 PM
Cept now the avenger has 283hp and gets 30mpg with that 283hp v6. The 6 speed is available with the 2.4 in the 2011's so it should get close to mid 30's on the highway. And yes, the sonata's 2.4 is a world engine.

Vigo
12-15-2010, 07:52 PM
Well that's good news, a second lease on life for those cars. Its about damn time those motors landed. Seems like we've been hearing about them for 6 years already. :p

When do we get this one?
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/5178/avenger2011rn5.jpg

trannybuster
12-16-2010, 07:59 PM
I have put 180 miles on so far. Super quiet, 3/4? of a tank left 180 miles city/highway driving, passenger seat folds flat for desk, comfortable for me at 6' 2". lumbar support for old geezers like me.

It is almost a crossover vehicle as far as height. 2.4 vvt engine. Yeah you will have to pull the left front tire to change the battery.
It is "Candy Apple Red".
The bad is it could use a rear view camera to back up.

I call BS to all the mags that say they suck. :nod::thumb::love:

Good job to Fleckster and all the others that designed this one. :love::hail:

True American....^^

Daytana
01-21-2011, 08:58 PM
+1. I get to test drive all types of midsize cars ranging from the Altima to the Sebring all day long at work. I will be the first to call b/s on the magazines ratings of the Avenger/Sebring. There is a reason you do not see turbo Sonatas on the road, it is simply due to the fact someone who is looking for a car in this segment is not looking for a turbo charged 4 banger regardless if it has DI or any other of today's doodads that sell cars. The average Joe does not even know/care what that is. Also lets face the fact that Joe Public does not know how to properly maintain a turbo car, even today turbo cars are unfortunately viewed as "black magic" by the masses. They DO require just a touch more love than a n/a (such as better oils and closer intervals etc). I also think the idea of a "all 4 cylinder" mid-size car lineup is not the way to go. I have not driven a turbo Sonata yet but I HAVE driven a 2011 Sonata n/a. The interior feels just a Rubbermaid as most cars in this segment and the ride quality still feels like Hyundai. Even the 2.4 Avengers feel more responsive than the base Sonata (just for fair comparison). The clutch-less automatic did not feel as responsive as Chrysler's nor did it let you shift as high in rpms. We just purchased a 2010 Sebring with the 3.5L + 6 speed semi-automatic and let me tell you that car sure does rip for what it is. The autostick allows you to shift almost up to 7k rapidly with no issues (keep in mind the tranny does not allow you to do anything that would damage it in Autostick-mode). I have also driven in 277HP nissan Altimas and I really do not notice much difference in power than the 235HP Chrysler 3.5L. When did the mid-size car segment become a "horsepower race" anyways? Either way Chrysler now has a best in class 283HP Pentastar V6 in the 200C/Avenger so there goes that argument. I prefer to have a smooth V6 in a heavier midsize car. I got the opportunity to sit in a 200C at the dealership and they are a beautiful car, much better looking than a Sonata or Camry imho. Throwing out what the b/s mags have to say and using my personal experience with these cars I would say the Altima, Avenger/200C are probably the best midsize cars in the segment currently. Nissan is also underrated these days.

shadow88
01-22-2011, 10:49 AM
It has always been about horsepower, for many many years now. The same addage holds true. "Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races." Revving an engine to the moon will net you shorter engine life and worse gas milage.

Imagine if they rated fuel economy at rated horsepower!

RoadWarrior222
01-22-2011, 12:50 PM
Revving to torque peak at between 50 and 80% throttle is pretty much the most fuel efficient way to accelerate... IF you need to accelerate.... that however feels like "hard" acceleration to most people in any car over 100HP... so it kinda turns into one of the biggest myths in fuel economy that granny acceleration is more fuel efficient, it isn't, WOT is inefficient and going past the torque peak is inefficient, but "brisk" acceleration is.... provided you don't overdo it and need to get on the brakes right after.


BTW, sounds like I wouldn't like the Sebring much, I like rear visibility..... not terribly keen on Neons for that.

Daytana
01-22-2011, 06:31 PM
It has always been about horsepower, for many many years now. The same addage holds true. "Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races." Revving an engine to the moon will net you shorter engine life and worse gas milage.

Imagine if they rated fuel economy at rated horsepower!

You kinda have to to get to peak power in a Sonata, these are not torque motors like the 2.2/2.5. That is also a lot of car to move with a 4 cylinder. That also applies to most modern small to mid displacement engines today. Torque monsters are hard to find today unless you get a V8. the "HP sells cars" quote more applies to sport oriented vehicles, if HP sold midsize cars you would see more V6, turbo variants, etc. of midsize vehicles and not sub-par 4 cylinder base models on the road. For example you see more 4 cylinder Accords, Altimas, Avengers, etc. than the V6 models which really are not much more in price (if you are willing to shed a few accessories). You have to ask why do these people buy a 4 cylinder Altima when they could have got the same engine in a Sentra and be significantly quicker. It is due to the fact that they wanted a roomy, practical, comfortable, etc. car and could care less about going fast. People buy midsize cars for practicality/convenience not to take to the strip every weekend.


Revving to torque peak at between 50 and 80% throttle is pretty much the most fuel efficient way to accelerate... IF you need to accelerate.... that however feels like "hard" acceleration to most people in any car over 100HP... so it kinda turns into one of the biggest myths in fuel economy that granny acceleration is more fuel efficient, it isn't, WOT is inefficient and going past the torque peak is inefficient, but "brisk" acceleration is.... provided you don't overdo it and need to get on the brakes right after.


BTW, sounds like I wouldn't like the Sebring much, I like rear visibility..... not terribly keen on Neons for that.

+1. As my friend tells me "these are cars not women" :p. Through personal experience granny driving does not necessarily net better mpg. Most "Hatch Style" sedans have the rear visibility problem, you get used to it after a while, I have no problems with rear visibility and I am pretty short @ 5'7.