Gilles: Next 200 To Redefine Chrysler Design Language

Interesting but this seems to tell me they are shooting themselves in the foot by clearly stating just how different the car will be. Guess they wanted to kill off any residual value in the current 200's.

There was residual value in the current 200s? I'm sure Avis is probably concerned about that but I sure am not.

The current car is so mediocre it doesn't really matter, anything will be an improvement.

Yeah, I can pick up a used 2012 200 with a few ticks over 30,000 miles for $12k. There wasn't much "residual value" in the current Sebring/200 to begin with, so no worries there.

Not sure how it will turn out overall, but looking forward to seeing the styling inside and out.

Agreed my amphibious friend.

>>“The current Chryslers on the road today certainly don’t reflect where we’re headed. What I can safely say is we are deviating from where we are today, completely."<<

This sort of corporate commentary always amazes me. All I ever read out of the above is 'Our current stuff is a mistake, trust me that we'll get it right the next time'.

You just don't DO this sort of thing intentionally in commerce.

The 300 has become an icon through the last two generations. Dude HAS to know that, therefore, I choose to believe he is merely preparing the public for a vastly different styling future, not "exactly" dissing the current theme.

^ You don't have to "prepare" the public, you just unleash it withOUT addressing the strongly implied inadequacies of the current product.

Auto executives spend FAR too much time preparing press releases over things no one would think about otherwise.

Whatever the new 200 is, I hope they continue to offer a drop-top as when it comes to wanting a comfortable 4-place convertible that has good cargo room and isn't a muscle car this is the only American game in town. Always (secretly) liked the top-trim Limited hardtop convertibles, and with the refinements made from Sebring to 200 and the rock bottom prices on the used market I see it as a great value for a second car or a road trip cruiser.

>>“The current Chryslers on the road today certainly don’t reflect where we’re headed. What I can safely say is we are deviating from where we are today, completely."<<

This sort of corporate commentary always amazes me. All I ever read out of the above is 'Our current stuff is a mistake, trust me that we'll get it right the next time'.

You just don't DO this sort of thing intentionally in commerce.

In this situation that phrase can be given with a straight face. They are trying to erase the Daimler/Cerberus era. Any other time, and your assessment is spot on.

>>“The current Chryslers on the road today certainly don’t reflect where we’re headed. What I can safely say is we are deviating from where we are today, completely."<<

This sort of corporate commentary always amazes me. All I ever read out of the above is 'Our current stuff is a mistake, trust me that we'll get it right the next time'.

You just don't DO this sort of thing intentionally in commerce.

I really like the current 300, I don't know that they can go in another direction with it and not alienate the current customer base.

>>“The current Chryslers on the road today certainly don’t reflect where we’re headed. What I can safely say is we are deviating from where we are today, completely."<<

This sort of corporate commentary always amazes me. All I ever read out of the above is 'Our current stuff is a mistake, trust me that we'll get it right the next time'.

You just don't DO this sort of thing intentionally in commerce.

I really like the current 300, I don't know that they can go in another direction with it and not alienate the current customer base.

I agree Drew, I think if they deviate from the current 300 DNA too much, they will loose the folks who are buying the auto's.

It will be interesting to see where they go next....I really like the 300 as it is now, like the Charger and Challenger quite a bit also...hefty, sizeable, RWD, V8 available...everything i like in a car...

>>"I agree Drew, I think if they deviate from the current 300 DNA too much, they will loose the folks who are buying the auto's."<<

Correct- the implication is that the 200 'is in need of' a major revision.... but clearly the 300 is not. Conflicted message there.

Again IMO; you can address the future, well & good, but the current need not be so addressed (from a PR standpoint).

thedriver : I don't know that the 'Daimler/Cerebus' ownership period is on many people's 'front radar' today.

I don't think the next-gen 200 will deviate too much from the current Chrysler formula. They'll exchange a few creases for a few more organic lines, and clean some of the small details up a bit.

Look at the 200C concept as a starting point and go from there.

But the implementation is that they are going to radically change their auto DNA to go in the direction they feel they need to go. This could hurt more than help Chrysler if they are not careful.

That kinda burns me.... interior aside, how hard would it have been for Chrysler to build the 200c concept as is? THAT car would have sold and would have been a premium vehicle to wear the Chrysler name. It would have allowed Chrysler to drop the lower end 300C and push transaction prices higher though volume would be lower.

Maybe the new 200 will be on a smaller RWD platform to be shared with an unnamed Dodge and the new 'Cuda. That would kick ass.

I sure hope they don't style it so blandly like the Dart. Also a V6 should still be offered according to Chrysler from a smaller displacement version of the current 3.6 with 4 cylinder gas mileage.

I sure hope they don't style it so blandly like the Dart. Also a V6 should still be offered according to Chrysler from a smaller displacement version of the current 3.6 with 4 cylinder gas mileage.

I disagree with you on your comment about the dart, it is anything but bland. I find it to be one of the more stylish compacts out there, far better than anything Honda, Toyota, Nissan has and competes well with GM and better than Ford products.