I'm really confused. Why did the Chrysler 200 fail?

[12,000 RPM]

Compared to the competition it's

- cheaper
- much better looking in and out
- got the best infotainment system
- good real world gas mileage

There is a LONG LIST of midsizers I would get the 200C over. In fact the only one I would probably get over it would be an Accord Sport, because stickshift. Did this car really deserve to die? Why didn't anyone buy it?

[ifcar]

1. Terrible name recognition / reputation
2. Poor interior space
3. Poor acceleration with 2.4-liter
4. Poor fuel economy with the 2.4-liter
5. Poor visibility
6. Poor handling except on the "S" version

On top of all the reasons that various people choose cars that don't suck in any important way.

Besides, it's not like "no one" buys it. Chrysler sold 178,000 of them last year. That's a lot by most metrics, just less than the leading competitors.

[MX793]

I'm sure some of it was that the previous model didn't garner much good will.  Reputation is hard to shake in a single generation.

[12,000 RPM]

Bro sales have fallen off a cliff

Month to month they are selling less than half this year than they did last year. Hell in March volume was down by 2/3

http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01/chrysler-200-sales-figures.html

What the hell is going on. The POS 2014 model did better. Way better. It's just weird that there was so much interest in the new version, and now it seems like nobody wants anything to do with it. I wouldn't think fuel economy would do it- gas is dirt cheap right now. It's a real mystery

[ifcar]

I hadn't realized it was so steep, but that does come after the stated FCA goal of eliminating the car; maybe Chrysler has stopped trying to sell it effectively, in addition to turning off potential buyers by publicly disavowing it?

Gas prices shouldn't be a factor, because the 200's mileage is worse than its competitors, yet other midsize sedans are still selling fine. Lower gas prices should actually be canceling out one of its flaws.

Of course, it is aging and key competitors have gotten updates recently (Sonata and Camry in '15, Accord, Optima, and Altima in '16), so that may be part of it as well.

[MX793]

Bro sales have fallen off a cliff

Month to month they are selling less than half this year than they did last year. Hell in March volume was down by 2/3

http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01/chrysler-200-sales-figures.html

What the hell is going on. The POS 2014 model did better. Way better. It's just weird that there was so much interest in the new version, and now it seems like nobody wants anything to do with it. I wouldn't think fuel economy would do it- gas is dirt cheap right now. It's a real mystery

Fewer fleet sales this year?  Also, they discontinued a major incentive program that was in place last year (a dealer cash incentive that resulted in a number of dealers selling the cars to themselves and then selling the otherwise new cars as used).

[12,000 RPM]

I don't think the average midsize mainstreamer customer is keeping up with Sergio's shenanigans. I'm feeling like something happened at the dealer level. Maybe FCA stopped putting 5 figure sums on the hoods to move them and this is more reflective of the true interest in these cars?

[Payman]

It's reputation preceded it. Fleets don't care about reputation.

[2o6]

Mainstreamer people do def watch the news, and Sergio's deriding of the 200 was all over the news.

[cawimmer430]

Mainstreamer people do def watch the news, and Sergio's deriding of the 200 was all over the news.

The leader of a big company publicly slammed one of his company's products? 

[2o6]

The leader of a big company publicly slammed one of his company's products? 

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/01/25/marchionne-chrysler-200-design-dummies-report/

Sales were starting to slow, but then they just fell like a rock after this sentiment. It was all over the news that Chrysler was chopping what few non SUV's it had on sale; especially since the 200's only been on sale for like 18 months.



Sergio sets his targets too high - remember how botched the US Fiat 500 launch was? Or how bungled the Dodge Dart release was?

[cawimmer430]

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/01/25/marchionne-chrysler-200-design-dummies-report/

Sales were starting to slow, but then they just fell like a rock after this sentiment. It was all over the news that Chrysler was chopping what few non SUV's it had on sale; especially since the 200's only been on sale for like 18 months.



Sergio sets his targets too high - remember how botched the US Fiat 500 launch was? Or how bungled the Dodge Dart release was?

I've not been keeping up with auto news. But it's still quite idiotic to slam your own products publicly.

Isn't the Dart being canned? They should just sell the Alfa Romeo Giulietta in the US: more stylish and exotic.

[2o6]

I've not been keeping up with auto news. But it's still quite idiotic to slam your own products publicly.

Isn't the Dart being canned? They should just sell the Alfa Romeo Giulietta in the US: more stylish and exotic.

Giuletta would be too expensive, and the Dart is basically the same car for all intents and purposes.


Pretty much every non SUV from Chrysler is getting axed, aside from the Charger and 300, both of which are old cars on old platforms.

[12,000 RPM]

Autoblog is not mainstream news

[2o6]

Autoblog is not mainstream news

No, it was in local news outlets as well, not just car sites. But business and local news as well.

[MrH]

Why would anyone buy one over a Mid size Toyota or Honda?

[12,000 RPM]

Why would anyone buy one over a Mid size Toyota or Honda?

Looks a lot better
Costs less for the same level of equipment
Domestic name brand



Better question is why get something like an Altima or even a Fusion over a 200?

[MrH]

Because it'll be on the road 5 years from now?

[ifcar]

Looks a lot better
Costs less for the same level of equipment
Domestic name brand



Better question is why get something like an Altima or even a Fusion over a 200?

Altima:
More room, better mileage, better visibility, better reputation.

Fusion:
More room, better mileage, better acceleration, better handling.

You keep asking the same question and the answer doesn't change. The 200 has its good points, but it's just not an especially well-rounded car, and many of its competitors are. It's a niche player, just like the Dart, and Chrysler doesn't understand why its niche cars don't have the mainstream appeal of well-rounded and well-established competitors.

[Laconian]

I rented a 200, it was pretty bad. The rear visibility was terrible, the AT slammed its shifts HARD at off idle speeds, the shift knob ergonomics were hilariously bad, and its suspension was spongy on the freeway. Just bleh.

Don't let your contrarian tendencies convince you that it's a good car. The competition is better.

[280Z Turbo]

1.) Sergio is a moron who is running Chrysler into the ground (again)
2.) Chrysler revoked a lot of dealership franchises during the recession for some stupid reason (sell more cars with fewer dealers...OK)

[Madman]

Because it was an also-ran competing in a declining market segment?

[TBR]

1.) Sergio is a moron who is running Chrysler into the ground (again)
2.) Chrysler revoked a lot of dealership franchises during the recession for some stupid reason (sell more cars with fewer dealers...OK)

Pretty sure all of the Big 3 did #2. I imagine the dealers they shuttered were propped up by the home office in the first place.

[68_427]

Lots of places have redundant dealerships.  I can drive for 15 minutes from my house and hit 3 Chevy dealerships, and I'm sure that's the case for 50% of Americans.

[veeman]

I think the reason why Fiat Chrysler sells anything outside of fleet sales is because people "want" a certain vehicle which has little to do with economic value.  People want a Jeep or 300 or Challenger.  For your standard midsize transportation appliance, 200 offers little above the competition as others have mentioned.  No one "wants" a 200.  I think it looks very good but so does a Fusion as well as a buch of other midsizers.  And Fiat Chrysler reliability sucks and resale value of the 200 probably sucks as well.  And the warranty isn't a marketing factor which Hyundai was brilliant at. 

My Dad only buys domestics (even though car parts are manufactured everywhere and Honda may be built in the US and Ford may be built in Mexico - but whatever).  He liked the 200 a lot a year or so ago but I steered him towards a Chevy or Ford. 

[12,000 RPM]

I don't know guys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PppcLoxShxc

http://www.kbb.com/car-news/all-the-latest/2015-midsize-sedan-comparison-2015-chrysler-200/2000012091/#survey

http://www.thecarconnection.com/compare/chrysler_200_2015_choices

I'm just not seeing where all the hate is. It seems like it's pretty well received. I remember them doing a decent amount of press for it too and this was before I had cable. Back seat is tight but that's not unique in this segment. I'm thinking this got buried entirely by brand

[ifcar]

So you found two reviews that are somewhat positive, and that's your evidence against all the other reviews that are negative, plus other people here who have personal experience, plus all of the pure specs that leave the 200 trailing. You didn't start this thread to ask a question, you started it because you wanted people to agree with your answer: Yes, the only reason that a car that's worse than its competitors in measurable ways isn't selling well is the brand.

[Laconian]

[2o6]

The new 200 is leaps and bounds better than the old car, but that wasn't hard to do. The 200 was lightyears ahead of the old Sebring, but that wasn't hard to do.



The 200 is mediocre; incentives made it attractive, but the car can't compete with the domestic or imported competition. The new Malibu beats the brakes off it.

[12,000 RPM]

I want to believe It is such a good looking car