To me this appears to be a Korean or Chinese car where Chrysler has tacked-on Crossfire/Minivan styling cues. I'd take the uber-conservative 500 or fresh styling of the Fusion over this. This is just a hodge-podge of incoherent design elements.
When was the Motor Show held? 1970? This looks awful. Chrysler is in big trouble.
What a terribly sad Avalon wannabe.
This is an absolutely beautiful Corolla.
This is the same company that made the 300? I was so looking forward to a smaller, more affordable 300 looking car.
The Plymouth Acclaim refresh no one asked for.Are those ribs in the hood? That should be fun for waxing and rust!
yikes, that is really 90's
Looks OK except for that silly paint treatment on the "C" pillar.
It's like they took every bad Chrysler design element and combined them into the crapiest Chrysler ever... Maybe they will sell the testing Camo packages, so you cover this thing up. Cause it looked a hell of a lot better with it on.
Hideous! What a waste of time and money. Chrysler needs to fire all members of the desgn board and keep the one guy responsible for the 300C. Thats all they need. This design is a disgrace. I can't see how anyone at Chrysler can look at this and say "Wow! we're gonna blow the competition away with this one!"
and to think we'll have to look at it for the next five years. heads should roll for this abomination.
They should have had Ralph Gilles do this one, instead of whatever committee styled this beast.
Thousands of car renters will love their own cars even more when the return home from business trips.
I concur with all sentiments experessed thus far.When the Suzuki forenza looks better, by a country mile, you know Chrysler put zero effort into this thing? Maybe they want a reason to quit selling compact-midszied sedans under 20K(maybe wqanna kill FWD all together,minus that other ugly- mobile, the Caliber... Cruiser is ok, just needs updated with new GEMA engine,seats, etc).I vote this Ugliest car of 2006, so far!Anyone second this?
Well, the feelings here seem to be unanimous but you have to remember that along the way Chrysler did styling clinics with targeted consumers and apparently this design did well. Is it possible that the readers of this blog aren't really the demographics that DC was and is appealing to? That said I have to say that several years ago I attended a major U.S. city autoshow when the 300 concept was on display. It was 99.9% production-ready. I stood alongside it and was in awe wondering if DC had the guts to really put this bold statement on the market. And you know what? As I stood there, walked around it and admired it from all angles for about 15 minutes, not more than 2 people even came by to give it a glance! It was like it was invisible to the public in attendance and this was on a high- traffic corner display in the exhibit hall. Now we all know how it's selling so you just have to wait and see how this new Sebring does on the real market. What looks like a dud may actually be a hit. We'll see.
Maybe not the worse design, but at least the most disapointing. Most people were expecting much more, like a "smaller 300"...
Dr Z. had his more talented designers work on MB, while the summer interns worked on Sebring and even more hideous Jeep Compass. Wonder what's in store for the new Caravan official pics (nonspy).
The real sad thing about this monstrosity (looks like the grinch that stole xmas) is that fully loaded ones will go for 23-25k and DCX thinks its a camry killer lmao, it ain't even a malibu killer ! for that money id rather buy a stripped 300, or a used 300 with more options ! the 300 has rear wheel drive, charm and timeless design ! the sebring looks old well before we can even buy the darn thing ...
iQuack said... Looks OK except for that silly paint treatment on the "C" pillar.=========huh ???????
It definetly has a design by commity vibe. And if there is one thing that I learned in life is that the majority of people in the world are idiots. And that's who designed this car.
sdcarnut says, "huh?????" for some reason about my "C" pillar complaint.But look at the "C" pillar that has black paint with a bright metal frame as if it's a window that's not a window, or whatever the hell it is.Looks dumb to me--styling gimmick with paint and bright trim that does nothing. Either put in a damn window or leave the thing alone, OK?Using paint and chrome to replace genuine style reminds me of cars of the 1950s--and a poor version at that!
Here's what I mean--the bottom photo on this site is more appealing to me:http://xs303.xs.to/xs303/06296/SebringC.jpg
Yeah, a dissapointment, like Vince said. Big Disappointment.The Airflight concept was great, this ain't!Figured the wya Chrysler was going(Showing concepts that became production vehicles that were virtually unchanged) that the Airflight would be built close to "as-was".They had clinics, and the people chose this?How old were they, and could they see very well, if at all?Did they offer only 2 choices? This, and maybe an Aztek-like vehicle?Yeah, maybe compared to an Aztek, this is a great vehicle.We can only hope that Maybe Chrysler does a refreshening in 2-3 years, and make it more like the concept Airflight.This is like an accident waiting to happen.take care/not offense.
I don’t think it sucks but it lacks the aggression of Crossﬁre and 300. The front overhang is too long, though I know this is an FWD car. Basically: imbalanced and inelegant. The publicity pics looked better—but then they’d have to, right?
A couple of things:Lexus did the "pillar trick" on an older GS...it looked dumb there too. Pontiac did this to the old 6000 sedan as well.I believe Ralph Gilles was transferred to the minivan design team after doing the 300...this is not a joke by the way...I know the minivans are big business for DCX, but they did not need that much firepower in the design area.A mini "300", an updated Spirit/Acclaim...or even a new Aspen/Volare(Nice cars in their day, though the Dart/Valiant were better and more rugged...) would have been preferable to this.
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUgly :o(I think Chrysler's strategy is tying to attract people to the dealers to check out how ugly this car really is, and while the people are in the dealer, they will try to sell them a 300 or something else... It's probably designed by the same people who designed the Pontiac Aztec... On that note, which one do you guys think is uglier? Aztec or this Sebring? I know, it's a tough call...Here is my question for Dr.Z- Were you in Octoberfest when you approved this one? :o)
this Sebring's so ugly, it makes Michael jackson look good!(Really,It's too close of a call).
Hey! Who's the punk that dropped the rake on the hood?"Jay said...On that note, which one do you guys think is uglier? Aztec or this Sebring? I know, it's a tough call..."My neighbors have an Aztec, and I vote that it's uglier. At least you can tell the new Sebring is supposed to be a car. I don't know what the hell the Aztec is supposed to be. A shoebox on wheels, maybe?
I agree that there may be some C-pillar resemblance to the Ion, but what about the Altima, G35, Passat etc. There are many vehicles that share certain styling cues..... So What! Overall I think it is a decent design. I wish the C pillar blackout treatment to fake the Airflite design would go away, but with any luck it will be removed as a part of a particular trim level. The Interior looks light years better than the car it replaces. So I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and wait to see it in person before ragging on it.
I agree that there may be some sideview resemblance to the Ion, but what about the Altima, G35, Passat etc. There are many vehicles that share certain styling cues..... So What! Overall I think it is a decent design. I wish the C pillar blackout treatment to fake the Airflite design would go away, but with any luck it will be removed as a part of a particular trim level. The Interior looks light years better than the car it replaces. So I'll give it the benefit of the doubt until I see it in person. So give it a break.
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/06/22/012320.htmlTons of details on this link.It sounds interesting, But.... you would have to put up with the looks for what, 3-6 years, depending if you pay off your cars first, or not, etc..I'll wait to look at the updated PT Cruiser.
Sure it's ugly, but it's nowhere near as hideous as an Aztek.Unfortunately it's going on sale here in Australia in a few months. The 300 is doing well here, but I honestly can't see this car being a success. Fugly +++
This car is unfortunately unsexy. It just looks so strange and clumsy. From the rear passenger windows back, the car simply ceases to be even mildly attractive.
Post a Comment