Charger Daytona vs Avenger R/T

who wrote:

> In article >,
> Steve > wrote:
>
>
>>who wrote:
>>
>>>In article > ,
>>> "Scott Koprowski" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Charger is a better built car-
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>>Because the Avenger/Sebring is a warmed-over JA-chassis FRONT DRIVE car.
>
> That makes it better due to further development of the platform. This is
> just evolution of a platform.
> The Charger (300 line) is a warmed over Mercedes drive train, plus some
> undesirable Mercedes components such as the awful cruise control.
>

Actually, you're dead wrong. The DRIVETRAIN is Chrysler. All available
engines are 100% Chrysler, all transmissions are built by Chrysler, one
of the transmissions is based on a Benz design but isn't a "mercedes"
transmission. There are no truly "Mercedes" parts at all in the car,
although the suspension is heavily based on the E-class suspension
design. Don't know what your gripe about the cruise control is. Its
cruise control.



>>
>>>>if you can handle the gas mileage go for the Charger.
>>>
>>>UGH! The 300 line is a throwback to the 50s.
>>
>>Your turn: Why?
>
> Heavy, large engine,

Since when is the SAME base engine as the Avenger "large and heavy?" You
do know that the 2.7 and 3.5 are available in the LX... no you probably
don't given how many other facts you have wrong.

And if you're referring to the 5.7 Hemi- it makes more than enough
power to compensate for its weight PLUS has cylinder deactivation. The
mere fact that its available in the LX and not in the Avenger/Sebring is
reason enough to rule them out for me.

poor visibility, poor for winter use due to RWD and
> low ground clearance

Red herrings. We drove rear-drive cars in winter for 50 years before we
ever got saddled with this front-drive CRAP that we've been suffering
with for the past 20 years.

In article >,
Steve > wrote:

> Don't know what your gripe about the cruise control is. Its
> cruise control.
On the Magnum I drove it was very difficult to access, being behind the
steering wheel. A creation from Mercedes I understand.
>
>
>
> >>
> >>>>if you can handle the gas mileage go for the Charger.
> >>>
> >>>UGH! The 300 line is a throwback to the 50s.
> >>
> >>Your turn: Why?
> >
> > Heavy, large engine,
>
> Since when is the SAME base engine as the Avenger "large and heavy?" You
> do know that the 2.7 and 3.5 are available in the LX... no you probably
> don't given how many other facts you have wrong.
Yes I've driven a Magnum with the 2.7L engine, which is totally
inadequate for that car, a dumb choice of engine.
IMO the 3.5L engine is just adequate for the 300 line, the hemi would be
a much better choice.
Since the 2.7L is the right engine for spirited performance in the '01
to '06 Sebring (i've driven this configuration many times), I expect it
would be fine in the latest Sebring & Avenger.
>
> And if you're referring to the 5.7 Hemi- it makes more than enough
> power to compensate for its weight PLUS has cylinder deactivation. The
> mere fact that its available in the LX and not in the Avenger/Sebring is
> reason enough to rule them out for me.
I agree the hemi is a good engine for the 300 line, but it's urban/city
fuel mileage is very low. That 4 cyl operation is not effective in city
driving. I have a friend who has had one for a few years, he wants to
dump it because of the very poor city mileage.
> poor visibility, poor for winter use due to RWD and
> > low ground clearance
>
> Red herrings. We drove rear-drive cars in winter for 50 years before we
> ever got saddled with this front-drive CRAP that we've been suffering
> with for the past 20 years.
I have many years experience with both RWD & FWD, there is no comparison
in the real snow we where I live. This past winter I easily passed by
several RWD cars stopped in their tracks by deep snow. I will never
return to RWD, for winter traction and other reasons.
We don't have many 300 line cars here, but even less are seen driving to
our ski hills in the winter. I only saw one this last winter and it was
in the early spring when there was no snow on the ski hill road.
The Sebring sells very well here; a very popular car.

You may question my knowledge, however I know I have significant
experience in what I say.
So I repeat the 300 is a heavy car, with poor visibility, substandard in
snow due to RWD and low ground clearance and gives poor fuel mileage.
In other environments than ours it could be a fine car.
Even an AWD 300 could give winter driving problems due to the limited
ground clearance. No matter how good the traction, if the snow drags the
bottom you could bog down in deep snow.
>

In terms of build quality- the 300/Charger/Magnum is far ahead of the new
Sebring/Avenger. Everything is solid and fit & finish is very good. The
300 cars have been around a few model years now- that in itself would make
the decision up for me. A friend of mine bought a 07 Charger SXT with the
3.5L engine up here in Cleveland, OH (in the snowbelt) and had no complaints
about the car's performance in the winter this year. The 3.5L V6 is a good
match for the Charger.

For anyone questioning my statement about the new
Avenger/Sebring.......spend an evening shopping and drive an Accord, Camry,
Fusion amd Aura. Then drive an Avenger/Sebring- you'll see what I mean.
Buzzy 4cyl enigines with 4 speed autos, poor fitted interior panels, sloppy
suspension on all but the Avenger R/T (and thats if you like a stiff
suspension), and a 197 HP V6????????. Did they even look at what the
competition is out there? 3/4 of my family work for Chrysler/Jeep and I
obviously have had Chryslers all my life- to me their small and midsize cars
that have comeout in the last year have missed the mark big time compared to
everyone else.


"who" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Steve > wrote:
>
>> Don't know what your gripe about the cruise control is. Its
>> cruise control.
> On the Magnum I drove it was very difficult to access, being behind the
> steering wheel. A creation from Mercedes I understand.
>>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>>>if you can handle the gas mileage go for the Charger.
>> >>>
>> >>>UGH! The 300 line is a throwback to the 50s.
>> >>
>> >>Your turn: Why?
>> >
>> > Heavy, large engine,
>>
>> Since when is the SAME base engine as the Avenger "large and heavy?" You
>> do know that the 2.7 and 3.5 are available in the LX... no you probably
>> don't given how many other facts you have wrong.
> Yes I've driven a Magnum with the 2.7L engine, which is totally
> inadequate for that car, a dumb choice of engine.
> IMO the 3.5L engine is just adequate for the 300 line, the hemi would be
> a much better choice.
> Since the 2.7L is the right engine for spirited performance in the '01
> to '06 Sebring (i've driven this configuration many times), I expect it
> would be fine in the latest Sebring & Avenger.
>>
>> And if you're referring to the 5.7 Hemi- it makes more than enough
>> power to compensate for its weight PLUS has cylinder deactivation. The
>> mere fact that its available in the LX and not in the Avenger/Sebring is
>> reason enough to rule them out for me.
> I agree the hemi is a good engine for the 300 line, but it's urban/city
> fuel mileage is very low. That 4 cyl operation is not effective in city
> driving. I have a friend who has had one for a few years, he wants to
> dump it because of the very poor city mileage.
>> poor visibility, poor for winter use due to RWD and
>> > low ground clearance
>>
>> Red herrings. We drove rear-drive cars in winter for 50 years before we
>> ever got saddled with this front-drive CRAP that we've been suffering
>> with for the past 20 years.
> I have many years experience with both RWD & FWD, there is no comparison
> in the real snow we where I live. This past winter I easily passed by
> several RWD cars stopped in their tracks by deep snow. I will never
> return to RWD, for winter traction and other reasons.
> We don't have many 300 line cars here, but even less are seen driving to
> our ski hills in the winter. I only saw one this last winter and it was
> in the early spring when there was no snow on the ski hill road.
> The Sebring sells very well here; a very popular car.
>
> You may question my knowledge, however I know I have significant
> experience in what I say.
> So I repeat the 300 is a heavy car, with poor visibility, substandard in
> snow due to RWD and low ground clearance and gives poor fuel mileage.
> In other environments than ours it could be a fine car.
> Even an AWD 300 could give winter driving problems due to the limited
> ground clearance. No matter how good the traction, if the snow drags the
> bottom you could bog down in deep snow.
>>

In article .net>,
"Scott Koprowski" > wrote:

> For anyone questioning my statement about the new
> Avenger/Sebring.......spend an evening shopping and drive an Accord, Camry,
> Fusion amd Aura. Then drive an Avenger/Sebring- you'll see what I mean.
> Buzzy 4cyl enigines with 4 speed autos,
>poor fitted interior panels, sloppy
The Fusion and Sebring/Avenger both come with either a 4 or 6 cyl.
IMO the Fusion is the better body for function. It has a huge trunk even
holding a full sized spare.
I have only driven the Fusion V6 for a one day rental, but it would get
my vote if I was interested in that type of car.

> suspension on all but the Avenger R/T (and thats if you like a stiff
> suspension), and a 197 HP V6????????. Did they even look at what the
> competition is out there? 3/4 of my family work for Chrysler/Jeep and I
> obviously have had Chryslers all my life- to me their small and midsize cars
> that have comeout in the last year have missed the mark big time compared to
> everyone else.
My wife's '01 Sebring is built very well and solid. It has a stiffer
body than my lovely '95 LH Concord. It's 2.7L engine noise is a slight
bit more for general use, but is quieter and smoother than the 3.3L
when pushed hard.

I can't say I've had Chryslers all my life, just in the last two decades
of FWD cars, so switching manufacturers is not a mental block for me
although I'd like to stay with Chrysler.
Over the years I've owned or driven many different cars, from several
countries.

Scott Koprowski wrote:

> In terms of build quality- the 300/Charger/Magnum is far ahead of the new
> Sebring/Avenger. Everything is solid and fit & finish is very good.

<snip>

>
> For anyone questioning my statement about the new
> Avenger/Sebring.......spend an evening shopping and drive an Accord, Camry,
> Fusion amd Aura. Then drive an Avenger/Sebring- you'll see what I mean.
> Buzzy 4cyl enigines with 4 speed autos, poor fitted interior panels, sloppy
> suspension on all but the Avenger R/T (and thats if you like a stiff
> suspension), and a 197 HP V6????????. Did they even look at what the
> competition is out there?

This is my point exactly. The poster known as "Who" doesn't like the
configuration of the LX platform, but that is NOT the question that was
asked. The question that was asked was, basically, which is better. The
LX platform is better in every measurable way. The LX platform is an
industry leader, and the available LX drivetrains are industry leaders.
Hell, Mercedes should buy the 3.5 v6, 5.7 and 6.3 Hemis from Chrysler
for the E- and S-class and get rid of their questionably reliable and
over-complex 3-liter class v6s and 5-liter class v8s. On the other hand,
the Sebring/Avenger is an utter embarassment to the Chrysler group and
is lurking at the bottom of the barrel with Kia and Hyundai compared to
its direct competition.

In article >,
Steve > wrote:

> On the other hand,
> the Sebring/Avenger is an utter embarassment to the Chrysler group and
> is lurking at the bottom of the barrel with Kia and Hyundai compared to
> its direct competition.

So what specifically is so bad about the Sebring/Avenger?
If they are as bad as you imply I'd suggest avoiding all Chrysler
products as they will all become worthless toast.

who wrote:
> In article >,
> Steve > wrote:
>
>
>>On the other hand,
>>the Sebring/Avenger is an utter embarassment to the Chrysler group and
>>is lurking at the bottom of the barrel with Kia and Hyundai compared to
>>its direct competition.
>
>
> So what specifically is so bad about the Sebring/Avenger?
> If they are as bad as you imply I'd suggest avoiding all Chrysler
> products as they will all become worthless toast.

Haven't we been around this tree 4 or 5 times now? The problem with the
Avenger/Sebring is mediocre fit and finish when it has to compete in a
class of cars that has some VERY nicely built cars in it right now.

Why avoid all Chrysler products? The Avengering is the only one that is
below its competition in build quality.

In article >,
Steve > wrote:
>who wrote:
> In article >,
> Steve > wrote:
>
>
>>On the other hand,
>>the Sebring/Avenger is an utter embarassment to the Chrysler group and
>>is lurking at the bottom of the barrel with Kia and Hyundai compared
to
>>its direct competition.
>
>
> So what specifically is so bad about the Sebring/Avenger?
> If they are as bad as you imply I'd suggest avoiding all Chrysler
> products as they will all become worthless toast.


> Haven't we been around this tree 4 or 5 times now? The problem with the
> Avenger/Sebring is mediocre fit and finish when it has to compete in a
> class of cars that has some VERY nicely built cars in it right now.
>
> Why avoid all Chrysler products? The Avengering is the only one that is
> below its competition in build quality.
The Avenger and Sebring are the only Chrysler cars in that category.
See the Ford Fusion, the same class of car that is very well built.