Saw the new '07 Sebring Thursday

Just a bit of difference from the previous Sebring, but mostly positive
IMO. Chrysler can actually still do a tasteful styling job! <:)
The limited foot room for a long leg big foot front seat passenger has
been corrected. It's OK for me now. Still the same small glove
compartment.
The large Sebring trunk may even be a bit larger with tis new model.
I find the trunk space of the small SUVs too small for my use. Generally
they are too narrow for my golf clubs to go across the back, with our
cases towards the front.
The Caliber trunk is far too small for me and the truck like Nitro I
looked at is also deficient in trunk capacity, although I consider it
too large for me.

The desirable 2.7L engine is the same, no variable valve timing yet.
About C$27 for the 2.7L car, which has a very good level of equipment.

Unfortunately two negatives for my use have been introduced.

1. Several finger size deep channels in the hood. Bad for cleaning off
dirt and will be ugly for snow and ice. Obviously designed in California
and not audited by someone still left in Detroit, where the winter snow
will it tell all.
I can just see the snow and ice from those deep channels blowing up on
the windshield.
You can just see the channels in the hood picture here:
[url]http://www.chrysler.com/en/sebring/gallery/[/url]

2. A full sized spare isn't an option, so I assume it won't fit the well.
The sales manager got into my discussion with the sales person over this.
When I said assuming one dares a long trip on our "service free"
highways without a matching spare, "where does one put the flat". His
response: "put it in the trunk". Obviously not a very deep thinker.
The sales person said just keep my '95 Concord then. He meant it
because he already proudly pointed out the oldie Saab of his parked out
front. I'm surprised they allowed that!
---
Other possibilities in the Sebring category I will look at are Camry,
Altima and Fusion.

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 02:09:02 GMT, Some O <SO@nospam.net> graced this
newsgroup with:


<snip>

and this has to do with Nissans because.....?

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 02:09:02 +0000, Some O wrote:
[color=blue]
> Just a bit of difference from the previous Sebring, but mostly positive
> IMO. Chrysler can actually still do a tasteful styling job! <:)
> The limited foot room for a long leg big foot front seat passenger has
> been corrected. It's OK for me now. Still the same small glove
> compartment.
> The large Sebring trunk may even be a bit larger with tis new model.
> I find the trunk space of the small SUVs too small for my use. Generally
> they are too narrow for my golf clubs to go across the back, with our
> cases towards the front.
> The Caliber trunk is far too small for me and the truck like Nitro I
> looked at is also deficient in trunk capacity, although I consider it
> too large for me.
>
> The desirable 2.7L engine is the same, no variable valve timing yet.
> About C$27 for the 2.7L car, which has a very good level of equipment.
>
> Unfortunately two negatives for my use have been introduced.
>
> 1. Several finger size deep channels in the hood. Bad for cleaning off
> dirt and will be ugly for snow and ice. Obviously designed in California
> and not audited by someone still left in Detroit, where the winter snow
> will it tell all.
> I can just see the snow and ice from those deep channels blowing up on
> the windshield.
> You can just see the channels in the hood picture here:
> [url]http://www.chrysler.com/en/sebring/gallery/[/url]
>
> 2. A full sized spare isn't an option, so I assume it won't fit the well.
> The sales manager got into my discussion with the sales person over this.
> When I said assuming one dares a long trip on our "service free"
> highways without a matching spare, "where does one put the flat". His
> response: "put it in the trunk". Obviously not a very deep thinker.
> The sales person said just keep my '95 Concord then. He meant it
> because he already proudly pointed out the oldie Saab of his parked out
> front. I'm surprised they allowed that!
> ---
> Other possibilities in the Sebring category I will look at are Camry,
> Altima and Fusion.[/color]


UGH!

Some people's taste is all in their mouths...

Must be a Chrysler salesman trying to drum up some sales for an ugly car!

The 96-02 Coupe was one of the best looking cars ever made. This thing is
an abbhoration!

In article <ug3jj2hun20qrs8908u4gq2jrneoh49356@4ax.com>,
[email]amstaffs@home.com[/email] wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 02:09:02 GMT, Some O <SO@nospam.net> graced this
> newsgroup with:[/color]
[color=blue]
> and this has to do with Nissans because.....?[/color]

The new Sebring doesn't quite meet my requirements;
obvious from my two negatives.
Of those other cars I mentioned (Altima is a Nissan isn't it?) a few do
appear meet my requirements and I'll look closer at them.
Since I keep a car for up to 10 years, I evaluate them closely.

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:16:40 GMT, Some O <SO@nospam.net> graced this
newsgroup with:
[color=blue]
>In article <ug3jj2hun20qrs8908u4gq2jrneoh49356@4ax.com>,
> [email]amstaffs@home.com[/email] wrote:
>[color=green]
>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 02:09:02 GMT, Some O <SO@nospam.net> graced this
>> newsgroup with:[/color]
>[color=green]
>> and this has to do with Nissans because.....?[/color]
>
>The new Sebring doesn't quite meet my requirements;
>obvious from my two negatives.
>Of those other cars I mentioned (Altima is a Nissan isn't it?) a few do
>appear meet my requirements and I'll look closer at them.
>Since I keep a car for up to 10 years, I evaluate them closely.[/color]


well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at
something to last 10 years is beyond me.

[email]amstaffs@home.com[/email] wrote:[color=blue]
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:16:40 GMT, Some O <SO@nospam.net> graced this
> newsgroup with:
>[color=green]
>> In article <ug3jj2hun20qrs8908u4gq2jrneoh49356@4ax.com>,
>> [email]amstaffs@home.com[/email] wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 02:09:02 GMT, Some O <SO@nospam.net> graced this
>>> newsgroup with:
>>> and this has to do with Nissans because.....?[/color]
>> The new Sebring doesn't quite meet my requirements;
>> obvious from my two negatives.
>> Of those other cars I mentioned (Altima is a Nissan isn't it?) a few do
>> appear meet my requirements and I'll look closer at them.
>> Since I keep a car for up to 10 years, I evaluate them closely.[/color]
>
>
> well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at
> something to last 10 years is beyond me.[/color]


Well my mom's 1987 Chrysler 5th avenue is going on 20 years and has
135,000 miles. Really not alot of miles in the past few years but get
this, it even has the original exhaust.

[email]amstaffs@home.com[/email] writes:[color=blue]
>
> well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at
> something to last 10 years is beyond me.[/color]

My daily driver is a 1978 Chrysler Newport.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University [url]http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer[/url]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 02:18:54 GMT, Dave <daves1955@verizon.net> graced
this newsgroup with:
[color=blue]
>amstaffs@home.com wrote:[color=green]
>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:16:40 GMT, Some O <SO@nospam.net> graced this
>> newsgroup with:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> In article <ug3jj2hun20qrs8908u4gq2jrneoh49356@4ax.com>,
>>> [email]amstaffs@home.com[/email] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 02:09:02 GMT, Some O <SO@nospam.net> graced this
>>>> newsgroup with:
>>>> and this has to do with Nissans because.....?
>>> The new Sebring doesn't quite meet my requirements;
>>> obvious from my two negatives.
>>> Of those other cars I mentioned (Altima is a Nissan isn't it?) a few do
>>> appear meet my requirements and I'll look closer at them.
>>> Since I keep a car for up to 10 years, I evaluate them closely.[/color]
>>
>>
>> well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at
>> something to last 10 years is beyond me.[/color]
>
>
>Well my mom's 1987 Chrysler 5th avenue is going on 20 years and has
>135,000 miles. Really not alot of miles in the past few years but get
>this, it even has the original exhaust.[/color]

LOL...

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 02:18:54 +0000, Dave wrote:
[color=blue]
> [email]amstaffs@home.com[/email] wrote:[color=green]
>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:16:40 GMT, Some O <SO@nospam.net> graced this
>> newsgroup with:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> In article <ug3jj2hun20qrs8908u4gq2jrneoh49356@4ax.com>,
>>> [email]amstaffs@home.com[/email] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 02:09:02 GMT, Some O <SO@nospam.net> graced this
>>>> newsgroup with:
>>>> and this has to do with Nissans because.....?
>>> The new Sebring doesn't quite meet my requirements;
>>> obvious from my two negatives.
>>> Of those other cars I mentioned (Altima is a Nissan isn't it?) a few do
>>> appear meet my requirements and I'll look closer at them.
>>> Since I keep a car for up to 10 years, I evaluate them closely.[/color]
>>
>>
>> well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at
>> something to last 10 years is beyond me.[/color]
>
>
> Well my mom's 1987 Chrysler 5th avenue is going on 20 years and has
> 135,000 miles. Really not alot of miles in the past few years but get
> this, it even has the original exhaust.[/color]


Every once in a while they screw up and make one RIGHT!

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 02:50:35 UTC, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> [email]amstaffs@home.com[/email] writes:[color=green]
> >
> > well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at
> > something to last 10 years is beyond me.[/color]
>
> My daily driver is a 1978 Chrysler Newport.[/color]
Mine is a 1940 Chrysler Royal!

--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"

On 21 Oct 2006 20:50:35 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>amstaffs@home.com writes:[color=green]
>>
>> well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at
>> something to last 10 years is beyond me.[/color]
>
>My daily driver is a 1978 Chrysler Newport.[/color]

Is it as nice as this one?

[url]http://adcache.collectorcartraderonline.com/10/5/4/49198054.htm[/url]

--

Scott in Florida

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:20:48 GMT, Scott in Florida
<askifyouwant@mindspring.net> graced this newsgroup with:
[color=blue]
>On 21 Oct 2006 20:50:35 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu>
>wrote:
>[color=green]
>>amstaffs@home.com writes:[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at
>>> something to last 10 years is beyond me.[/color]
>>
>>My daily driver is a 1978 Chrysler Newport.[/color]
>
>Is it as nice as this one?
>
>[url]http://adcache.collectorcartraderonline.com/10/5/4/49198054.htm[/url][/color]


yeesh..that takes "butt ugly" to a whole new dimension.

IMHO of course. :-)

On 21 Oct 2006 20:50:35 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu>
graced this newsgroup with:
[color=blue]
>amstaffs@home.com writes:[color=green]
>>
>> well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at
>> something to last 10 years is beyond me.[/color]
>
>My daily driver is a 1978 Chrysler Newport.[/color]


I've owned older cars as well (like a 67 Dodge Dart). And quite
honestly, they may still be running but the ones I've owned and the
ones I've seen are, figuratively speaking, total crap.

They handle like a boat, rattle like dump truck, drink gas like
flushing a toilet and the fit and finish would make a blind man blush.

And don't even get me started on the paint.

No thanks, older American cars are like older Vettes. Great to look
at, but you have no idea what's involved to keep them looking nice and
on the road.

Scott in Florida <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> writes:
[color=blue]
> On 21 Oct 2006 20:50:35 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >amstaffs@home.com writes:[color=darkred]
> >>
> >> well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at
> >> something to last 10 years is beyond me.[/color]
> >
> >My daily driver is a 1978 Chrysler Newport.[/color]
>
> Is it as nice as this one?
>
> [url]http://adcache.collectorcartraderonline.com/10/5/4/49198054.htm[/url][/color]

No, I can only drool with envy! Well, that and get it into the body
shop for a long-promised vacation....
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University [url]http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer[/url]

[email]amstaffs@home.com[/email] wrote:
[color=blue]
>I've owned older cars as well (like a 67 Dodge Dart). And quite
>honestly, they may still be running but the ones I've owned and the
>ones I've seen are, figuratively speaking, total crap.
>
>They handle like a boat, rattle like dump truck, drink gas like
>flushing a toilet and the fit and finish would make a blind man blush.
>
>And don't even get me started on the paint.
>
>No thanks, older American cars are like older Vettes. Great to look
>at, but you have no idea what's involved to keep them looking nice and
>on the road.[/color]

Yeah, I used to be a Mustang enthusiast, and have owned several of the
65-70 'Stangs. But once a got my first "modern" car (an '88 CRX Si),
I just could not go back to those beautiful-looking, shitty handling,
oil-stinking, primitive, cars.