The art of failure is one that’s surprisingly tricky to master. If something just subpar enough to not pique people’s interest fails, it’s predictable. If something seemingly designed to fail fails, it’s a great story about corporate culture. However, if something that should’ve been successful on paper, with the right moves, the right perks, and the right style fails, that deserves a closer look. Take the second-generation Chrysler 200, for example. On paper, it had a lot going for it, but it left its mark on automotive history with one of the shortest production runs of any modern mainstream car.
Looking back, when the second-generation Chrysler 200 launched, it actually seemed to be right in the mix thanks to forward-looking styling and a robust set of amenities, and it wasn’t widely panned by road testers either. Considering the end result, it all really makes you wonder what went wrong.
While the 2011 Chrysler 200 was little more than a facelifted Sebring, the 2015 model year saw a total revitalization of the model. Now running on a variant of Fiat’s Compact Wide platform, it gained all-new swoopy sheetmetal, and it certainly wasn’t short on available features. An available 506-watt Alpine audio system went properly loud, a heated steering wheel was uncommon in the midsize sedan segment at the time, ventilated front seats were a nice touch, and an 8.4-inch touchscreen felt like the future a decade ago.
Under the hood, the ubiquitous 3.6-liter Pentastar V6 returned to the options sheet, now sporting a robust 295 horsepower. Enough to outmuscle the V6 versions of the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry, not to mention the turbocharged two-liter engine available in the Ford Fusion. Shifts were handled by a new nine-speed automatic transmission, and for those in snowy climates, an available all-wheel-drive system could shift up to 60 percent of the engine’s torque to the rear axle.
That all sounds like a recipe for a reasonably quick car, and despite a whopping curb weight of 3,844 pounds for a V6 AWD 200S, Motor Trend managed zero-to-60 mph in a brisk 6.3 seconds from of an all-wheel-drive V6 test car, and ultimately came away impressed by just how much the second-generation Chrysler 200 outshone its predecessor. As the magazine summarized:
Ultimately, the new 2015 Chrysler 200S is a massive leap in the right direction for Chrysler. After years of less-than-mediocre offerings in the midsize segment, the new 200 finally represents a midsize sedan Chrysler can be proud of. While the new 200S isn’t yet class leading, it’s certainly class competitive, and that’s worlds better than any 200 — or Sebring, for that matter — has ever been.
With receptive press and consumers, things looked good at first. In 2014, Chrysler managed to sell 117,363 examples of the 200 despite the supply interruption of a model changeover, and 2015 gave the car its best-ever sales year with 167,368 units finding homes across America. It all looked good, right up until it didn’t. In 2016, the Chrysler 200 suffered a 66 percent year-over-year decline, shifting 57,294 units over twelve months. In December of that year, Chrysler quit making the second-generation 200 just 33 months after production started, and it would become a specter on Chrysler sales charts into the first quarter of 2024, when the brand inexplicably managed to shift negative one (-1) new examples of a car that had been out of production for more than seven years.
Shortly after the 200 was discontinued, then-FCA CEO Sergio Marchionne told Autoblog, “I can tell you right now that both the Chrysler 200 and the Dodge Dart, as great products as they were, were the least financially rewarding enterprises that we’ve carried out inside FCA in the last eight years,” adding “I don’t know one investment that was as bad as these two were.” Ouch. So what went wrong?
Well, the early troubles of the ZF 9HP automatic transmission likely didn’t help the 200’s chances of success. While the concept of nine forward speeds was novel in the mid-2010s, the ZF 9HP suffered from a difficult gestation period. The 2014 Jeep Cherokee was delayed by several weeks in a last-ditch attempt to fix transmission issues before launch, but since the Chrysler 200 shared the same transmission as the Cherokee, it launched with similar issues in shift logic and transmission build quality. Concerns over transmission quality appeared to be justified in early 2015, when more than 21,000 Chrysler 200s were recalled due to a problem with shifting into park, namely that the gear selector would display park but the transmission wouldn’t actually shift into it. In 2016, these second-generation Chrysler 200s were recalled due to a transmission wiring harness fault that could result in a failsafe shift to neutral, leaving another stain on the nine-speed’s image.
Then there was the fact that the second-generation Chrysler 200 didn’t quite feel fully baked compared to the Mazda 6, Ford Fusion, and even the Honda Accord of the time. I didn’t find the seats in the last one I drove to be hugely comfortable, and while the interior looked great for the time, some of the fit-and-finish wasn’t quite up to par with offerings from Japan. Also, rear seat entry and egress was significantly hampered by the sloping roofline, which is something Marchionne addressed in an interview with Automotive News. He stated “The Hyundai which we copied [presumably the Sonata] has the same problem,” adding the following eyebrow-raising comment:
We didn’t copy the car, we copied the entry point to the rear seat. Dummies. I acknowledge it. Some people from design left some of their private parts on the table after we came up with that determination. But I think we’re learning from this process.
Learning from which process, exactly? Likely the design process, but the image of FCA boardroom circumcisions is a hard one to shake. At the same time, Consumer Reports seemed conflicted on the 200. While an initial road test seemed positive, the publication also wrote the following about Chrysler’s midsizer:
While it represents a vast improvement over the 2011 model, the 200 continues to trail the field by a considerable margin. This is largely owing to klutzy handling, a thrashy base engine and cramped packaging. As much as we want to like the handsomely styled car, and we really do applaud the fact that it is considerably better than its forebears, the Chrysler 200’s competition is just so much better.
Considering that midsize sedans appeal to a fairly traditional demographic, mixed signals from Consumer Reports probably didn’t entice consumers to give Mopar a shot.
I think the biggest issue with the second-generation Chrysler 200 was that it didn’t read the market. If you go back ten years, the crossover SUV craze was absolutely booming, setting a clear trajectory for where the automotive landscape would end up. Between 2011 and 2014, the Ford Explorer, Kia Sorento and Nissan Pathfinder all switched to unibody architectures, Infiniti launched its first three-row crossover which is now responsible for keeping the brand afloat, Mercedes-Benz and BMW gave building crossovers smaller than the GLK and X3 a shot, while midsize sedan selection was largely stagnant.
What did FCA have at the time in the three-row crossover arena at the time? The Dodge Journey and Dodge Durango, definitely, but no three-row Jeeps and no Chrysler-branded successor to the original Pacifica. The money spent developing the Chrysler 200 likely would’ve been better used on a three-row Jeep or a Journey replacement, because that’s where buyers were actually headed.
This shift in consumer preference could be weathered by icons like the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry, which have decades of great reputation to lean back on. But an all-new sedan from a brand not exactly known for reliability or fuel economy — two things that many sedan-shoppers really look for? That’s tough.
Today, the second-generation Chrysler 200 serves as a reminder that timing is everything. It wasn’t a particularly bad car, but it launched both too soon for its transmission to be sorted and right as the writing ended up on the wall for the midsize sedan segment in America. Since then, the Ford Fusion, Chevrolet Malibu, Mazda 6, and Volkswagen Passat have joined it in the afterlife, with the Subaru Legacy finding its resting place later this year, and the Nissan Altima expected to bid its last goodnight soon. You could easily say that the failure of the Chrysler 200 was an early alarm for the failure of virtually an entire segment. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.
(Photo credits: Chrysler)
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
-
Actually, Chrysler’s Bailout-Era Cars Are Better Than You Think
-
Stellantis Sold Negative One (-1) Chrysler 200 Sedan Last Quarter And I Just Want To Know How
-
The Original Chevrolet Colorado Was Way Cooler Than You Remember: GM Hit Or Miss
-
The Opel Speedster And Vauxhall VX220 Are Featherweight Sports Cars Worth Waiting Another Year For: GM Hit Or Miss
-
How GM Beat Everyone To The Punch With A Hybrid Pickup Truck And Then Completely Fell Off The Tracks
Please send tips about cool car things to tips@theautopian.com. You could even win a prize!
I had these as rentals in from very base to very loaded form. A “good” car? Uh, no – it was a VERY meh car at best. It was too small for the class. The transmission sucked. The absolutely idiotic transmission selector located too close to other too-similar controls. The materials inside were typically Chrysler, aka, not great. And at MSRP it was relatively expensive. There was really no reason to buy one unless it was very, very cheap. And probably not even then.
I still blame bad marketing.
First, they should’ve given it a badass name instead of a numerical designation. (Lancer, Monaco, Pheonix…)
Second, the “Imported from Detroit” ads were good for a start, but they needed to bring the excitement. Something like Ford did for the Mondeo in Europe.
Third, they should’ve featured it as a main character’s ride in a popular TV show.
In short, they never made the car desirable to the market.
It was a car I seriously looked at back when it came out. One of its problems was something I liked – it was a tweener: not as big as a midsize, but bigger than a compact. I was also looking at the Kizashi around the same time.
I very nearly bought the Kizashi. If not for a sales guy being a bad sales guy, I would have.
The 200? Ruled it out the moment I climbed in. It was great on paper, but everything about the car seemed like a vehicle that was less than the sum of its parts. The interior had way too many different colours of plastic that were supposed to be the same, and overall it seemed like a car that was designed by 9 different teams in 9 different board rooms that all hoped it would fit together in the end.
In short, it was crap. But it wasn’t priced like it was crap (at least initially).
The TSX I ended up buying was WAY better than both.
As someone who’s always owned Japanese cars, I was appalled at how chintzy the 200 felt when I had one a few days for a rental.
I know that would’ve sent me towards the exit if I were at the dealer looking at these.
I’m pretty sure that transmission is what killed the actor Anton Yelchin in his Jeep. Thing shifted out of park and pinned him against a gate for hours. Brutal way to go.
It was not the same transmission. The ZF 9-speed is for Front Drive-based vehicles (Transverse-mounted engines). The Grand Cherokee uses a Longitudinal-mounted engine similar to a RWD vehicle, which uses a very different style of transmission. I believe it was a 2015 Grand Cherokee, which used the ZF 8-speed transmission.
And the transmission itself didn’t matter anyway. The problem is there was no software logic for the car to shift into park if a door was opened. Which most other cars using the same transmission had. I don’t believe there was any evidence that it shifted out of park on it’s own, rather, he just didn’t put it in park at all for some reason. Possibly confusion caused by the rotary shifter. Or maybe he was just distracted. Who knows? Chrysler settled a wrongful death suit with his parents, but the terms were kept confidential. They quickly added the door-shifter interlock though. Not sure if for just subsequent model years or if there was a recall.
I can relate actually. The summer before I got my license, I pulled my grandmother’s car out of the garage to wash it. I put it back in the garage after. I left it in neutral and didn’t set the parking brake. The car rolled out of the garage and hit the apple tree in the back yard. Thankfully not running over anyone in the process, but denting the corner of the trunk. Oops.
I remember when this and the dart came out. They were on the same platform, but competing in different classes. The 200 had really cramped quarters compared to the rest of the mid size class. It was basically the spiritual successor to the contour. Meanwhile the dart had a couple of spunky engines, but was way too heavy for the class to be fun. Both out of step with the sedan classes at the time
Should have made a station wagon version.
They would have sold dozens!
Another issue was the entry into the second row seats. That cool roofline did not do you any favors when you went to get in (or out, but mainly in) to the rear seats. You’d whack your head on the roof rail often.
That said, the car itself (as long as you got a 3.6L model) was fantastic. The ZF 9AT actually worked quite well with the Pentastar.
They would have sold twice as many cars just by naming the small car Neon and the midsize car Dart.
Instead they confused buyers and threw away the good will associated with both names.
Like so many others, I have logged thousands of miles in rental 200s. I’ve sampled all the trims and variants, and like others have said the car is fine. Just fine. Not great. Not terrible. Fine. The 200 was innocuous in the way that the Accord and Camry are innocuous, but never had the cache to move cars like they do. The 300 had style to help it sell, and the 200 was just yet another appliance car that does everything fine and offers almost nothing over its competitors.
It was an example of FCA genuinely trying as hard as it possibly could to build a competitive car, and I wouldn’t be surprised if its failure is a big reason why Stellantis is scared to invest similar amounts of time and money into making something new.
I don’t think it was a truly bad car, but it should have come out sooner. The build quality was also not there, the idea of using a knob to shift gears really turned off/confused a lot of people, and its competition was the best it had ever been.
Around 2015, as much as the market was moving away from sedans, there was still space for Chrysler to launch a competitive mid-sizers.
The issue was by 2015, Chrysler had shit out so many crappy economy cars under the Dodge and Chrysler brands, that any goodwill by the normie car buyers of America was shot. Why take a chance on this over a Camry, or an Accord?
I think it was a nice looking car, the V6 option was nice, and the interior was shockingly, after a decade plus of pure shit coming from the brand, quite nice. The transmission took a while to figure out, and honestly, is still a weak point even in their vans today. For this and the Dart, the products had to be absolutely perfect to begin the process of washing away past sins. They didn’t convince enough people, so they failed.
I am a fan of the pentastar v6, 300hp and 30mpg is a good combo. This car was relatively attractive, but …. it’s not exceptional at anything, and chrysler resale values are terrible, so.. probably a bad investment. If I needed a car and I found a deal on one I’d consider it though, it would probably look pretty great slammed on nice wheels.
I think you nailed it. As sedan sales have continued to shrink, the existing buyers have congregated toward the strongest entrants in the segment: the Camry and Accord for longevity and the Optima/K5, Sonata and Altima for price and features. And then, yes, there were the troublesome reports from the professionals, and the cramped interior.
If Chrysler copied the YF Sonata (2011-2015), they didn’t do a good job. Despite that car’s swoopy “we-have-Mercedes-Benz-CLS-Class-at-home” roofline, it managed to meet or exceed expectations for rear-passenger space in a midsize model. I should know; we have one.
Anyway, it’s not like FCA’s domestic counterparts did any better. Whatever volume the Malibu–which, if you ask me, was a bigger flop from 2013-2015–and Fusion had, it was due to heavy fleet sales and discounts, hence those cars no longer being around, either. And the Fusion is perhaps even less of a good long-term proposition, outside of the 2.7TT and Hybrid models.
To your point RE crossovers: I also find it odd, and perhaps this is why Chrysler is staving off death, that in a world of high-roof, high-riding vehicles, they’ve only had two. One was the Pacifica; the other was the Aspen. Neither of them continued production into the start of the Obama Administration. What gives?
I had one as a rental once, was fairly cramped inside, coming from previously having a Neon/PT Cruiser/Compass I was kind of baffled by that, Chrysler used to know how to work the Tardis magic so things seemed bigger on the inside, but not this. Too big to be small to small to be big.
Reminded me of when the Ford Focus came out and felt roomier than the Contour, like you know you sell smaller cars that have more room right?
I never really cared to learn anything about these when they were out, but at the time I did think it was a pretty clean looking design, especially compared to the previous gen.
I just figured this car was an afterthought for them, since they always seem so focused on Ram/Jeep/Hemi cars.
Like some other commentors I have driven a couple 200s as rental cars. They got me from Point A to Point B but that’s about the only positive I could say for it. Overall uninspiring, uncomfortable and visibly cheaply made. Would definitely not say it was good, adequate at best.
I maintain that it wasn’t that much of a flop, when you compare it to the sales performance of other Chrysler midsize sedans over the years
M-Body LeBaron: 187,150 over 5 model years
M-Body Fifth Avenue: 569,114 over 8 model years
M-Body New Yorker: 50,509 in 1 model year
K-Body New Yorker: 283,216 in 2 model years
E-Class: 71,495 in 2 model years
LeBaron GTS: 283,972 over 7 model years
Mk3 LeBaron: 141,160 over 5 model years
Cirrus: 249,927 over 6 model years
Sebring Mk1: approx 306,000 over 6 model years
Sebring Mk2: approx 119,000 over 4 model years
200 Mk1: approx 235,000 over 4 model years
200 Mk2 (article subject): 254,760 in 3 model years
All figures are US only, 4-door sedan and 5-door hatchback body styles only
It was a flop in that
1) it was only one body style, previous models often had at least a convertible, if not a coupe, wagon, and/or hatch to add extra volume to the nameplate as a whole.
And
2) there was no Dodge branded counterpart, so the 200 needed to sell as much or more than the previous 200 and Avenger combined, which would have meant doing numbers that no prior Chrysler intermediate had ever managed
I thought the Dart shared a platform with this?
It did. It was on a shorter wheelbase and was firmly in the compact class, though. For all intents and purposes, there wasn’t a midsize Dodge sedan, like the Avenger had been. You got catapulted from the Dart straight to the Charger.
It did, but the Dart was a compact, belated replacement for the Caliber and Neon, Dodge didn’t get an Avenger replacement
Also, the Dart was a legit flop no matter how you spin the numbers, like historically bad for any Chrysler Group compact going back to the beginning
That second point is pretty key, outside the vacuum of the Chrysler brand it was supposed to be the midsize sedan representative. Prior 200 and Sebrings were more of a duo, and others like Cirrus were somewhat premium or lower volume than Dodge or Plymouth counterparts. The sales drop from 2015 to 2016 was pretty steep – 177k to 57k. But that can be put on the company itself/Marchionne announcing it would be canned while it was barely into its second year, they obviously weren’t going to commit to the product so they doomed it themselves.
There should have been a stripped down/decontented Dodge version for budget shoppers and rental fleets, and sold the Chrysler version as the more premium offering, like the old Breeze/Cirrus or Avenger/Sebring & 200 breakdown. They always had multiple midsize sedans sharing space in the same showroom and never had much trouble shifting them in respectable numbers, because they were always priced and positioned slightly different. And because different brands appeal to different customers
Agree, it’s not like they were really fooling anyone any of the time. A Dodge version may have actually probably helped with defining the separation of the 200 from the Dart, since otherwise they looked so similar.
Marchionne was a dickhead.
That MF once was invited to speak to a graduating class at a very well known and respected university and lamented that he had excess inventory of minivans and said, and I quote “minivans age like women, it’s not good”.
The audience closed their laptops/notebooks and realized they had nothing to learn from this pile of shit.