Car & Driver in its final-spec review, has re-clocked the Chrysler 200 V6 at 0-to-60 time of 5.7 seconds. This is in the wake of firmware updates since the car debuted in mid-2014 as a 2015 model year car.
That bumps the 200 to the top of the heap in terms of mid-size V6 sedans in its segment. Even barely pushing past the Honda Accord V6’s 5.8 second time. The Camry V6 also got a top time of 5.8 seconds. To outpace it, you’d have to go up to the Cadillac ATS, Mercedes C-Class, BMW 3-series, or Fusion V6 Turbo – all which cost tens of thousands more when optioned.
And yet, they’re stopping production of the Chrysler 200, at the end of the year. It will see a limited 2017 model year run, ending at the end of this calendar year. As C&D put it their tagline “the one that deserves to live…” No kidding.
This car is within 0.4 seconds of the Pontiac G8 GT (5.3 seconds), which is the iconic V8 sport sedan of our time. And the 200 still (yes, still!) has a factory-issued lifetime warranty option – which you can add atop just about any used 200 that is under 4 years, and 48,000 miles.
All of this (even with the warranty) for under $20,000 in the certified pre-owned market. A savvy buyer can net one for well under $16,000 today, and bolt-on the lifetime status for as little as $2,500 more. I should know, because that’s what I paid for my Chrysler 200S V6.
Did I mention the All Wheel Drive version of the 200 is one of the first non-supercars to have both torque vectoring, and a 60/40 rear bias in sport mode? That’s right, you could get away with calling the AWD version a Rear Wheel Drive car off the line – because it is.
I get it. SUVs are all the rage, and that trend will likely continue – even more as autonomous driving arrives. FCA wanted to convert the plant the Chrysler 200 was built at, to make more RAM trucks. I personally have a vested interest in seeing Fiat Chrysler Automobiles stay afloat… my lifetime warranty wouldn’t survive another bankruptcy. So I appreciate that FCA is counting beans. I just wish they wouldn’t kill their best products in the process.
The shame is compounded as, every time America makes a sedan that is in the mid-5 seconds for 0-to-60, is the safest in class, and under $30,000… it finds a way of making it only last about two years.
The exact same thing happened to the Pontiac G8 (2008 to 2009), and now history is repeating itself again with the second-generation Chrysler 200. It’s a shame. A damn shame.
Did anybody think that by stopping production of the Avenger type car, Dodge version of the 200, that it would hurt profits? I think so! Let me spell it out. They should have produced the 200 and its Dodge version in the same mfg. plant. Americans WERE and ARE used to choosing between the Sebring/200 and the Avenger before. And, the Dart is an all together different segment vehicle and just not a replacement for the Avenger! But, personally, I never liked the Avenger name.
All too often, auto makers hurt themselves because they re-invent their cars too often, which is what FCA may have to do now. The next Neon/Fiat design (coming from Mexico) is an example of juggling names around to just cover up their profit mistakes.
If FCA/Chrysler/Dodge is listening, I would like to be your marketing consultant. Really! I do need a job.
FCA did recognize pretty early on in the Dodge Dart’s lifespan that it was not a perfect replacement for Avenger.
There were two thing going on. One, Fiat had this pie-in-the-sky dream of a smaller RWD platform that Avenger could live on, arriving before the end of the decade. Now we’ll be lucky just to get the Charger and Challenger on a new platform by 2020.
Two, the Dodge Dart team had the idea of taking the global-emissions 3.2L version of the Pentastar V6, and fitting it for the Dart. It would not have been 300 hp, but would have given the Dart a ~240 hp naturally-aspirated V6.
That second plan got pretty far along before Sergio decided to kill U.S. car production off completely.
That said, it was kinda game over when the 200S was born. FCA (and even former SRT members) built the car to be a Neon SRT-4 spritual successor. When residuals for it fell to around 50% after the first year, I think FCA realized smart buyers would just buy a year-old 200S V6 for half the original retail price. That’s precisely what I did.
I agree … Was knee-jerk reaction, on Sergio’s part ..
Coupled with Consumer Reports in their review got hung up on two particular things, about the car, and gave the car a sh*# rating. ~ Ignoring other terrific things, about the car, that NO OTHER car in it’s class had. And people in the U.S. are really easily led, by the nose, by what C.R. says … To the point they don’t even go test-drive the car .. to see what THEY think of it.
A mistake of Chrysler’s though was that they didn’t market and push the V6 models, more .. from the start. I also think they should never made the 4 cyl available, in the S or the C.
I have the 200C (2016) awd – and it’s absolutely incredible!
I came across this post because I’m looking in to buying a Chrysler 200 C or S. My understanding is that the S adds about 260 lbs to the car’s weight and can be expected to be a few tenths of a second slower than the C. Is this accurate? Is the 200C AWD faster or the 200S AWD? THANKS!
My understanding is that the AWD system adds the weight, not the difference between the S and C. This is why both the AWD S and AWD C are a few tenths of a second slower than the FWD versions.
The only thing really different between the S and the C (aside from the visual differences – and tech options), are suspension tunings. The struts on the S are a bit stiffer. Though on the AWD variants, this gap is narrowed considerably.
The largest gap in handling is between a FWD LX/Limited and an AWD S, with the least significant handling gap between the AWD S and the AWD C (both tend to be on the stiffer side, unlike the FWD C which tries to balance between the numb LX/Limited handling, and the stiff S handling).
If I had to guess why they did it this way, I would guess that rear struts on all AWD versions are probably identical, so Chrysler simply modified the AWD C’s front struts to be more in tune with the rear.
Yes, a fwd C, or S weighs less than an awd 200 … However, with over half the power shifting to the back wheels, on hard acceleration – the car goes straighter … completely taking care of torque-steer. .. So the 0-60 times (and quarter mile) are about the same.
I have a C, awd – and I’m just fine to get to 60 mph a tad slower; because of the way it gets there.
The Limited, with the V6 is the fastest because simply it has less ‘stuff’, in it … Less electronics, what have you, than a C or typical S. Also C&D had an excellent driver, who has real ability to launch a fast fwd car.
The only potential differences in weight between a FWD LX/Limited, and a FWD S/C are the backup camera, radio, SafetyTec system, and seat covers, and heated/ventilated seats. Most of that doesn’t even weigh a full pound per item.
I could see a fully-optioned 200C FWD being a tenth of a second slower than an LX, but honestly – there isn’t a speed benefit. I would suspect the added suspension stiffness in the 200S FWD would counterbalance torque steer better, and achieve an equal 0-to-60 time with a base LX V6.
Firmware is also key. Get the updates. With the revised TCM firmware, you should expect 0-to-60 times of 5.9-6.0 from the AWD S/C and 5.7 from the FWD cars. The Mopar CAI will take about 0.2 seconds off each when running 89+ octane.
Good points, Christopher …
But what I’m referring to with the electronics to is a lot more things have to ‘happen’, when the C or S drives … Also, the C and S has bigger brakes.
It was a sharp move, in mid 2016 allowing a few Limited models (just a half-step above the base LX) to roll off the line with the V6 … Reminds of the 2003-2004. Dodge Intrepid SXT .. A real stripped down Intrepid – with the all-out 250 hp motor, from the 300M ! …
So yeah my final answer to the question is if it’s a C or S awd, get it! Especially if it’s a 2016 … But beware the 2015s a lot of them have the ptu, in the all wheel drive system go bad … Chrysler should replace it, under warranty .. But it’s a pain.
If I could do it again I would pay more, for a 2016 or 2017 model.
My understanding is that all 2015-2017 Chrysler 200 units with the V6 engine optioned had the same brake system.
The reason for this was that Chrysler was concerned the base brakes would not stop the V6 engine in a scenario where the throttle was held open. If the throttle got stuck, the base brakes on the four-cylinder might not be able to override it.
The $1,999 V6 option for the 200 was a real gem, because it added the bigger brakes, a more powerful alternator, larger battery, and added S mode to any Chrysler 200 that would have not had it otherwise.
If you were determined to buy a new car, but short on money, you were crazy to not add the V6 to an LX or Limited build order, because you got all that other stuff (including worlds-better brakes) for free.
Nope – The C’s and S’s have bigger brakes.
They also come on bigger rims, and tires .. which weigh more, than the 215/50/17s setup, on the LX and Limited. For instance my C has 19 inch rims … 235-width tires.
Yeah it’d be very interesting to get my hands on a 2016 Limited, with the V6, and drive it. .. They are somewhat rare, though
I’m only aware of two factory front rotors, the 305mm and the 330mm.
According to Allpar’s second-gen Chryler 200 details page, the 305 went on all 2.4L models (except possibly the 200S 2.4L) and the 330 went on all V6 models.
Source: https://www.allpar.com/cars/chrysler/200/models-specs-2015-z.html
There was the HD racing brake package, but even Mopar only recommends it for track use. I’m frankly disappointed they made the package, because that was effort that could have gone into an ECU retune or other uses that people would buy. I suspect it only exists because they were able to pull it from the Chrysler 300 or something else off-shelf.
I don’t know a single person that has ever bought it.
(Hmm noticed I misprinted, in my initial comment, above … My model is a 2015.)
Thanks Christopher and Zorn, this is very helpful!
Christopher do you think the car would have been more successful if they promoted the top-end V6 models, more? I think that was a marketing mistake, of Chrysler’s.
I think the headwinds in the industry changed rapidly, much like the Pontiac G8 – a true V8 muscle sedan… dropping right as the economy tanked.
The Chrysler 200 made a lot of sense with a 4-cylinder in 2011 when it was being developed. By the time it shipped in 2015, the economy was recovering. It should have been exclusively a V6 – especially after the 2.4L had issues with the (cheaper) 948TE transmission.
You get so much more with the V6 – just for paying that $1,999 extra. S Mode, vastly superior steering, a much stronger/more-durable transmission, bigger brakes, and one of the most durable engines ever built.
I think the Chrysler 200 should have been made in Mexico exclusively as a V6, alongside a Giuletta refresh, that would have been sold as the Chrysler 100 hatchback. FCA at least put a prototype of that on the streets of Ann Arbor, so I’m not crazy for suggesting it.
Also, Chrysler always knew the 2.4L wasn’t the best fit. They were hoping the 2.0T with 270 horsepower would have been ready by 2016-2017. Instead, it’s still only making barely enough for the Jeep Cherokee and Wrangler production. Then the lineup makes more sense. Combined with the PUG V6 refresh, you would have the base Chrysler 200 at 270 hp, and the V6’s putting out 320 hp.