On 22 Mar 2013 13:34:03 GMT, "S.LaRocca" > wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:35:34 -0700, James Rau wrote:
>
>> On 21 Mar 2013 21:36:50 GMT, "S.LaRocca" > wrote:
>>
>>>The wife has been looking at mid size cars and I told her to take a look
>>>at the 2013 Chrysler 200...It seems like a lot more car for the money
>>>than the Chevy Malibu.
>>>
>>>Any thoughts on the 200, good or bad ?
>>>
>>>Thanks in advance.
>>
>> I've owned my 2012 Chrysler 200 for just over a year now and I really
>> like it (I have the two-door hardtop convertible coup). At the risk of
>> sounding like a shill, it handles well (provided you don't take the
>> corners too fast or too tight--the rear end tends to slide).
>>
>> The car was made for both light crusing and city driving. It's
>> definitly NOT a sports car, so don't drive it like one. You (or your
>> wife) might find the suspension a little stiff. MPG is a concern, as I
>> only average 17mpg in the city (I do mostly city to city driving).
>>
>> General fit and finish is good, and the maintenance seems to be low
>> (although that's to be expected with a new car). Seems solidly well
>> built and has a good "road feel" to it. The V6 Pentastar engine (I opted
>> for the 3.6L) delivers good power and torque. Just had the oil changed
>> at 3,500 miles.
>>
>> Overall, I recommend it, but your mileage may vary.
>>
>> James Rau
>
>Thanks for your feedback...I've always been a Chevy guy, just because I'm
>a GM retiree and supporting GM might throw a penny or two at me in my
>pension check, but I've always wanted a Chrysler Minivan, and went ahead
>and bought a 2013 Grand Caravan, and love it so far...I figured if GM was
>not making what I needed, why should I buy something I did not want ?
>Even when GM made minivans they were sub par.
>
>I became interested in the Chrysler 200 because it really does seem like
>a lot of car for the money.
>
>I was always suspect of Chrysler's build quality,

I was too but bought a 2009 PT as it was the most car for the least
money and satisfied all my criteria. It easily ranks (at 40K miles so
far) as good or better built than any other new car I've had. I also
had a 2005 Crown Vic, which I liked a lot, but truthfully the PT
actually is more comfortable and less tiring on a long trip. Only
real deficiency is lack of power.


but it seems to me that
>they have come a long way, and they do make very nice looking
>vehicles...I imagine it would not be hard for me to become a Chrysler guy.
>
>
>Tony