Posted on 04/10/2007 10:40:14 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
Dodge returns to mid-size sedan market with a mechanical twin to the Sebring that offers lots in function, value
The new Dodge Avenger looks like a three-quarter-scale version of the full-size racy Dodge Charger and lets Dodge re-enter the popular mid-size sedan market once occupied by its Stratus.
The competitively priced $18,220-$24,870 Avenger is plenty roomy, so those pining for the costlier Charger need not feel very shortchanged.
2008 DODGE AVENGER PRICE: $18,220-$24,870
LIKES: Aggressive styling. Racy R/T version. Roomy. Available all-wheel drive.
DISLIKES: High trunk sill. No inner pull-down trunk lid handle. Mediocre base engine. Most Avengers have front-wheel- drive, but all-wheel drive is available on the top line R/T version.
The Avenger is a mechanical twin to DaimlerChrysler's new, redesigned Chrysler Sebring sedan, sharing powertrains and underpinnings. As with the Sebring, it's designed to provide more value than such heavy hitters as the Honda Accord, Nissan Altima and Ford Fusion.
While fine in town, the base 2.4-liter, 172-horsepower four-cylinder Avenger engine works hard when merging into fast traffic and passing on highways. But it provides the best estimated fuel economy: 21 mpg in the city and 30 on highways. Only regular-grade gas is needed.
The top-line R/T version has a fairly potent smooth and quiet 3.5-liter V-6, which kicks out 235 horsepower and provides stronger acceleration. It doesn't make the Avenger a muscle car but best matches the car's racy styling. It delivers an estimated 16 city and 28 highway but calls for 89-octane fuel.
In between is the $19,120 SXT model, which comes with the 2.4 four-cylinder. But it's available with an optional 2.7-liter 190-horsepower V-6. That engine costs $1,350 and comes with a touring suspension and anti-lock all-disc brakes. Good deal, there.
The 2.7 V-6 provides an estimated 19 city and 27 highway and also requires only 87-octane fuel.
The 2.7 V-6 and four-cylinder engine work with a four-speed automatic transmission, while the 3.5 V-6 is hooked to a more modern six-speed automatic with a manual shift capability.
Avengers are decently equipped. The SE has such standard items as air conditioning, tilt/telescopic wheel, AM/FM/CD/MP3 player, digital-media player connection, cruise control, height-adjustable driver's seat, split-folding rear seat, tire pressure monitor -- and power mirrors, windows and door locks with remote keyless entry.
The SXT adds a power driver's seat, anti-lock brakes, fold-flat front passenger seatback for long cargo and wider tires on 17-inch (vs. 16-inch) alloy wheels for improved traction.
The R/T is the star of the show. Besides the best engine and transmission, it adds a rear spoiler, automatic climate control, AM/FM radio with in-dash 6-disc CD/MP3/DVD changer, automatic headlights and heated power fold-away mirrors. It also has dual exhausts, a sport suspension with front/rear stabilizer bars, anti-lock all-disc brakes and even wider tires on 18-inch wheels.
The all-wheel-drive R/T adds traction control and an anti-skid system but deletes the sport suspension.
Standard safety items for all include front side air bags and curtain side air bags. Optional except for the R/T AWD model are traction/anti-skid control.
Options include a dashboard beverage cooler, which is the sort of item once found on auto show concept cars. Also optional are a power sunroof, navigation system, remote engine start, leather upholstery, upgraded sound systems and heated front seats.
My test front-wheel-drive Avenger R/T had accurate power steering, although I didn't notice its "firm feel'' feature listed on the window sticker. The sport suspension provided a firm-but-compliant ride, and the brake pedal had a nice firm feel. Handling was good during moderately hard driving.
The quiet, functional interior looks attractive, although there are a good number of hard plastic surfaces. The $775 leather upholstery dressed up the interior a lot.
Front bucket seats are supportive, and a driver has a nice raised floor area on which to rest his left foot. Gauges can be easily read. Controls are within easy reach, and climate controls are especially large. However, the parking brake partially gets in the way of the twin front console cupholders.
Oversized door handles -- inside and out -- and long doors assist entry and exit. Front doors have storage pockets, while rear doors have pockets and beverage holders. There's also a fold-down center rear armrest with dual cupholders.
The trunk is roomy, and rear seatbacks flip forward and sit flat to enlarge the cargo area. The lid smoothly pops up well out of the way on twin hydraulic struts. While wide, the trunk opening is rather high. And the lid has no interior cover for a finished look or pull-down feature to prevent hands from getting dirty on outside sheet metal.
It's an open question if Honda or Nissan shoppers will visit Dodge showrooms to check out the Avenger, but they really should.
Well, that settlers it for me. I could never have a car with no inner pull-down trunk lid handle.
“It’s hard to root for the American car companies when they keep producing more and more garbage like this. “
Chrysler is American in legacy only. It’s a German company that’s making crap while the parent company is draining the cash reserves. Now that the drain has been completed, the empty carcass will be cast aside.
I wouldn’t buy a Chrysler now, no way.
I love my 2004 Durango SLT with the Hemi. Drives great after 3 1/2 years and I haven’t had any problems with it. Hands down- engineered 10 fold better than it’s predecssor.
Just my comment - although Honda and Nissan sedans do have a tendency to bring eggs to mind.
Where’s the car???
Love the black knee high mud flaps
“While fine in town, the base 2.4-liter, 172-horsepower four-cylinder Avenger engine works hard when merging into fast traffic and passing on highways.”
Call me crazy, but I think this is getting a little ridiculous. Just a few years ago you’d be lucky if your average mid-size family car with a 3+ liter V6 managed to sqeuak out 172 HP, although it’d probably be a little torquier. And I wouldn’t call a 190 HP 2.7 litre V6 much of an improvement over a 2.4 liter 172 HP 4 cylinder, anyway. FWIW, I drive a 2004 Honda Accord sedan with the 4 cylinder engine, and unless I have it loaded down with 3 additional people of over 200 lbs each, it performs just fine. Yeah, you’ve got to let it rev a little for best acceleration, but how much of the time you’re driving do you need to push it that hard? Very little. The V6 version of my car would have been nice to get, but would have cost me about $3,000 more up front, more to insure, more to maintain, and a little more in gas.
On a different, but related topic, why do American manufacturers keep creating and then abandoning nameplates? What happened to the Intrepid/Concorde/etc nameplates? How about the Stratus/Cirrus/Cumulonimbus/Breeze? I could come up with similar examples for GM or Ford. Did these cars develop such bad reputations that new nameplates were required? How long has Honda had an Accord or Civic in their lineup, or Toyota a Corolla or Camry (not sure why they dumped “Tercel” in favour of the goofy “Yaris”, though).
I was a loyal Chrysler owner until I bought a 1996 Chrysler LHS (Lousy Hunk of Sh!t). Overall not a bad driving car, but a crappy transmission, and undersized brakes nickled and dimed me to death. The Ford (clit)Taurus and windstars were garbage too. Now I only buy Toyota and love them.
Glad you had a good one. We gave up on Chrysler in the 70’s, and never looked back.
Loved my ‘55 Imperial and my ‘70 Imperial in spite of all the electrical problems with that ‘70 year model, but after that....fuggetaboutem.
My experience was electrical problems with any and all of them after 1970.
Having 140K on my ‘99 300M, I can see the never did address the undersized brake defective design. I am just about to plunge into a third set of disks.
The Avenger/Sebring beat the Toyota Camry in fuel economy and they tie the Honda Accord.
Get your facts straight.
I bet he also complains about media bias.
I own a 2007 Sebring Limited with the 2.4. It is adequate power for highway use. I have no problem pushing it up to 90mph when passing (if required).
I also get over 28mpg average driving a combination of highway and city use.
that is one UGLY car.
I own one of the new Saturn Sky Red Lines.
Granted its a two-seater and its definitely small (nearly identical under the skin to the Pontiac Solstice GXP).
That said, its 2.0 liter (I-4) turbocharged engine puts out something like 250 ftlbs of torque and 250 horsepower with a 6500 RPM redline using direct gasoline injection.
The turbo is seamlessly integrated (no lag - just a pleasant predictable surge) and it pulls like you wouldn’t believe while able to get 28MPG on the freeway.
If GM takes this basic formula and runs with it on its 6s and 8s, there are going to be some amazing cars coming out of their factories in the coming years.
You're entirely right that even 150 horsepower in a small car is well past adequate for civil traffic maneuvers. But it's in how you get there. A 6 purring in the low 3000s again a downshifting 4 roaring and rattling at 5-6000rpm is no decision at all. Sure the 4 will get you up to speed just as well, but if it were a new car I'd think "I paid $18,000 for this?" every time I merged.
Top end horsepower only matters to marketers and racers.
The 2007 Consumer Reports car edition `panned’ practically the entire Chrysler line-up, while sucking the tail-pipes of anything Japanese.
But hey, what’s new there? If CR really hates an American car (btw, they really hated the Sebring) it must be good!
My only disappointment with this article is that I thought the Avenger would be a two-door.
2007 models EPA city EPA highway Sebring 4 cylinder 24 32 Camry 4 cylinder 24 33 Accord 4 cylinder 24 34 Sebring 6 (2.7/189hp) 22 30 Sebring 6 (3.5/235hp) 19 28 Camry 6 (3.5/268hp) 22 31 Accord 6 (3.0/244hp) 20 29
“The Avenger/Sebring beat the Toyota Camry in fuel economy and they tie the Honda Accord.”
I can almost guarantee you that the Avenger/Sebring had it’s weakest, best mileage engine and the Accord had it’s powerful V-6, worst mileage engine.
Literally, I would not drive a Chrysler if you gave it to me. I would sell it and by a Honda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.