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.
My old ‘91 Firebird had the 170 hp small block eight and I was always able to spin the tires in first and second even at 180,000 miles. Now I have a ‘99 with the 200 hp V-6 which seems peppier but doesn’t give you that haulin’ ass feel that the old eight did. BTW, the Toyota Corona somewhat mysteriously disappeared maybe because of the cigar name.
My 2002 Saab 9-3 gets me about 23mpg in the city, go figure. Heavy car, too.
What can I say? The 4-cyl in my Accord is very refined even when revved out. And typically, unless you’ve got your foot to the floor, the revs soon drop back down to the below-4500 rpm level. Honestly, I only rarely wish I had the V6 rather than the four. But that’s this car. Many 4-cyl cars with automatics I’ve driven are absolutely wretched things, buzzy, noisy and harsh when revved, and downshifting at the slightest hint of a hill or pressure on the gas pedal. If done right, however, it doesn’t have to be like that. If I was going to regularly load the car down with passengers and cargo, though, I would definitely prefer the V6 - but the best of today’s 4-cyl engines are really good.
“Top end horsepower only matters to marketers and racers.”
ps, I totally agree with this. Usable HP is what it’s about - most people don’t car to rev the balls off their car as it’s not exactly very relaxing. There’s no replacement for displacement (well, maybe turbo/super-charging) but until a few years ago there was no such thing as a refined 2 1/2 liter 4-cyl engine that could also rev out a bit. With various variable valve-timing and variable intake technologies, such engines can even provide quite respectable torque. They certainly make small-displacement 6-cyl engines like the optional 2.7 on this new Avenger seem fairly pointless.
Chrysler misread its market and began sending glossy, hoity-toity magazines, the kind which would appeal only to a San Francisco liberal (who probably would buy a Mercedes instead), and began building bigger gas-guzzling cars. I traded the 2002 Chrysler last December for a loaded, comfortable Toyota Camry Hybrid and now get around 36 MPG.
Yep, Honda is renowned for their inline 4 powertrains. The best are pretty good, but Chrysler sure isn't the best.
“I love my 2000 Dodge Intrepid.
I went to the dealership last summer to see the new ones, and was bummed when I learned that the Intrepid was discontinued.
They think Gramma and Grampa are going to go for a Charger?
We decided to have it detailed out, and are keeping it for another few years.”
I bought a 1998 Intrepid with 100K miles last summer and I love it.
It’s an bright red ES with the spoiler and grey leather interior. It has the 3.2 liter V6 and pretty much every option except the sunroof.
And I was really amazed that everything still worked. Power windows, power seats, climate control AC, power mirrors, CD player, tape player, everything.
I get 28-30 mpg at 65 mph and a family of 4 could live in the trunk.
I think it’s the best looking family sedan ever made.
Perhaps there’s a reason they like Japanese cars. My Honda Accord is now 9 years old, and I never had a single problem with it......
Using the NEW EPA Estimates that are more realistic..........
2007
City Highway Combined
Chrysler Sebring 4 cylinder 21 30 24
Toyota Camry 4 cylinder 21 30 24
Honda Accord 4 cylinder 21 31 25
You can check it out yourself.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYear.jsp
Yes, I was wrong that the Sebring beat the Camry. It tied.
The Japanese tuned their cars for the old system and lied to you for years about fuel economy.
Consumer Reports tests cars off the lot over real asphalt - no handbuilt dealer samples, no treadmills, no stop watches - and observed the following results:
Car City Hwy Sebring I4 15 35 Accord I4 16 38 Camry I4 16 36 Sebring 2.7 V6 14 32 Accord V6 16 32 Camry V6 16 32
This car is an also-ran at best no matter who's doing the measuring.
If you belive them, then this discussion is pointless.
Consumer Reports gives test results and opinion. Their opinion may be discounted. The tests are real.
Or are they too part of this mythical Jap conspiracy to discredit 3rd rate domestic cars?
Sheesh, man... A lot has changed in 30+ years. Do yourself a favor and at least take one for a spin some time.
I've been very happy with my Chrysler products for over 15 year now. Very few flaws. (My only complaint on my 2000 Durango is the undersized brakes.)
In contrast, every GM product I've ever owned has had multiple flaws and failures. They were each known flaws (I saw the TSBs on them) but never had recalls.
I'll wait at least 10 years before I buy another GM product.
Geez...you’d think they would have at least Armorall the tires! LOL!
Consumer Reports only likes Japanese cars and has never revealed its testing methodology.
Would you trust a poll that did not reveal the internal information?
“My only complaint on my 2000 Durango is the undersized brakes.)”
Drive VERY carefully.
We’ve been Saabists for twenty years (currently have three of them), and will be happy to keep being Saabists as long as they keep producing cars we like with relatively few repairs. Changes are in the wind, so we’ll see what happens as time goes by.
CR doesn't promote Japanese cars, they promote boring, practical cars with a strong emphasis on fuel economy and past reliability - which happens to cover a lot of Japanese cars. Boring, practical Fords and Chevys - and Korean Hyundais and Kias - make their recommended lists just as often.
Drive VERY carefully.
It doesn't appear to be a safety issue, I just have to put new rotors on it every couple of years due to warpage. (~$60 and a couple of hours in the garage.)
Bring back the old days, eh?
Fleet model.
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.