Chrysler 200 Vs. Chevrolet Malibu: Compare Cars

The 2016 Chrysler 200 and the 2016 Chevrolet Malibu are sleek, affordable, and full of features--but which one is better for you?

By our numeric rankings, the Chrysler 200 slightly outscores the Chevy Malibu, but that result comes with a couple of caveats. First, it's largely due to the Chrysler's excellent safety scores and the absence of data with the new Malibu. The Chevy simply hasn't yet been tested by either the NHTSA or IIHS, so its score could rise if it performs well.

And while we found few flaws in the Malibu, the 200 has a pair of issues that affect family-car shoppers in particular. Its rear seat simply isn't large enough for two adults to ride comfortably--the same problem the previous Malibu had--and its nine-speed automatic transmission can be inconsistent, balky, and often unpredictable.

Both of these four-doors are targeted at the heart of the mid-size sedan market. The 200, now in its second model year, replaced an unloved previous generation that dated back to the Chrysler Sebring a decade ago. The Malibu, new this year, also replaces a less-than-successful model that lasted only three years.

The Chrysler 200 has a smoothly rounded shape led by a refined grille and front end. The roofline is long, and tapers down to the tail and a short, flush decklid. It's a new and elegant appearance for Chrysler that looks more expensive than it is. The 2016 Malibu echoes the handsome Impala in smaller, more svelte proportions. The long new body and rich-looking interior on premium models dispense completely with any historic Chevy references, and it works.

Inside, the Chrysler 200 is superbly detailed, with a waterfall-style dash containing features like sliding cupholders and plenty of cubbies, while the dash itself is covered with top-notch materials, fits, and finishes. A number of design touches are both functional and distinctive—like the rotary shift controller and the pass-through storage area in the center console.

The new Malibu has a more conventional dashboard shape that's both unified and appealing. The center stack makes space for bigger MyLink infotainment screens, while materials include interesting trim choices—fabric-wrapped panels on less expensive trim levels, metallic-look on others, a leather-looking synthetic wrap on dash and console trim on top models.

While the Chrysler 200 feels roomy in the front seats (if a bit low), it's less useful in back. The door openings make the rear seat difficult to get into, and the swooping roofline exacts a penalty on riders 6 feet or taller. The Malibu, on the other hand, feels far roomier than its predecessor, due to design decisions that maximize the feeling of interior space. The dash has been lowered and pushed out at the corners; new seats offer better support all around; and there’s much more rear legroom than before. Four larger adults can ride comfortably in the Malibu, not in the 200.

The Chrysler offers two powertrains, a 184-horsepower 2.4-liter four-cylinder or a 295-hp 3.6-liter V-6, both with nine-speed automatic transmissions. All-wheel drive is available with the V-6 only. We've found the nine-speed automatic can shift abruptly—especially with the four-cylinder. You'll find the V-6 has a bit of torque steer unless you opt for all-wheel drive. The 200's fuel efficiency is lower than many mid-size sedans with larger interiors, and there's no hybrid or diesel model. The four-cylinder gets 28 mpg combined; switch up to the V-6 and that falls to 23 mpg combined. Add all-wheel drive, and you drop to 22 mpg combined--no better than some mid-size SUVs.

Most Malibu will be powered by a 160-hp 1.5-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine, driving the front wheels through a six-speed automatic transmission. It's quiet, composed, and hard to catch flat-footed. High-end models step up to a 250-hp 2.0-liter turbo four, paired with an eight-speed automatic transmission that gives precise, defined gear changes. This top turbo Malibu now feels as quick as predecessors with V-6s, and offers some of the best drivability and refinement in its class. There's no AWD option, though.

Finally, there's a Malibu Hybrid, which pairs a 1.8-liter (non-turbo) four-cylinder with a 1.5-kwh battery pack and twin electric motors that effectively operate as a continuously variable transmission. This model makes 182 hp combined and can operate in electric-only mode up to 55 mph. Gasoline Malibus with the 1.5-liter turbo get 31 mpg--a start-stop system is standard--while those with the 2.0-liter turbo come in at 26 mpg combined. The Malibu Hybrid is rated at 47 mpg combined--better than any other hybrid mid-size sedan this year.

The Chrysler 200 gets excellent crash-test ratings from both U.S. agencies. And it offers an available lane-departure warning system, blind-spot monitors, and forward-collision warnings with automatic braking, plus adaptive cruise control and rain-sensing wipers.

We'd expect the Malibu to earn some top-level scores from both the NHTSA and IIHS when test results are released. It too has a long list of available active-safety items--pretty much everything on the 200 plus some newer systems as well, although most are the exclusive domain of the top LT and Premier models.

In the end, the Chrysler 200 edges the Chevy Malibu on styling and an excellent interior, though it's a very close finish. Pending test results for the Malibu, the 200 also gets the safety crown. The Malibu is far more fuel-efficient in both gasoline versions, not to mention the Hybrid--but those scores don't factor into our overall rating. Either one is stylish, fresh, well-equipped, and will provide comfortable transport. If you need to put adults in the rear, though, you'll want the Malibu.

Read more at: http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1102132_chrysler-200-vs-chevrolet-malibu-compare-cars

Chrysler Alloy Editions

The “sport” versions of the 2016 Chrysler cars, the 200S and 300S, have a new option: Alloy Editions, using dark bronze and titanium (describing the finishes; the parts do not use bronze or titanium). Photos have not been released.

The new cars will debut at the Chicago Auto Show next week, explaining the Chrysler presentation. The cars will list for $27,680 and $36,960 including destination.

The new finishes contrast with the S models’ generally blacked-out appearance. The 200S uses a dark bronze colored rear badge and wheels (which are aluminum, not bronze); and “titanium” touches on the wing badge and exhaust tips. Paint colors will be gloss black, black forest green, red pearl, gray metallic, and white. The interior includes titanium-color accents. Buyers can get a Mopar package with a chin spoiler, taller side sills, and a rear valance with side sill extensions.

The Chrysler 300S Alloy Edition has two grilles, one in dark bronze and on in glossy black with a titanium-finish badge. The lower grille opening is surrounded by a dark bronze bezel. As with the 200S, the rear badge and wheels are also dark bronze, with titanium exhaust tips and wing badge. Colors are the same as with the 200S and

interior treatments are similar. Both cars are available in all wheel drive.

Read more at: http://www.allpar.com/news/2016/02/chrysler-alloy-editions-31195

Jeep’s next Wrangler will come in hybrid and diesel versions

Jeep has big changes in store for the next generation of the iconic Wrangler. Confirming a recent rumor, Fiat-Chrysler boss Sergio Marchionne recently announced the Wrangler lineup will be expanded with hybrid and diesel powertrains after the new model goes on sale.

Currently, the Wrangler is only offered with gasoline engines in the United States, but buyers in Europe can order it with a 2.8-liter four-cylinder turbodiesel mill that makes 197 horsepower and 339 pound-feet of torque. Marchionne stopped short of providing technical details, but Car & Driver speculates the four-banger won’t make the trip over the Atlantic. Instead, the Wrangler could receive the 240-horsepower 3.0-liter V6 unit that’s offered at an extra cost on the Ram 1500 pickup.

Jeep’s official business plan reveals the Wrangler will get a mild hybrid system, which indicates it won’t be capable of driving on electricity alone. Again, technical details aren’t available, but we hear that the hybrid powertrain will also be fitted to other members of the Fiat-Chrysler family including the next Ram 1500 truck.

More efficient engines are only part of the equation. Sources close to Jeep have repeatedly suggested that the next generation of the Wrangler will weigh considerably less than the current model (pictured) because it will be built largely out of lightweight materials such as high-strength steel and aluminum. The car maker hasn’t confirmed or denied the rumors, and all we know for sure at this point is that production will again take place in Toledo, Ohio.

The next generation of the Jeep Wrangler is tentatively scheduled to land in showrooms in 2017, meaning it will likely be presented at a major auto show either late this year or early next year. The diesel-burning engine is expected to arrive some time between 2018 and 2022, and the hybrid model won’t join the lineup until 2023 or 2024. In other words, if you want a gasoline-electric off-roader you’ll have to either be very, very patient or build it yourself.

Read more at: http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/jeep-wrangler-diesel-news-specs-rumors-performance/

75 mph speed limit green-lighted by Michigan House panel

LANSING, MI -- Speed limits on some Michigan freeways could eventually reach 80 miles per hour under a package approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Tuesday.

In the first year after enactment, the legislation would raise speed limits to 75 miles per hour on an estimated 600 miles of rural highway stretches, said sponsor Bradford Jacobsen, R-Oxford. He said that would maintain the safety of the roads.

"Most expressways are designed for 5 over, if you would, so they're designed at 75 miles per hour," Jacobsen said.

From there the Michigan Department of Transportation and Michigan State Police could study certain stretches for even higher speed limits. Where it's feasible and safe, they could raise the speed limit to 80 miles per hour.

"While this legislation specifically calls for raising speed limits on certain freeways to 75 mph, we included provisions that also allows for the studying of raising the speed limit to 80 mph in the future," Jacobsen said.

The legislature has toyed with the idea of raising speed limits for several years. Jacobsen sponsored a similar package in 2014, when some state senators were also considering changes.

Jacobsen said the 75 mile limit would apply to rural and not urban places, where there are few exits and relatively straight stretches. He said possible areas where the speed limit would raise included parts of I-75 north of bay city, parts of I-69 between Flint and Lansing and US-127 North of St. John going toward Grayling. There is not yet a full analysis of where speed limits would raise under the bills.

The bills would also up the speed limit on state trunk lines -- the roads with an 'M' in front of their numbers -- to 60 miles per hour from a current 55 miles per hour speed limit. With further study, MDOT and MSP could raise the speed limit on those roads to 65 miles per hour. The bill also moves the speed limit on gravel roads in counties with over 1 million people down to 45 miles per hour from 55 miles per hour.

Promoters of pedestrian and bicycle use spoke against raising the speed limit on rural roads. Nancy Krupiarz, executive director of the Michigan Trails and Greenways Alliance, said many of these rural roads in context are carrying pedestrians and bicyclists and sometimes connecting them to trails.

"People can come flying over these hills and around these curves and it could be a very perilous journey," Krupiarz said.

Other bills in the package changed speeds in school zones, removed language that would not have allowed speed limits to be set below the 75th percentile of the speed of free-flowing traffic and change references to points on drivers' licenses and the state's insurance code.

The bills were approved by most committee members, although they did receive some dissenting votes. They head next to the House floor.

Note: This story has been updated to reflect that the bill package changes, not lowers, speed limits in school zones.

Read more at: http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/02/bills_to_raise_michigan_speed.html

Crossovers replacing sedans: Back to the past

Sergio Marchionne’s comment that the Dodge Dart and Chrysler 200 would be allowed to “run their course” and then be replaced by cars from a “potential partner” caused a range of emotional reactions.

This is not the first time for such thoughts. In the late 1980s, GM, Ford, and Chrysler all lost money on each compact car. Chrysler changed that with the Neon and Cirrus/Stratus, which made hefty profits even while GM and Ford kept losing money. This time, though, insiders claim the company does not have the facilities nor the experienced engineers to make it happen; and even Ford now wants a partner for its sedans.

The earliest mass-produced cars included sedans, but many were the equivalent, in size and shape, of today’s crossovers — the area where Sergio Marchionne wants FCA to focus, at least in North America. Long, low, and sleek appeared as “the look to have” a few years after World War II, for 20-30 years; then the hatchback came into style.

Chrysler sparked a resurgence in the large sedan market in the early 1990s, then helped to rejuvenate midsize and small cars. The moribund large sedan market revived, and sedans in general gained a new lease on life.

Still, the popularity of the low sedan is recent and may be at an end. Ordinary sedans have been getting taller, with the 300 just two inches from the Nissan Juke and six from the Compass and 500L. The 1946 Plymouth was taller than any of them — and the Jeep Cherokee: 68 inches.

So why do many of us, including me, prefer sedans? Is it because they are lower to the ground and handle better? I don’t think so, given how most people drive, and the competent handling of most new crossovers (not to mention the popularity of BMW and Porsche’s crossovers).

Even gas mileage is not really penalized much now, with their larger frontal area countered by aerodynamic design, valve timing, and wide-range transmissions. They also have more space for the large batteries and other gear needed for light and full hybrid systems.

I have had numerous sedans in my life, no SUVs, and just two minivans; my only crossover was a PT Cruiser GT. Still, I can see the attraction of the crossover, especially now that everyone has minivans, SUVs, pickups, and crossovers, which makes visibility rather hard from a low-slung car.

I think the sedan will become more and more specialized over time. Two-door cars (including sedans) used to be extremely common, but they rapidly declined from the 1970s on, and now FCA US only makes the Dodge Challenger, Dodge Viper, Jeep Wrangler, Rams, and Fiat 500 in that form; and even in pickups and Wranglers, the two-door form is less and less popular.

I don’t think this presages the death of Chrysler or Dodge. The 200 and Dart (and Fiat 500) need high incentives to sell. Is replacing them worth delaying rear wheel drive cars for Dodge or large cars and crossovers for Chrysler and Dodge? Mr. Marchionne has a finite number of engineers at hand, and only so many factories. Paying off $5 billion in debt will earn the company more cash than building a new plant.

(I am very, very disappointed that Mr. Marchionne’s pledge that Chrysler would “lead” the engineering of future compact and midsize and large cars has been completely ignored and reneged upon.)

Limited resources, limited time, and a class of car that appears to be disappearing, selling only with large incentives … I can’t say I’d have been able to do anything different.

Or… it’s another trial balloon or an attempt to mis-lead competitors. We are talking about Sergio Marchionne, after all; and his announcements tend not to be set in stone.

Update: When buyers choose sedans, they almost invariably choose imports. Of the top ten 2015 best sellers in the US, there were no American sedans — Camry, Corolla, Accord, Civic and Altima accompanied two imported crossovers (CR-V and RAV4) and the three American pickups. The best selling cars (Camry and Corolla) combined barely outsold Ford’s pickups. In Europe, Fiat’s Panda has grown to challenge its best-seller, the 500; while the 500X, in its first year, nearly matched the declining Punto (both were beaten by the 500L). Fiat’s sales in Europe, 500 aside, are heavily biased in favor of crossovers, vans, and utilities. The same is not true for everyone — over half of Ford’s sales are the Fiesta and Focus.

As read on: http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php/2016/02/crossovers-replacing-sedans-back-to-the-past-31159