I really like my Crossfire, but if you poo-poo the new Sebring Convertible, your head is in the sand.
I think the Crossfire Coupes will hold their distinction, better than the convertibles.
Of the Roadsters out there, I still like the Crossfire best.
Of standard convertibles out there, I really like the 2008 Sebring.

 

My wife likes the Sebring convertible too but it's taken some time to grow on me. When I was buying my Crossfire there was a new Sebring 'vert in the showroom and I was struck by how high up the trunk is. The car has sort of an odd shape because of the high flying deck lid, and the back seat passengers will really be sitting low relative to the tonneau cover. Certainly not the most sporting vehicle on the market, but the interior seemed nice enough and, well, if this is the car my wife wants who am I to say no?

 

I'm curious about opinions on the Sebring. I owned a 1997 Sebring convertible and my wife and I agree that it was much better looking than the new one. We thought the new one appeared huge and tall compared to the older cars. I actually enjoyed the Sebring so much I couldn't decide which to buy until I saw them in the showroom. I am in lust with my alabaster crossfire roadster.

Ed

 

We have a 2004 Sebring Convertible which we enjoy a lot. Since I have 2 teenagers we needed a convertible with the biggest back seat and that was a Sebring. I've been to my local dealer and sat in the new Sebring Convertible and it is NICE. You sit low in the older models (not as low as a XF) but you sit much higher in the new ones. We will probably end up getting one of the new ones but I will wait until I can buy one that is a year old. I'll let someone else take the first year depreciation, find out if there are any serious issues with the new model, and get a MaxiCare warranty to cover any problems should they arise. I have also parked one right next to my XF and the front ends are so similar (hood, lights, grill, etc.) that it looks like they just cloned the XF onto the front end of the new Sebring.

 

I agree that the first and older Sebring convertibles looked better than recent models.
However, that new 2008 looks to be a beauty.
And with a retractable hardtop option.
But style of the ragtop still looks better than the retractable hardtop.

 

Saw a Sebring coupe today. Got all excited thinking it was a Crossfire at first. Happens all the time. Still, I think the new Sebring looks OK and looks a lot better than in a picture.

 

Dan Neil' stake on the Chrysler's '08 Sebring Convertible.

http://www.latimes.com/classified/au...ck=2&cset=true

 

Car & Driver has a decidedly different opinion of the new Sebring convertible than the LA Times does. It may have come in last in the comparison between it, the Pontiac G6 convertible and the Ford Mustang soft top, but only because it was the least "sporting" in character. C&D said it has the best quality interior of the group, the best ride, and the best fuel economy. Seems the LA Times and C&D have markedly different ideas about style, quality, etc.

The look of the Sebring convertible has grown on me, but not to the point where I would choose one to be my daily driver. I need something with a bit more character to it, but my wife's criteria for selecting a car are far different than mine. She wants one, and I'm perfectly fine with that. My father was an exec at Chrysler until his retirement back in the 1980s and we still get discounts on any Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep vehicle. I'm much happier with the thought of putting a Sebring in our garage than anything Japanese.

 

Dan Neil's take on the crossfire.

http://www.latimes.com/classified/au...,4779740.story

 

May I be so bold as to ask why you've joined a Crossfire forum when 2 of your 3 posts are links to the same article slamming the Crossfire? Perhaps you should read the review in Grassroots Motorsports to balance out Mr. Neil's thoughts.

 

Actually, Dan Neil's article, which was published on October 1, 2003, is favorable and flattering and positive. It's subheading reads as follows: "A lighted fuse of polished elegance and high ambition, Chrysler's latest riff on the history of car design is bound to hold up well over time." In fact, this review was among the earliest and the best and most accurate in the established press. It doesn't slam the Crossfire at all; indeed, it compliments the car as "a piece of precision-milled machinery" that "is wicked fun to drive." Neil won a Pulitzer Prize a few months before writing this review, and I do think he deserved it at that time.

 

My apologies to nashville...I have to stop browsing the forums when I feel as lousy as I do right now...my brain sort of stops functioning, other than to keep certain life sustaining processes (somewhat) working as they should.

I realize now that the first article nashville linked to was a slam on the Sebring, not the Crossfire.

I'll read the Crossfire review in the morning...hopefully I'll be feeling somewhat human by then. Again, please forgive my utter stupidity.

 

No offence taken, mike. Enjoy the article. Grew up watching Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear fame on the beeb. Perhaps, i should not tell you what his thoughts are on the x-fire.
Performance and beauty is truly subjective. I enjoy my x-fire, would love a lotus or a 911 GT - guess i have a champagne taste and a beer budget. Not slamming any brands at all!

 

LOL Yes, I know his take all too well, and often think about it when I walk my dog.