(first posted 1/4/2017) Truth be told, Eugene’s car population tends to gravitate to certain types and brands, especially in my part of town, like the omnipresent Prius ahead of it.. Which means from time to time I run into newer/domestic cars that have just totally fallen off my radar, like this Sebring retractable hardtop. What? They made these? I couldn’t have told you that.
Sebring sedans are of course to be seen, if one looks hard enough, as they have somethign of the cloak of invisibility to them. And yes, I did remember that there was a Sebring soft-top convertible, to satisfy the rental counters in certain sunny locales. But a folding hardtop Sebring too? Jeez; Chrysler really was feeling a bit ambitious with this new generation of Sebring, eh? Well, that ambition was soon shattered like a piñata at a Mexican birthday party.
Turns out that both the soft and hard convertible tops were made by Karmann. And the hardtop only came as a Limited, with the 3.5 L V6 standard. I relearned something today, but the question is how soon I’ll forget it again.
The most complicated hardtop convertible is the VW Eos – have you seen that thing operate? Rube Goldberg would have been proud.
Don’t know about the Sebring’s complexity, but no retractable hardtop is simple.
I held my breath the first time a saw a Cadillac XLR folding down the top.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te6r1o4JOis
My first thought was: How will this work when it gets old.
Zachman
When I see Chrysler products, I instantly think of Hertz rental car offices. Ohh and teenagers first set of wheels.
Seen in Spanish car rental parks as an upgrade. Now with Lancia Fulivia badges. Yes realy…
Have you seen the Pagani Huayra? ?
Peugeot was doing those folding hardtops in the 30s with the then current technology its taken the Germans a little while to learn how, but the most complicated Heath Robinson one is still the Fords from the 50s, very cool when the planets align and it all works at once.
I present you the Astra Twin Top
What could possibly go wrong…?
So simple it can be operated by a small child. There lies the problem. I try to avoid traveling with small children.
Designed by someone who played with Transformers as a kid.
It’s true that is very complex. However, I have a 2009 Eos and at 9 years old, the top has never given a lick of trouble It’s complex but seems to have been massively over-engineered.
No idea this existed, although I can spot a 32 Ford frame at 50 paces 🙂
Can’t believe they even bothered to do this, what with having the soft top version already. One of my friends had a Sebring soft top and it looked rather bathtub like with the top down, I imagine this would be no better..
I purchased one of these in May 2012…2008 Limited in Brilliant Black over light gray leather. It replaced a 1999 Volvo C70 convertible (that although beautiful to look at, was outrageously expensive to maintain) and so far it has been a great car for me. I will grant you, in my opinion, the styling (the “straked” hood, in particular) does not compare with the Volvo, but overall it is not too bad. The retractable hardtop operates by the simple push of a button and is fairly airtight. Since I only drive it in the summer, I will probably keep it for quite a while.
Few recent model convertibles can beat the first C70 convertible for looks.
Agreed…this was mine.
Gosh! That looks so much like the featured car in JPC’s great piece on the C70!
Oh, and from what I’ve seen, you really know how to take pics to your cars. Congrats!
Interesting about the C70 cost of running, my coupe was the cheapest car I owned.
Picked up for £470 with 11 months tax and test, sailed through every MOT (yearly roadworthiness test) for under £200, cheap to insure and not bad on fuel as well as rarely requiring me to get my hands dirty.
Maybe I was just unlucky…it had lots of issues…ABS & check engine lights, top mechanism – twice, power window, trunk leaked every time it rained. It drove & handled well…just so many peripheral problems and Volvo dealerships ain’t cheap.
The Coupe is a true work of art. You can see which C70 was designed first.
I actually like the looks of the 2nd generation C70 convertible/retractable hardtop… but it’s interior was too cold. We had a 2005 S80, and all I can say is ‘they aren’t made to last’. The clear coat paint layer peels off and various simple parts fail (fuel door hinge, console armrest latch and hinge, seat leather wear…)… and the local dealer lacks compassion.
With regard the the Sebring, it came in 3 different convertible variants… retractable hardtop, cloth soft top, vinyl soft top. Unfortunately, tight budgets meant Chrysler could not engineer, tool, and manufacture a simpler, more reliable, forward-hinged decklid for the soft top models.
I would say the refined Chrysler 200 convertible ( both hard top and soft top ) would become as collectable as Rambler convertible these days 30 years later, because it’s the nicest convertible in the market at the time ( except those triply priced ) and the only other competitor coming close, Toyota Solara exited the market for a little while. I would say when Chrysler 200 exited convertible market, GM was surprised and unprepared, only to borrow Opel models with gaps in model year.
The facelifted Sebring to 200 model not only looked much better and had a nicer interior but also I think they went through the chassis and made a lot of little improvements. I think the platform was actually from a Mitsibushi Gallant.
Sure, they were still a bit behind other intermediates in a lot of ways, but there was no convertible or hardtop convertible that could seat four people comfortably for anything less than the price of a whole compact car more.
The hard version was maybe about $2K more than the soft one. I don’t think they will become collectable, but if I was in the market for a convertible at the time I would have easily bought one. Then I would go on a vacation to Europe and then Japan on the money I saved.
The main thing about a convertible is having the top down and carrying actual humans in the back seat while doing that on occasion, not perfection. In some situations nothing compares.
If you are cruising through a redwood forest or fall scenery in New England or driving across the top level of the Bay Bridge no one in the car is thinking “this would be great if this was a BMW or an Audi”.
To confuse things further, Chrysler offered two different kinds of fabrics on the convertible tops – cloth or vinyl.
In any case, rentals were soft top only. This being a retractable hard top meant that a private owner actually purchased it brand new (paying top dollar for it), which makes it rare indeed.
A thousand years after your comment…
It’s even rarer than that. It’s a mid-level Touring with the infamous 2.7L V6, but the hyper expensive hardtop option.
On a trip to North Carolina to visit family, I snagged a rental Sebring convertible. I was in between my own convertibles at the time (01 Mustang and 06 Mustang), so I wanted to get one to a) satisfy my convertible itch and b) drive one of the new generation Sebrings.
Because Chrysler decided to go with an optional retractable hardtop, the convertible top mechanisms were the same between the two tops. Which meant that instead of a simple lower-the-top-down like previous Sebrings had (and both of my Mustangs), the soft top also had the complex raise the leading edge of the trunk to allow for the soft top to stow underneath it… just like the hardtop did.
The car we rented didn’t have many miles on it, less than 10,000. I raised and lowered the top as many times over the course of the week as I would in my own convertibles. However one day the trunk wouldn’t shut or latch. After a little bit of jimmying and investigating, turns out that the metal around the trunk latch had bent because of how it was designed to pivot when the leading edge of the trunk was raised to raise/lower the top. I managed to use a big screwdriver to bend the metal back into position to allow for the trunk to close and latch. To me that was a big design flaw and I wondered how they would hold up to repeated use over the long haul.
Someone also mentioned the C70. I rented one of those on a business trip tot he bay area. The trunk size was comically small when the top was down. About 1/4 the usable size of the trunk compared to both of my Mustang convertibles. I could only fit a small rolling suitcase in the space when the top was down, and i was uanble to remove it unless I put the top up. Pointless. I’ll take a softop over a retractable hardtop anyday of the week (for a 4-seat convertible).
Minimal luggage space was true of the Ford Skyliner, too; if you had no plans to lower the top, you could get a fair amount into the trunk, but if you were going to put the top down, then all the luggage had to fit into a smallish metal bin in the middle of the trunk, away from the mechanism. Ford offered a set of matched luggage designed to fit into that bin. As far as I know, nearly all retractable hardtops have that problem.
“A fair amount” is an understatement. Ford really should’ve built the Ranchero from the Skyliner, just with a tailgate and the roof welded permanently in place since the trunk area sans bin would’ve made a decent-sized pickup box.
Good point! Ford also carried over some of the hardware to the Thunderbird and to the Lincoln Continent convertible. So similar limitations apply to luggage space when the top is down in those cars. The Thunderbird and the Lincoln both had the same sort of folding extension to the trunk lid to cover up the folded top, and the tops in both took up a fair amount of trunk space. Like the Skyliner, the clamps at the windshield were automatic. The Lincoln had the added fillip of replacing some of the electric motors with hydraulic actuators. It’s quite a sight to see the top retract!
When my wife and I had our honeymoon in the Italian Alps, we arranged to rent a convertible. Boy, was I surprised to walk out of the airport in Milan and find a Sebring waiting for us! It was a hardtop like this one, but with a stick-shift and a diesel engine. I had no complaints about the powertrain, but the handling was merely fine (at best) on those hairpin curves.
Still, the locals were impressed. Lots of “che bella machina!” as we inched our way through the narrow streets of Alpine villages. Given our perception of the Sebring as a downmarket Hertzmobile, it was weird to see people react to it like a luxurious exotic.
Anyway, we rented it because we wanted to see the mountains… on that trip, we could’ve had fun even if we were in a K-car convertible.
In the mountains…
Alpine roads were not designed for Sebrings…
I’m very surprised you got this and not the badge-engineered Lancia Flavia, which is what got in Austria.
I used to see a few of these in my area, but I cannot look at one now without remembering the day I saw one on the side of the road waiting for assistance with the top halfway between up and down.
I have yet to see the retractable hardtop that is as attractive as a well-designed soft top convertible. All that come to my mind involve styling tradeoffs in order to make the engineering work. This particular one looks terrible in white, with all of those unnatural seams in the roof and body screaming at you.
And that was true of the original 1957 Ford Skyliner. The passenger compartment was slightly reduced in size and the trunk lengthened to accommodate the top, and the trunk lid was also raised. Still, they were and are impressive to see.
I see these fairly often here in Nebraska, though the soft tops are more common. These and the previous generation Sebrings were the go-to cars (along with the Solara) for retirees and whoever else wanted a convertible without going to premium brands or pony cars.
But like I’ve said, this area seems to have a high concentration of all things Mopar, even ones that got little play elsewhere.
CC effect strikes again. I was driving behind one of these a few days ago and said to myself “did that generation of Sebring really have such a big butt?” Then I pulled up along side it and saw it had a retractable hard top, which explained the full-diaper styling of the rear end (which is the curse of almost all retractable hard tops).
Like you, I stopped paying attention to Sebrings a long time ago, so I’m not sure if he soft top was afflicted with the same bulbous rear styling.
The Chrysler PT Cruiser convertible…soft top…had a big butt (or was it a bustle?), too.
“Honey, does this top make me look fat?”
I could live with the PT Cruiser convertible, even with the ersatz rollbar. But the final Sebring/200 convertible just looked like hell. It might not have been so bad except, as pointed out, it had that huge rear end sticking up in the air. I think Daimler really went overboard by offering either a soft or hardtop on the car. If they had stuck with just the soft top, they might have been able to clean up the styling a bit. But that huge ass, along with the hood strakes (which were de rigore at Chrysler at the time), just made it an ugly mess. A real shame because the Sebring convertible had been a nice, comfortable, good-looking, affordable convertible for quite a while (including the days when it started out as a Lebaron).
I think New Chrysler removed the hood strakes from the Sebring even before they turned into a Sebring.
And the second edition LeBaron was a very nice looking car, if only a K Car deep down. I think the earlier ones with the headlight doors are the best.
I bought a 1994 Lebaron LX convertible in 2000…loved the car. Unfortunately, it was totalled in an accident in 2006. The Volvo C70 replaced it.
I have one of these, too…base model with 5-speed. Actually, its a fun little car to drive. We bought this to pull behind our motorhome.
I have literally never seen a base PT Cruiser convertible. I thought they were all at least the mid-level Touring model.
You have/had a rare bird.
Rudiger: that fat azz look is rampant on modern cars. It’s also made worse by the chrome strips many use that connect between the taillights at the top, rather than below at the bottom, which would cut the visual height and be more logical.
The tails have been placed towards the top of the rear fenders and trunk leaving the bovine rumps below as a lot of dead space.
A style free zone.
The PT Cruiser convertible looks exactly like a pickup truck from the back. The rear panel should fold down like a tailgate.
And there is zero rearward visibility in a PT Cruiser convertible with the top down – we rented one in Vegas once. I was not impressed. You should have unparalleled rearward visibility in a convertible with the top down.
One could say the same thing about a VW Beetle convertible from the 1960s and the Rabbit convertible. Reportedly the latter had a considerable amount of padding in the roof, and it made for quite a thick pile folded at the back of the car. Come to think of it, the Mini convertibles lose a lot of rearward visibility with the top down.
Caught this one while snowbirding in Gulf Shores, AL…guess the PT Cruiser convertible does work as a pick-up!
At the train station a triple black one parks in the same row. But, it is the soft-top version which to me looks better, even though it’s rear-ward proportions also seem flight-deck like an old fuselage model.
The Sebring convertible had the dubious honor of being the car with the most problems per 100 cars of any car that year.
I also hate seeing the cut lines on them. Another peeve of mine, whether it be this Sebring or Cadillac, Focus 4 door and Chevrolet trunk lid cutouts. It just ruins the profiles of those cars and any others that use them
It’s actually been the other way for me–the only Sebring convertibles I’ve ever seen have been hardtops, so I didn’t know there was a soft-top version until now.
My relatives are big on Chrysler convertibles, going back to the LeBaron. The current one is a really sharp black 200 with chrome. I had to drive it recently, my first experience driving Chrysler in 15 years. Not pleasurable. Goofy shifting. Something in the front end wobbling. 40k easy miles. I assume it was the V6 since it’s the loaded up model, but it wasn’t a big performer. Horrible visibility. The windshield has a really strange placement–it was like driving with your glasses set at a 45 degree angle on your face! I hated every minute of it. And for the record, I only buy domestic vehicles so not on some rant..just sharing!
The Pontiac G6 was available as a retractable hard top as well. I wondered if some company designed the mechanical underpinnings and sold it to the various manufacturers. It can’t be coincidence that all these retractable hard tops appeared at roughly the same time. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was Karmann who designed it and sold or licensed it where ever they could.
A company called “Webasto” did the hardtop for the Eos and the BMW 3 series hardtop and maybe other cars from the same era as well.
So, semi-CC effect… I was just thinking about writing a piece on how the folding metal hardtop’s 15 minutes of fame seems to be up, as they have almost all been discontinued. We received a bunch here that all seemed to be one-generation wonders: Focus, Colt, Tigra, etc
I always thought it was a nice idea even though I would never buy any convertible.
The Sebring was interesting because the convertible balanced out the proportions of the car better than the sedan. It looked less stubby. Still, a lot of these folding metal hardtops did indeed have fat asses.
The Eos was relatively attractive and of course I love the XLR, but an extremely underrated design is the last C70. That managed to look just as good top up as it did top down!
+1. The C70 is truly underrated by Volvo guys. I don’t know, maybe it’s because it was preceded by one of the prettiest convertibles ever. Or because it went from the 70-series platform to the 40-series platform (personally, that second gen 40-series platform is much better in terms of handling, if not comfort). But it looked fine. But after 2010 it stopped looking fine, and started looking gorgeous. I still lust after a 2010 C70 T5!
BTW, William, when is COAL #4 coming? Looking forward to it!
I was at our local drive in ( http://www.crosbysdrivein.com/restaurant ) last summer when I saw one of these in a bright, slightly orange-yellow. Top up and windows down I noticed the lack of door frame between the front and back glass before I noticed that it was a convertible.
a friend traded his sebring soft top for a retractable. when I asked why he said when he drove the soft top year round it felt like a convertible in both summer and (our Canadian) winter. the hardtop still felt like a convertible in summer but a completely different (and much better) winter car. he felt if he had kept the soft top he probably would have ended up with the expense of a second vehicle for winter driving whereas the hardtop gave him everything in one package.
Good catch and yea, these are also rare in Portland. Found a Sebring in the Sherwood Pick N Pull recently.
… also sold as Lancia Flavia (!) in Europe…
The CC Effect is still alive and well in 2017; just saw one if these drive by here in the DC area. Not a car you see very often, certainly.
The car in the pic is the twin to the one our VP of Personnel drives. She’s a “woman of a certain age” and this is her daily driver. I rather like the looks of hardtop convert, but like others, I dislike the “diaper butt” aspect of the back of the car.
Every time I see this car, I wonder how much better it would have looked if it were just a regular coupe. But there hasn’t been a market for a mid sized coupe, really almost anything that isn’t a sports/muscle car, for a long time now.
I do like the idea of a retractable–for most convertible owners, who only put the top down on nice day pleasure drives, having the security and leak protection of the metal roof makes more sense for the way the car is generally used. Yes, they can be temperamental and it does devour trunk space, but it has its benefits. My wife likes the idea of a convertible and I’ve often thought that a secondhand C70 retractable would be the best option should she ever decide to go in that direction.
On a car at the price point of the Sebring (or the G6 for that matter) it does seem like a curious option. What was the premium for one of these over a regular convertible? Can’t imagine it was cheap (it struck me that the Eos in particular was a $35K car new, *very* expensive for what you were getting.)
I’m partial to our 2005 Sebring GTC. Inexpensive to own insure, and maintain. Nice body shape- lots of positive comments, lots of trunk space, room for 4 comfortably, ( no bolt upright 90degree back pocket seats). Full leather, lots of power for cruising city or highway. Just drop the top of a warm summer evening…it’s a whole different driving experience. Life is short, and y’all deserve to cruise in a convertable. While we couldn’t really afford a 3ed “fun” summer car- locked up for winter….the fun outweigh the monetary cost by a long shot. Go get one, any one. You deserve it!
A retractible hardtop on a Sebring is like having Ford put a retractible hardtop on the Edsel in 1957.
I have a 2007 Eos with 70,000 km. Top is fine except for very common issue with roof seal that has to be redone every once in a while with a (very expensive) liquid.
As mentioned above, the retractable hard top is well suited to a colder climate. However, one of the biggest pluses is the larger rear window. Most soft tops have a letter slot rear window and much larger blind spots than the retractable hard top.
I too admire the looks of the Volvo C70 convertible (hard and soft tops) but I had a Saab convertible and wouldn’t go near another Swedish car.
I always wonder about the potential for water leaks as these retractable hardtops age. There’s an awful lot of joins there, and if a company wasn’t particularly careful about assembly, a lot of potential for leak points from new.
Here’s a Megane I spotted in my town. Going from the plate, it’s about ten years old. Given the paucity of Renault dealerships here in Australia, it’s not one I’d want to own.
Forgot the pic.
Some of the clumsiest ‘bar of soap’ exterior styling, from that era. The bulbous wheel arch flaring, contrasts terribly with the sharp BMW-style body side crease. On too tall, slab sides. A light colour like white, just highlights the unattractive exterior design. A genuine design turd!
+1. Especially considering how beautiful Chrysler’s designs had been a few years earlier.
While never common, and we never got the retrac, they’ve dropped off the radar entirely here in Australia. I think they only sell the 300 now, and a few Jeepish things.
I’ve been around a handful of Sebring/200 verts with the hardtop. The remarkable one was the 200, which the owner really tried to take care of, and was by no means driven hard. It was a 2013 V6. By 100k miles, it had fried a starter, a couple of alternators, both window regulator/motors, needed $40 headlight bulbs about every 3 weeks, fried the headlight wiring in one side, eventually one of the headlight seals went bad and fried the wiring (the other side), all 4 struts leaked, oil pan leaked, radio died, one LED tail light died, we could literally never get the alignment right so it chewed through 18″ tires, the pleather on the door cards came unglued (a common post-Cerberus Chrysler issue), and half the gauge cluster lighting died (non-replaceable LEDs). About the only thing that didn’t cause an issue was the top, which never leaked or quit working. The Sebrings all seemed to be garage queen retiree-mobiles that needed tires every 10 years due to ageing out. There’s a shocking amount of bespoke parts on the convertible body that were different from the Sebring/200/Avenger sedans, so stuff often had to come from Chrysler at a huge premium. Most of the many more numerous 200 sedans seemed much less trouble prone. This was all in addition to the cheaply made control arms shared with everything on the Mitsu/Chrysler platform that needed replaced every 30k miles, and regular wear items like brakes. IIRC all 4 struts, some of the brake calipers, the window motors, and possibly the tail lights were all specific to the convertible, which because it was much more limited production than the sedan, meant there were no cheaper and/or better aftermarket options. I can’t remember if anything was specific to the hardtop convertible.
Couldn’t Chrysler take the Airflow concept and turn it into this convertible? Would look great! Ahhh, the days of real 6 passenger open air motoring in the 1960’s.
I have a 2008 Sebring Touring h/t, 2.7L flex, (85K miles now) – Inferno Red Crystal. There was, and still is, nothing comparable in the price range.
I’ve never had a leak in the top but water does leak over the side of the top and into the master window switch assembly if the window is open more than a crack. The back seat is not fit for adults. The 2.7 is a tad underpowered for driving in mountains.
One of the pluses is that, when the top is down, two small pieces of luggage can still be stowed in the trunk. The adverts at the time showed/claimed that a set of golf clubs could be stowed there. It would have to be a small set of clubs! Another plus is that I am the original owner and have a full, lifetime power-train warranty. It covers the engine, trans and cv joints/boots. I’ve used it more than once.