(first posted 4/20/2016) It may have been the first and briefly, the only Chrysler Sebring, but the 1995 Sebring coupe was soon joined by a completely unrelated Sebring convertible, and later a Sebring sedan, both of which vastly eclipsed it in popularity.
The Sebring coupe was in fact, technically not a “true” Chrysler. Rather, it was a product of Diamond-Star Motors, the partnership that was originally a 50-50 joint-venture between Chrysler and Mitsubishi, but later just became a Mitsubishi operation. After 1991, Chrysler continued contracting Mitsubishi to build vehicles, such as the Sebring coupe and its Dodge Avenger (and later Stratus) sibling. However, these cars were all Mitsubishi under the skin, and shared little to nothing with Chrysler-built products.
Despite its lower sales and somewhat questionable existence in a market that was continuing its move away from coupes, Chrysler updated the Sebring coupe for 2001, coinciding with the redesign of the Chrysler-built Sebring convertible and the introduction of the Chrysler-built Sebring sedan.
Sharing more visual relation to the other Sebrings than its predecessor, the Sebring coupe continued to built by Mitsubishi on a stretched Eclipse platform, use Mitsubishi powertrain, and share little in the way of interior components with the other Sebrings.
Riding on the same 103.7 inch wheelbase as before, the Sebring coupe retained nearly identical exterior dimensions to its predecessor. Regardless, its higher beltline and lack of lower ribbed cladding visually lessened the somewhat exaggerated length of the previous Sebring coupe.
With its long, low-slung hood, wide “shoulders”, and high deck with integrated spoiler, the second generation Sebring coupe emanated an aggressive, “in motion” appearance. On 2001-2002 models, this aggressiveness was further accentuated by its bottom-breather full-width grille, single bumper ribs, and available 17-inch 7-spoke chrome wheels.
For 2003, the Sebring coupe received a rather significant visual refresh, which greatly altered the car’s appearance, for better or worse in your own opinion. Up front was a still low yet larger, somewhat more textured grille, larger fog lights, and new scalloped headlights. Front and rear bumpers extended lower and were canted outward towards the bottom, with thicker side skirts and available multi-spoke aluminum wheels all contributing to a more grounded appearance.
As before, coupes exclusively continued using Mitsubishi inline-4s and V6s. LX (later just referred to as the unnamed base model) coupes were powered by a SOHC 2.4L I4, producing 147 horsepower and 158 pound-feet of torque, mated solely to a 4-speed automatic. Optional on the LX and standard on LXi (later renamed “Limited”) trim was a SOHC 3.0L V6, making 200 horsepower and 205 pound-feet of torque. A 5-speed manual was still standard with the V6, with both a regular 4-speed automatic and a 4-speed Autostick semi-automatic optional.
Contemporary reviews generally found handling and ride quality to be a good balance of responsiveness and comfort. Acceleration in the 4-cylinder models was predictably sluggish, but overall, cornering, grip, and braking in all models was cited as good, and contributed to a somewhat sportier feel than in the convertible and sedan. A multi-link rear suspension with coil springs and MacPherson struts up front gave way to a firmer ride than in other Sebrings, though along with the low roofline, low seating position, large transmission tunnel, made for a less comfortable traveling experience.
Inside, the coupe’s three-pod instrument panel and center console shared with the Stratus coupe were straight out of the Eclipse. Given the coupe’s sportier demeanor, a more driver-focused layout was much appreciated…
…However, it’s a shame the budget didn’t allow the Sebring to gain its own interior, with a more elegant design and better finishes. Chryslers did receive a little bit of faux wood trim on the console, but overall, the basic Eclipse interior design seemed to be at odds with the more upscale styling details of the exterior.
Equally unfortunate, was that Mitsubishi interiors were becoming noticeably cheaper in material quality as rivals were improving. Especially towards the end of its run, the interior of this “Chrysler-bishi” was looking especially dated compared to its prime competitors, the Honda Accord coupe and Toyota Camry Solara.
Speaking of which, mid-cycle interior changes were less drastic than the exterior, with new upholstery patterns, a new gauge cluster, and the deletion of wood trim in favor of the faux brushed aluminum look that was then, and still somewhat is today in vogue. Unfortunately, the production complexities and low demand for the coupe bodystyle didn’t warrant the addition of features such as automatic climate control, heated seats, and navigation, which were available on competitors as well as Sebring sedans and convertibles.
Any nitpicking aside, the Sebring coupe remained an affordable way for one to get a spacious two-door coupe, offering a moderate blend of comfort and sportiness. Even in its final season, the top-tiered Sebring Limited coupe retailed for just over $25K including destination (just over $30K in 2016 USD). With this in mind, once popular options such as leather, power driver’s seat, ABS, chrome wheels, premium Infinity sound system, Autostick, and front side airbags had been added, the Sebring’s price tag was nearly $30,000 USD.
In comparison to its coupe namesake, the Sebring Limited convertible stickered for just over $31K, and included most of the aforementioned features as standard, plus its obvious drop-top capability. Higher resale value, greater comfort, and a more luxurious interior all made the Sebring convertible a more attractive choice for many 2-door Chrysler shoppers. Lack of many competitors in the midsize convertible market also greatly contributed to the convertible’s wider appeal and stronger sales.
Adding to this was that demand and interest for fixed roof coupes was at historic lows. With under 15,000 units produced per year (less than half average production of first generation coupes), Sebring coupe production never accounted for more than 10% of total Sebring production. Coupe production ceased early in the 2005 calendar year, with just 345 units produced. Total 2005 model year production was naturally slightly higher, but nothing significant, especially considering combined convertible/sedan production was over 100,000 units that same year.
The second generation Sebring sedan and convertible bodystyles lasted through 2006, upon which the redesigned sedan came for 2007, and the convertible for 2008. Whether or not is was to compensate for the loss of the coupe, the convertible now did offer an available folding hardtop, though like the coupe itself, Sebring hardtop convertibles never seemed very popular on the ground.
Related Reading:
I think these are very, very attractive cars, but then so were the mechanically unrelated convertible and sedan. The facelift was perhaps more aggressive but still very attractive.
If I wanted a winter beater, I’d look around for a V6 manual coupe… But I can only imagine how rare they would be…
that lamp oil from your tiki torch is gonna drip out and get all over the back seat
Tiki orchestra will never be views again the same way since Charlottesville.
Dang spellcheck!
TikiTorches will never be viewed the same after Charlottesville.
I’ve always liked the 1st gen Avenger and Sebring coupes.
I remember, we used to call them Mitsubishi “Galant coupes”, in the 90’s.
Knowing they were more akin to DSMs than true Mopars.
As I recall, the first few years, you could get them in a 5 speed manual… Unless, I’m thinking of some other car.
I had a 1996 Avenger in the stunning bluish-silver.
It was indeed a nice mid-size coupe with a VERY spacious backseat, decent manners, decent engine, etc etc. Great personal car; nicer than a Civic coupe but cheaper than a near-lux coupe.
However, it had a maintenance schedule seemingly from the 1980s. I didn’t change the coolant on the 30,000 mile interval, and it gummed up at 72k and clogged the heater core.
But that paint color was insanely beautiful in person.
WOW!!
Would never have known this car
was 90% Japanese! In fact, from
more than 500 feet away I often
confused the convertible edition
of this Sebring with the 2002 Camaro
convertible.
Yikes!
I’ve always thought the same thing… They look alike especially from behind.
* 95 Sebring convertible below
And the outgoing F-body nose:
(Though in full roof form the
differences become immediately
apparent).
The convertible was a completely different car, more closely related to the JA-body “cloud car” sedans.
2002 Camaro convertible
Separated at birth?
Maybe. Here is our 2005 Sebring GTC.
Lid on…
Here is another of those cars that gets ruined by being moved on to a foreign platform. The style itself was good. Especially the first years of the second generation. This car was built however as a continuation of the Lebaron and Cordoba lines so some nod toward personal luxury coupes was appropriate.
The compromised platform allowed no such thing. The engines both 4 and V6 were just far to small for the car. So there was no torque at low rpm with either engine. Over the run the engines were enlarged to 2.4 and 3.0, but these were Japanese engines designed for small manual Japanese cars. The torque peak was 4000 rpm, over 40 % higher than it should be. The weight of the car was 10% higher than the Lebaron, so no gain there.
The cars were also plagued by road noise. There was clearly no thought given at Mitsubishi at what is required for a American personal luxury coupe. This was probably just offered to fill out the Diamand Star plant in Normal.
Chrysler made some successful personal luxury cars. The first Cordoba managed to be far quieter than any other B body and Chryslers V8 had all the torque one could ask for. The Lebaron managed a new size with great style and torque was handled by turbos and 3.0 V6s. This was a poor followup to that tradition. Lido would have done better.
As a past owner of a 2001 Mitsubishi Eclipse GT 5-speed (the Sebring Coupe’s goofier-looking fraternal twin), I think you’d find that driving one of these would give you a very different impression.
The 3.0L SOHC V6 is a silky-smooth torquer, giving its best from 2,5000 to 5,500 rpm with a wonderfully fluid exhaust growl. Remember, this was the engine that powered the 3000GT (minus that car’s top-trim turbos). It’s no V8, but magazine tests showed that its clutch-drop 0-60 times and roll-on 5-60 times didn’t differ too much – the 3.0 thrives on smooth applications of fat midrange torque, and wound up around 7 – 7.5 seconds in either case.
Same goes for the chassis. The bubble-shaped rear window did introduce some road noise. But the structure was rock solid and heavyish, the suspension tuning was gentle, and that made for a smooth, planted-feeling if noisy ride. If anything, these cars were softer than I liked, with wispy steering tuned more for touring than corner-carving, and limp roll control that demanded smooth inputs into curves.
If anything, Mitsubishi’s Eclipse and Sebring Coupe were too American, rather than too Japanese. The personal luxury coupe market was almost fully extinct by the early 2000s, and cars like the Celica and RSX did the sporty-commuter bit for the remaining customers much better than these Mitsubishis. But the cars themselves have some merit. I have fond memories of driving my Eclipse from California’s Bay Area to LA in one sitting, and emerging more-or-or less unfazed. A great comfy tourer, if not one with exceptional interior finish or on-limit handling.
Sorry to hear about the “wispy” steering.
Myself I like steering that is tight and
heavy, that requires some effort to
turn, and snaps quickly to center
coming out of a turn.
I’ve(sarcastically) deduced that most
American steering systems are tuned
to facilitate one primary aspect of
driving:
Parking!
What else do you need to do besides park and change lanes anyway? Just make it seem effortless for me, and I’m happy.
Mcc, was the 3.0 V6 a reliable powerplant?
What was the most trouble your Eclipse gave you?
Not really fond of the styling of the 2000+ Eclipses, but I always see tons of them going for bargain prices.
I wouldn’t discount one out as an extra commuter or a winter beater. 🙂
It is interesting. I was describing the compromises of doing a Sebring off the Galant/Eclipse platform. Then you come along with valueable insights on the dilution of the Eclipse as it Americanized. Two sides of the same argument perhaps.
I have always questioned replacing the DOHC 2.0 Turbo with the V6. The engine gained great power in the later EVO and Genesis coupe form, while the strengthening needed to add the V6 slowed the reflexes of the Eclipse, if making it a better cruiser.
My “baby” sister had a Sebring coupe, a fairly sharp looking car, though I can’t say for sure which year it was or even which generation. I think it’s kind of unfortunate that these weren’t spun off the Sebring sedan as I prefer the Chrysler engines to the Mitsubishi engines. I wasn’t aware that the “standard” transmission with the V6 was a manual transmission. In the Dodge version of these cars it was somewhat difficult to find, I would think the number of Sebrings with a V6 and a manual transmission would be miniscule.
I also wasn’t aware these used a lightly modified version of the Eclipse interior, but for the (declining) numbers sold that must have been a necessity.
Do you suppose a car that was so different from the other Sebrings, except in general shape, should have had a different name? Instead of Sebring, the Chrysler Palm Beach?
Nice write-up on a car I’d mostly forgotten about. I agree with William that this was a very good looking car, but the coupe market was so small at this point it was just a footnote of a vehicle.
The back seat was actually surprisingly roomy–I rode in one once (a rental car), with a group heading to a restaurant. I was in back with another 6′ tall guy, and both of us were stunned that it wasn’t too bad back there–pretty shocking for a coupe.
The first Chrysler Sebrings “featured” a fake grill. What looks like a grill between the headlights is a matte black plastic panel with shallow crosshatching moulded into it. Like its Dodge Avenger sibling it was a mouthbreather but the stylists thought that look appropriate for the more aggressively marketed Dodge.
Today the milquetoast Toyota Camry does the opposite. It pretends to a level of aggression with what looks like a big maw, but actually about 80% of it is fake, like the 1995-1996 Sebring.
Chrysler would have done just as well to plant a hardtop roof on the Sebring convertible body platform, given the market its last, affordable B-pillarless hardtop, forgot about this sideways foray.
+1. These weren’t bad looking cars, but they sent a mixed message. They weren’t sporty enough to compete with Mustangs or Camaros, and weren’t well-appointed enough to qualify as personal luxury coupes. The interiors were half baked, and their overall body design didn’t lend itself well enough to the cab forward language that Chrysler was applying to all of its other designs at the time. Any family resemblance to the other cars sharing its name were just a result of tacked on gingerbread. Scratch the surface only lightly and these were too obviously Mitsus underneath. It’s a shame, as the Sebring convertibles were always style leaders, so a low volume coupe version with the 3.5 from the 300M could conceivably have been a halo car for Chrysler at the time. Let’s remember though that these were marketed next to some pretty good competition from their own family. The 30K price range bought a lot of car at a Chrysler dealer during those years, and the Crossfire came on the scene toward the end of this car’s run too.
I always knew that these were virtually all Mitsu and no Chrysler, and my interest in these was always cool from that alone. Otherwise, it was not a bad looking car.
The thick upper door frames and the shape of the roof always reminded me of the Kaiser 2 door from the early 50s.
I was not aware these cars were more Japanese than North American.
Did Chrysler Canada sell the first generation models up here? A few later model coupes and convertibles are still around.
We didn’t get the 2nd gen Stratus coupe and sedan–Chrysler Canada got the name off everything but the trucks for a few model years.
The second-generation cars were absolutely fantastic-looking on release. The looks may have promised more performance than even the V6 option could deliver, and the interiors were low-rent compared to the nicer convertible interior, but they nailed the styling. Shared clear cues with the LH sedans, but with a unique roofline and a flavor all its own.
Then the 2003 facelift came along. Ugh. Not a bad-looking car post-facelift, but compared to the ’01 design, the fussy scalloped headlights, shiny and oddly positioned/shaped grille, and too-heavy sill skirting kind of ruined it.
Another fine piece, Brendan. I was hoping you (or someone) was going to follow up with a coupe- companion piece to your 2002 Sebring sedan write-up from last month. I agree with your assessment of the interior – that being based on a stretched Mitsubishi Eclipse, it was hardly a successor to the Cordoba / LeBaron lineage of Chrysler-branded coupes. Even more surprising to me was to find out a well-optioned coupe came so close within the price of the similarly-optioned convertible. Unless I lived in a freezing climate, or a crime-prone / transitional area, the convertible would have been a no-brainer.
(I also agree with other posters that the first Sebring convertible did bear some passing, visual similarities to the same-vintage Chevrolet Camaro drop-top. It took someone to point it out, but now it’s kind of obvious – even if it wasn’t intentional.)
I had a 2001 Sebring Coupe, the fully loaded LXi – it was when I was in Canada and it was quite rare. I think Canada only had the coupe for that year or 01+02.. Mitsu dealers didn’t want to deal with it, Chrysler dealers didn’t really know about servicing them. I loved the car, looked great for the money! I sold the chrome wheels to some guy who put em on a Chrysler minivan, it looked good actually! Traded it in with winter steelies.
The first two years of the second-generation coupe were quite handsome, even if the interior ultimately didn’t deliver on the promise of the exterior. They were a nice take on the personal luxury coupe idea, but the market for that type of car had simply disappeared by 2000.
I have an ’02 that I picked up from the original owner. Its a loaded LXi 3.0 V6 5spd. As a secondhand daily grinder that’s good on gas and fun to drive with the stick, you could do WAY worse than one of these. But if I were in the market for a brand new coupe in ’02 I wouldn’t have given these a second look. When you max out your options with one of these, youre at the point where the Mustang and F bodies start out, so these are NOT enthusiasts’ cars. Had they gone with the 2.4 turbo like in the Dodge SRT-4 and the PT Cruiser GT like I had, then itd be a different animal entirely. Same goes for if theyd wrung these out properly with a rwd platform starting out with the 3.5 V6 and offering the 4.7 V8 as a top option to duke it out with the ‘real’ performance coupes.
Fast forward to today, hardly any fwd V6 coupes remain and for good reason. Compact 2 doors with powerful 4 cyls and mid/fullsize rwd models with either powerful 6s or better yet V8s are what cater best to the coupe market. All show and little go just doesn’t cut it. Hasn’t in an LONG time.
But they weren’t an “enthusiast’s” car from the get go. They were a cheaper personal luxury coupe sort of animal.
“When you max out your options with one of these, youre at the point where the Mustang and F bodies start out, ”
Is that really true? My parents bought my brother a 1996 V-6/5-speed Mustang coupe new and it was very reasonably priced as I recall. It turned out to be a huge mistake, but not the fault of the car!
I got to be the voice of dissent, and say that I never liked these cars. They were always awkwardly styled compromises for those people that wanted a coupe, but also a Mopar product. These cars always looked like they were stuck in 1997, and they aged terribly because of it. For all the faults of the first generation LH cars, styling was not one of them, they still hold up to this day. The Sebring and its contemporaries, not so much. But, when it comes to Chrysler, I always felt like that was the case. I think that Chrysler is one of the few car companies that made a better looking four door car instead of a better looking two door, sacrilege as that sounds.
Always thought the pre-facelift version looked like a blobby dated holdover from the ’90s, especially those ugly headlights and the fish-like grille. IMO the ’04 facelift sharpened the front clip immensely, and ditching the amber rear turn signals for transparent lenses made the back end look much cleaner and classier (I am so, so glad domestic automakers let that fad die off and mostly stick to transparent/red now). That roofline was a really, really nice design, and when they cleaned up the details on the 04-05 models these were surprisingly elegant and classy looking with the right color and wheels. Probably the last regular priced coupe that wasn’t 1)a pony car or 2)trying way too hard to look “sporty” (Monte Carlo, Solara)
The scrunchy looking leather on the front seats, is…. umm, interesting. The black interior hides it well but the look is not flattering whatsoever with white/beige color scheme. Looks like something from the Dodge Dynasty-era.
I had one of these for awhile….an ’01 Lxi V6 manual that I bought for next to nothing. It was a fun car to drive and rode very well. However at about 65k miles I began having one issue after the other and I sold it. Chrysler and Mitsubishi…..probably not the best combination.
I’m just a nosy outsider, but the Cirrus with shaver grille has the right design to succeed the LeBaron range, a Cirrus coupe would be a really gorgeous car, as well a convertible. Instead of mimic BMW and Mercedes creating a range of models under one identity, Chrysler followed the worse path pulverizing one niche with various different cars, complicating the technical assistance, after sales services and the reliability, (three different cars each other means unexpected problems + recalls x 3).
Another thing I never understood is despite the very cheaper looking of the Sebring coupe and the flop of the Concorde LH Chrysler still chose to end the Cirrus name and style and use the Sebring name under the same Concorde nose. I’ll never get it.
I always wondered why they didnt derive a coupe from their own platform instead of going down this rabbit hole. Was it an obligation to DSM? Was it an engineering issue? Perhaps there’s an insider that knows.
That said, far from a K car guy, I’d gladly take a last-of-the LeBaron coupes or a 92 (exposed headlight) Daytona over the this or the Avenger, respectively. I remember thinking as a kid, how could Chrysler discontinue the LeBaron?
I’m glad to see that these cars are getting some respect! I actually came in here to drop a bomb, and I was thinking that most others would too… After reading some comments and finding my opinion to be more on the unpopular side, I tried harder to come up with something positive, but still failed. I don’t really *hate* the cars, but there’s just no spark at all. I mostly remember my hometown of Kalispell, MT being filled to the brim with ex-rental Sebring convertibles. A girl that I worked with bought one of said cars for what seemed an extremely affordable price for a droptop car, and likely planned on using it for a some top down fun in the all-too-short summer months, and a daily driver in the off season. But I never did see it with the top down, even once. I think that was the fate of most of the Sebrings up in that northern clime… they lived their first months as a way for tourists to check out the beautiful Montana scenery for a slight upgrade over a standard midsize sedan, then were purchased cheaply by people who’d have probably been better served by a standard midsize sedan.
I only remember the Sebring in convertible form, and pretty much always with a faded, tatty top that looked 15 years older than the car they were attached to. There might have been a few of the coupes and a few more of the sedans, but I don’t remember them. I’m not familiar enough with the Bitsoshitti mechanicals in these years to know what was good and bad, but have many memories of 3.0 V6’s belching blue smoke out of their greasy tailpipes at every street corner in my formative years, as well as the 2.6 liter Silent Shafter in my elderly neighbor’s early Plymouth Voyager sounding unusually gruff one morning, then imploding in a week later in a white smokescreen. “It’s got that Mista-booshi engine”, he’d proudly proclaim. The replacement Voyager fortunately had the Mopar 3.3L, so it never missed a beat until the Ultradrive drove off.
As someone who drove 2 door coupes made by Chrysler pretty much my entire driving life, I had reached a point where my ’89 LeBaron Coupe (not convertible) needed replacing. I really wanted to like the Sebring/Avenger/Stratus coupes but couldn’t get past they were really not Mopars and the memories of the massively oil burning 3.0 V6’s I’d see in minivans limping their way around town. Finding another LeBaron coupe was impossible at the time and took me three months to find the one I bought in 1997. Yet, because I like driving 2 door coupes, I looked at some Sebring and Avengers and them surprisingly used up for cars that weren’t all that old. I ended up buying a 1999 Concorde Lxi from my brother who had done and kept up all of the service on it. That was a great car until I got T-boned a year and a half later. I would find myself behind the helm of a 2 door Mopar again when I rescued my late grandfather’s ’68 VIP and put it back on the road. The VIP which stays with me until I die, is probably my last 2 door car unless I end up with a Dodge Challenger before my driving days are over.
Mid 1995, I special ordered a 1996 Sebring LXI coupe, white over silver lower body, fully optioned. Only two issues that Chrysler corrected was a minor wind leak sound and a minor suspension squeak. Loved the interior design better then the 2nd gen. Roomy interior with fold down rear seats, large trunk. Drove that Sebring for 96,000 miles and comfortable to drive long distances. Even the leather upholstery looked pristine when I traded it for a special order 2011 Camaro.