2007 Dodge Avenger RT

Last Updated:

Seems like someone at Chrysler got busy “leaking” some pictures…

I am not a fan of the Dodge Charger, but at least this shape seems to work better than the new Sebring.
And the Dodge isn’t a clone of the Chrysler anymore. Same thing seems to apply to the interior (as far as we can tell from these)

I actually don’t think this is a good design. It looks like a small Charger and that’s about it. Nothing new at all.
A rental favorite or something people might actually pick over the Accord/Camry crowd???

Conversation 39 comments

  1. Let’s see – Chrysler is criticized for not making the Sebring look like the 300, and Dodge is criticized for making the Avenger look like the Charger. I guess some car companies (i.e., not Japanese) can’t catch any breaks.

    Incidently, the Charger is a pretty nice looking car, and won’t disappear among the generic and bland Camrys and Accords infesting every mall parking lot.

  2. Vince,

    I would have to disagree with you. The design is a big improvement over the Sebring …yes…but if this has AWD and the same power and set up from the Patriot
    family, this will rock.
    And this is from an import car buyer.
    Also, I would need to see the inside.

  3. Hey, if this thinng can go 0-60 in say 8 seconds, and be 18-19K, or less, fairly loaded up(and still get around 30MPG)…. ya buy it in black or dark blue, may nto be too bad. the rear lights look the same as current generation, except for the exaggerated rear bumper, to try to thorw you off, make ya think it’s all new idea/design.
    The front, ditch the grille and odd shaped lights: make it a 3 door hatch, like a Tiburon, Eclipse, or even a tC, and a 4 door version as shown…they’d do better(tC alone is set to score 85-90,000 units sold this year, if the first 8 months of 2006 are any indication).
    Design, price, quality = Sales.
    Barely trolerable to look at, quesitonable quality and high price/low mpg=?

  4. It looks like it has a small and dark interior, and too many soft curves to back up the Charger design cues (and especially from behind, I think it keeps too many cues from its predecessors). It might please some people, but I doubt it’ll please anyone who was happy with Camry styling (many people indeed). And just keeping your own customers isn’t really good enough.

    But hey, maybe it’ll be good mechanically and on the inside. I’d bet against it though.

  5. Chrysler is critisized for not using more on the 300 design in the new Sebring because most people agree the 300 looks great.
    At least as an amazing presence on the road.

    On the other hand, the Charger is a visual mess.
    Not something I would copy 100% for a smaller model.

    It has nothing to do with Chrysler not being Japanese.

  6. Looks like it should–a smaller Charger. Not sure I like the weird and extra-thick “C” pillar that restricts rear visibility.
    Big improvement over the Stratus IMO.

  7. I would definitely shop this car, which is something I NEVER would have said about the Stratus. Whether or not I would actually BUY it depends on, as has been mentioned here, overall reliability vs. its competitors.

  8. Vince said it all! The Charger is a mess, and why copy it for a smaller car? The side profile is not bad, but the rear is “still current Sebring tail lights” look, and the front has the Charger/truck look.
    If I want a truck, I’ll buy one.

    Maybe I’ll wait for the 2010 XKSporty car from kia(to be possibly based on the Sonata platform).

    Ya noticed Toyota does not have their cars look like their trucks? Same for about all of the Asian makers.

    I do not care for the looks of these “Crucks”(Car+Trucks= Crucks).

    Man, why couldn’t they have just built the Skyflight concept?

  9. Yes, this is the Dodge version of the Sebring.
    Now that you’ve seen it, you can ignore it and buy the Accord or Camry you (and most other people) really want anyway;-).

  10. Well the front does look better than the charger, ( swept back instead of swept forward ) close up of front the rear doors look much better on this then the sebring, the interior seems to look a hair better, so snowbelt states buy the avenger , sunbelt states buy a charger ….

  11. Huge front overhang, looks like a truck or something. If this car was RWD like the all the good Chrysler products, we wouldnt have to see that. The charger styling looks bad on a small car, as would 300c styling look bad on a small car. They will not have much success with this car, the RWD 300, Magnum, Charger and Challenger is where its at for them, keep doing that.

  12. If this is the Dodge version, it it 100 times better looking than the Sebring, it looks like a baby Charger, if it’s aimed at the Accord/Camry/Mazda6 it should to fairly well, the exterior styling is alot better than those cars, we just have to see what the interior looks like.

  13. i think this is way better than the sebring – it has a coherent design philosophy/mission. you have to admit it doesn’t have that hodgepodge of design elements that plagues the sebring.

    i’m partial to the charger, though (except for that weird rear shoulder hunch thing that only looks good from a very specific angle.) it’s unfortunate that the hunch looks even more pronounced on the smaller avenger.

    in sum, not bad. but not great. the current accord looks better (sleeker and more sophisticated).

  14. I think that this look great. It’s aggressive and seems to have decent proportions. Plus they did a better job overall with the vehicle than the Sebring and they’ve made the C-pillar much more attractive than the one on the Sebring as well. Overall I think it works. Now I want to see the interior and find out if they’ll offer it with a stick shift — then I’ll be sold.

    But I give kudos to DCX for making both the Sebring and Avenger much different looking from each other and finally get the mid-sized Chrysler Group offerings on different styling directions. They should be applauded for that since the for JA/Cloud Cars looked too much alike.

  15. Wellllllllllll, after looking up the concept car from 2003, this looks Less truck like than the concept car from 03.
    So, in that sense, it is not as bad as it could have been.
    yes, it will have GEMA engines, which is a good thing.
    I dunno. I may have to go see one in person, and see on in Darker Colors(to hide the oversized headlamps, bumper, grille).

    If the quality,MPG, MSRP, 0-6o times not too slow for the I-4(probably be what, the 173HP I-4, from GEMA?),I may test drive one, at the least.
    The Sebring? I could nto say that.

    D/C is weird”
    The Sebring is Ugly, where the Airflight looked great!
    The JS(?) Concept looked like a truck,with car doors added, and it was Ugly, where this, in comparison,looks Great!
    What gives here?

    I’ll be glad when D/C is over this”let’s make our whole line -ups look truck-like”(or all RWD, for cars over 22K).
    Seems evey decade or so, they “re-invent’ their looks. This decade is turning out to be not so good, minus maybe the 300 and PT Cruiser.
    This front end looked good on the Hornet concept(again, is this gonna be where we see a decent concept, albeit too small for me to consider driving, or are they gonna ugly-fy it?).

  16. OK, after repeatedly looking at it, the things “grows” on you, sort of.

    It’s tolerable.

    I think pricing will be a big “If” in the sales dept. if it is considered too pricey, it won’t sell well.

    Chrysler dealership i spoke, the sales staff said they would like
    to see a small car, say Yaris-sedan- sized, and mid30’s MPG.
    Make it 14-16K.
    The lament the Neon going away. I see more Neons than Cavaliers or Focuses here!

    Some places, it did not sell. Instead of replacing cars with truck-looking vehicles, bigger engines , higher prices, and less MPG,replace small(compact) cars with cars, no crossover SUV thing, that is slower, worse MPG, and costs more, than the vehicle it supposedly replaces(Caliber is supposedly a Neon replacement! Right!).

    The Neon got around 34MPG, the dealership told me. The Caliber is lucky to get with the 142HP engine, 32MPG, but it is slow!
    It’s heavier.
    It is selling, but the (old design)PT Cruiser is outselling it every month, and gets less MPG(it’s called not everyone wants a station wagon on RAM steroids).

    What are these guys thinking, or are they?

    I will give it a try, but won’t hold my breath for any 17K car, that rivals a mazda3, or Scion tC in speed, MPG, content and refinement from D/C anytime soon.
    Why not just build that “cool” concept, the PT Coupe!?
    Waste of money building this car.
    They could have built that PT, 2 doors, or made it a doors, or even “Ion-like” 4 doors(2 hidden)…add 150HP GEMA and 173HP GEMA engines….and it’d be better than this!
    If all there was out there were Cobalts and Focus and this: I might pick this.
    Since there are many more choices, better choices….

  17. I think it looks great and different than other midsize sedans on the market it will be hit for the dodge line up and the name goes great with the style.

  18. Damn, they almost had it. Take out that stupid hump in the rear quarter panel and lower it about 1″ and you’d have a car people will line up to buy.

    This is a much better design than the Sebring (which is going to cause Chrysler some embarassment when it doesn’t sell), but still not quite right.

  19. I think it looks good, but like a lot of Chrysler’s designs, you have to see it in person to appreciate. Give them credit for not making generic looking “Camcord” vehicles. At least their vehicles stand out in a sea of sameness.

  20. if the front end looked like that astro martin volarte(?) , then this would be unbeatable in looks, in the price range.

    Anyhow, this won’t be out until what, Jan 2007?

    I’ll wait until i see it in person, & as others have said, In Dark Colors.

    Dark colors tend to hide faults, panel gaps, etc…
    It still beats the Caliber and Sebring!

  21. Here’s an idea. Would Dodge like to sell 75-100K units(w.o trying to hard?) Go look at Scion’s tC. 3 door, car about same length as the Caliber, 17,199 (when i got one) with atuomatc, 32-34MPG, 0-60 around 8 seconds.
    What’s not to like?
    Build A 3 Door version, Dodge! Ditch the “fake truck” front end…
    add some seats like tC( reclining rear seats, adjustable head rest, for 3 people in back), add the GEMA 173HP engine… for at least 30MPG, add shiftronic(like Hyundai has in the Sonata and Tiburon)…. sell it for 18-19K loaded, with leatherette, etc…
    and I’d buy one tomorrow, fi all else holds up well(quality wise, NVH, etc).

  22. Your Scion has an interior that is light years ahead in looks and quality than the poor Caliber.
    Taking 2 doors off the Dodge isn’t going to make it much better.

  23. Hey, Vince(tC guy here)… you’re correct.
    I test drove one of the first Calibers out there, in March.
    It was tolerable, but nothing spectacular. I have only seen a few on the roads since then.
    Also, that was ignorant of them to put a CVT in it, and add “artifical shift points”, to fool the customer into thinking it’s like a “normal” automatic!
    That was one of the worst parts about it!
    And why did they build this Caliber? To replace the Neon, but I will never see as many Calibers on the roads(I think) as I do the Neons .
    There’s a reason why the PT Cruiser is outselling the Caliber every month.

    I’ll stick with the tC for awhile longer!
    I’d possibly even consider a Suzuki SX4 over this!At least they give you a 7/100K warranty(unlike Chryslers, where you had to pay a deductible, I heard, when they had one like Suzuki’s).

    Bah….. just gimme a 2006.5 Optima EX, instead!
    At least it’s not an eye sore, and gets better MPG, and has a 5 speed automatic(shiftronic)!
    This Avenger has 4?!?!?
    What’s that all about?!

    Maybe I’ll go look at the Avenger, and then ask the salesperson if they wanna ride in a real (good quality) sporty car, for less than the asking price of that Avenger!

    Hey, get this Vince, true story(the spouse drives the tC to work, due to MPG is better than my 04 Sonata), a guy about 40, Tim, got his daughter(16) a new Neon lasat year. It ahd something break, and needed a few days at the dealership, after 8000 miles.
    Anyhow… he and my spouse and their boss took our tC to lunch, and Tim asked to drive it, etc…. and he admitted the tC was so much better to drive, handling,quality ,looks, that the Neon… he couldn’t believe it!
    He heard abotu the MPG, and 160HP, and did nto belivee a “big 4 cylinder” could do so well!
    He said the reason he buys Dodge is he has a realtive who retired from Chrysler, and gets the discounts.
    He said he might seriously consider a foreign car next time(despite the fact Daimler is in control of Chrysler, lol).

    Sorry to rant. A lot my not agree with me, you (us?) about tC, or Japanese(or even newer Korean products, sans GM-DAT stuff), but hey, test drives don’t lie, and neither do photos(like your Cobalt report in June).

    Corvette may be great, or a Dodge Ram, if that’s what you need, or want, to drive, but most anything else? I dunno.
    take care/not offense.

  24. “Ya noticed Toyota does not have their cars look like their trucks? Same for about all of the Asian makers.”

    That’s because Asian trucks – if they don’t look like a rolling cartoon – look like their cars. Soft and non aggressive. Perfect for all you girls.

  25. tangent but still related, sort of:

    in the latest Motor Trend or Automobile, there’s a multi-page+pull-out ad for the 2007 Chrysler Sebring. In this ad, they show the concept (the airflight?) and it looks really good! then you fold out the pages and it shows the production Sebring in all its anti-glory. why make your bad car look even worse?

  26. Good comments?
    1) It’s not a Cobalt.
    2) It’s not a crossover.
    3) It looks better than the Sebring.

    Bad comments:
    1) It’s not the Airflight(that we thought we would get).

    2) It may not be built much better than a Cobalt.

    3) It does not have GM’s new 5/100K warranty, or 5 year free roadside assistance(that’s good new for Cobalt buyers?).

    4) It has too much truck looks to it.
    If I wanted a truck, I’d buy one.

  27. This car looks like the way a dodge should look sporty,if they offer a attractive price it would sell very well. My problems with american made cars cost too much and it does not hold value like the import brands do.

  28. It looks like a dodge should look, sporty, as long as they keep the price competitive it will sell in by the hundred of thosands

  29. about pricing. I had thought that Chrysler sharing Mitsu platform(and yes, Hyundai- Kia will use it to, maybe not in USA, though) = less costly MSRP, since Chrysler is savng money on the GEMA engines and plttform sharing.
    The Sebring is rated over 18K for a base model(unless they lowered it).
    I can get a Fusion, Sonata, Optima, Verona,G6, all for less, on sale.
    And these cars all look better, even the “Suzuki” Verona!
    I do not think you will see a 16K loaded up version.

    I do not think that this will be less than 17K, even for a base model.
    Maybe do a GM, add a 5/100K warranty, free loaner if problems arise, and no deductible for repairs, and 5 years free roeadside assistance, along with Chrysler’s (high) prices… then, maybe… I MIGHT consider this.

  30. OK, so it’s not the most ground-breaking design on the market. Forgiv me for saying so, but neither are the Accord or Camry. At least this doesn’t have the same staid, me-too styling of those cars. It’s a Dodge, and like most Dodge cars, you’ll know what it is when you see it coming at you. The Charger is a love it or hate it kind of car. The drawback to that is that some will hate it, ridicule it, loathe it. But the upside is that for those who love it (and for the Charger there are *many*), it inspires passion and evokes immense pride. And that’s something that the Japanese have never been able to replicate. The world doesn’t need one more vanilla Camry-clone. Thanks to Dodge for at least giving people in the market for a mid-size sedan the chance to drive something with a little more style and character.

  31. Giving people what they want is one thing, but adding qultiy does nto hurt, either.
    IF anyone recalls(I am sure Vince will), Chrysler added a 7./100K warranty back around 2003?
    Where is it now?

    The spin doctors at Chrysler said’ it was only menat as a temporary deal”. The truth of the matter is, no matter how you sugar coat it, Chrylser was losing their shirts over the warranty, thus, they dropped it.
    Since when do you go Backwards on a warranty, Especially if your products are so good?
    If Hyundai suddenly dropped their warranty to 3/36K for bumper/bumper, or their 10/100K to 5/60 K…. wouldn’t you wonder why?

    Isuzu had a 10.120K warranty, and dropped it to 7/75K, and their sales are the worst in the industry.
    Why do people come on here and make only one sided comments?

    Chrysler’s giving you great styling.. Good. Now, give me quality materials and dependability and a GM warranty(even).

    Beats what they currently have at Dodge/Chrysler.

    I could continue on, but why bother.

  32. Well, I didn’t see anyone mention the fact Dodge saw fit to kill the nice coupe I had several years back named the Avenger and now bring it back as a 4 door!

    Contrary to most comments…my Dodge Avenger went 186,000 miles without a hiccup. Although-it was mostly Mitsubishi.


    Anyway…at least Dodge is putting something different on the road other than all the jelly bean looking sedans.

    As good as the Honda and Toyota is…DANG…I CAN’T STAND HOW THEY LOOK!

    If I wanted to spend 30,000 bucks and look that boring, I’d just save the money and take a nap.

  33. Wow! This seems like the second time that Dodge shows us the Charger! That’s not exactly a good thing.

  34. https://www.allpar.com/threads/2008-2014-dodge-avenger-cars-cheap-comfortable-performance.228195/?post_id=1085222293&nested_view=1#post-1085222293Has insider info on figures(no HP numbers, or MPG).If they did not try to make this thing so “Dodge Ram” in looks up front! Why does everything Dodge make have to look like they put a car body on the Dodge Ram?If they would just say” we’ll make this Look like a normal car”, not like a Ram, or all of our other cars…then I’d be more impressed.They’re losing sales… I wonder why!They shoul;d spend time looking at Mazda3’s and Scion tC’s for some type of direction on how to design a Good Looking sporty car.

  35. Chrylser needs a better warranty!They now have(according to autoblog.com, post from 9 sept 06, showing all makers warranties) the Worst warranty out of all makers out there.https://www.autoblog.com/site-map/?sid=3Dodge RAMhttp://www.lotpro.com/cars/2006/dodge/ram_1500/There must be a reason for this?Why such a low warranty, 3/36K drivetrain!?!? What is this, 1990!?My 1990 Sentra XE had a 1year/12,000 miles bumper-to-bumper warranty, and a 3/36K drivetrain(like Chrysler has in 2006!?!).

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *