2008 Dodge Avenger R/T AWD

2008 Dodge Avenger R/T AWD 2008 Dodge Avenger R/T AWD
Short Take Road Test

A number of our opinionated readers have ruled that the BMW CS concept resembles the Dodge Charger. The mid-size Dodge Avenger also shares styling cues with its showroom sibling, so by transitive relation, the Avenger looks like a futuristic BMW coupe. Can we get an amen? Okay, maybe that’s a stretch, but if the aggressive grille and the curved rear haunches don’t make the Avenger look like a rear-wheel-drive car, at least it looks like it wants to be a rear-wheel-drive car.

The Avenger is essentially identical to the Chrysler Sebring sedan, but we prefer the Avenger’s appearance. Powertrain options consist of a 173-hp, 2.4-liter inline-four; a 189-hp, 2.7-liter V-6; or a 235-hp, 3.5-liter V-6­—all with automatic transmissions. The lesser two engines get four ratios, and the 3.5-liter comes with a six-speed box and adds the R/T badge.

Prices start at $19,265 for the base SE model, but if you want all-wheel drive, it’s available only in the top-of-the-line R/T AWD, which begins at $25,945. With options, our test car rang up at $27,930, not including pricey extras such as a DVD entertainment system ($1195).

The Avenger is comfortable for four, and in a pinch, five fit easily. Rear-seat passengers will feel closed in, though, as the sheetmetal of the rear doors is right where you’d rather look out the window. Overall, the Avenger’s simpler interior is preferable to the clutter of the Sebring’s.

Fortunately, the Avenger’s powertrain performs better than the Sebring’s. The 7.3-second 0-to-60 time is good enough for first place against our last mid-size-sedan comparo group [“Familial Four-Doors,” February 2007]. Repeated stops from 70 mph to standstill induce quick brake fade, but the 189-foot distance is about average. As for fuel economy, our test car averaged an SUV-like 17 mpg.

The Avenger still trails the Honda Accord in refinement and driving enjoyment, but it’s a solid effort. Given our choice of options, we’d stick to front-wheel drive and maybe even opt down to the 2.7-liter engine, which is more attractive on fuel economy and value.