The state of affairs for the convertible in America is a sad one. If you want to drop your top without buying into an expensive prestige brand, your choices are slim. Sadly, conditions don’t appear to be improving anytime soon, either. I think I know how to save convertibles, but you’re not going to like it. The next generation of convertibles should be crossovers, but they shouldn’t be half-baked like previous attempts. Instead, they should be like the Chrysler Sebring.
When I was a kid, there were countless normal cars that you could buy as convertibles. On any given day, I could spot a Geo Metro convertible, a Chevy Cavalier convertible, a Pontiac G6 convertible, a Toyota Solara, a Toyota MR2, a Chrysler PT Cruiser convertible, a Nissan 240SX, and so many more. The world of convertibles was vast, and there was something for everyone. All sorts of automakers were in on the trend, from Volkswagen and Audi to Saab and Mini. Even the modern Cadillac had a convertible! Some cars looked their best as ‘verts, like the Chrysler Crossfire.
The convertible, like the wagon and the minivan, has fallen into a niche, and that’s sad.
Two decades ago, just about every automaker had a convertible; now you have to actively seek one out. Here in America, if you want a convertible as a normal car, your only three choices are the Ford Mustang, Mini Cooper, and the Mazda Miata. Remember, some automakers don’t even want to sell cars at all, so convertibles aren’t even on the menu. Still in the normal category would be the Ford Bronco and Jeep Wrangler, but these are SUVs, not cars.
There are plenty of convertibles out there if you have a lot of dough to spend. Mercedes-Benz, Bentley, Maserati, Aston Martin, BMW, McLaren, and Porsche will be stoked to sell you a convertible for a pile of cash. GM will also let you enjoy some open-top action if you buy a Corvette or a Hummer EV. But all of these cars are a far cry from what used to be.
I bet people would be willing to buy normal cars as convertibles again, but automakers might need to get creative. I just spent a week with the Autopian’s Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet, and over 4,050 miles, I concluded that Nissan had the right idea, but the wrong execution.
I can’t believe that I’m going to say this, but I actually miss when Chrysler sold the Sebring and slapped a convertible top on it. The more I think about it, the more I think the Sebring had the right ingredients for a normal convertible. What if someone made a Sebring convertible crossover?
What Nissan Got Wrong
As the story goes, the Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet was the brainchild of the infamous Carlos Ghosn, who felt that older folks would want a crossover that was easy to get into and out of, but had a convertible top like the cars of their younger years. There’s another, sort of mythical branch of the story that suggests that Ghosn’s wife wanted a convertible SUV, so he had Nissan’s engineers make it a reality. The CrossCabriolet hit the market in 2011 as a sort of luxury halo car with standard AWD, a VQ V6, and a starting price of $47,190.
The CrossCabriolet was a dud seemingly from the start. Not even the motoring press received it well, and something like 6,000 or 6,400 examples were sold before Nissan gave up. Automobile’s Aaron Gold minced no words:
“The idea was bad, the execution was bad, and the styling, well, it was just terrible, top up or top down. Worse yet, Nissan insisted on a paint palette full of metallic pastel colors and a white interior, which makes driving a Murano CrossCabriolet feel rather like riding around in Zsa Zsa Gabor’s wardrobe.”
Now, I think Gold was being way too harsh here. I mean, we’re saying a car is bad for having pastel colors? I thought automotive journalists champion the use of real colors? Also, given how big BMW grilles have gotten, the CrossCab might be one of the least offensive designs of the recent era.
All it took me was dropping the roof just once to understand what Nissan was going for here. Crossovers ride high, are usually spacious, are usually practical, and still drive like cars. In theory, the CrossCab is that, but now with a top that opens to the world. This won’t disappear under the hood of a Super Duty like a Miata, and, in my experience, it’s a legitimately good winter car. Honestly, I adore this thing so much.
Except, the theory falls flat, somewhat. The seats are fine, and even the backseat works if you aren’t too tall. But one of the great advantages of crossovers, storage, is entirely missing.
The trunk has just enough room for two carry-on suitcases, but only if you carry nothing else in there. Should you carry something larger than a carry-on, the backseat will be your trunk. This is because the roof has to live in the trunk. In other words, it’s a convertible crossover that’s exactly as practical as a sports car. Add the fact that the CrossCab had a fuel economy rating that topped out at 22 mpg, and I’m not surprised people weren’t lining up to pay nearly 50 large for one of these. Oh yeah, that absurd price was also something else.
The folks of Land Rover improved on the CrossCabriolet concept with their Range Rover Evoque convertible. The people who thought the Nissan looked bad seemed to love the vibes of the Evoque convertible. But the Range Rover still had the same overall issues as the Nissan, as the droptop version of the Evoque was slower, heavier, and far less practical. It’s unclear how many of those were sold as JLR never released sales data, but I reckon it wasn’t particularly crazy. The Evoque convertible also had an even worse base price of $58,695, so that was hardly a “regular car,” either.
Time For A Rebirth
Here’s my proposal for a revival of the convertible. I think Nissan and Land Rover had the right idea in turning crossovers into convertibles. Crossovers are what sell. The Mustang Mach-E kicks the regular Mustang’s butt on the sales floor. A new regular car convertible should be based on what counts as a regular car for the era, and that’s the crossover.
I would start with a crossover that’s affordable. Maybe something like a Chevy Trax, Toyota Corolla Cross, Ford Bronco Sport, or a Volkswagen Taos—not a top-spec crossover.
In cutting the roof off, the automaker should maintain the base vehicle’s rear seating. Space is supposed to be one of the upsides to a crossover, so keep it! I would also keep the trunk fairly large, too. When the roof is up, the trunk should be able to be used like a normal car. This sounds silly, but the Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet doesn’t even have a normal trunk when its roof is up. It’s compromised no matter what.
I don’t think there is much that can be done about when the roof is folded back, but if this theoretical convertible crossover is based on an electric car, I could see a frunk being used to make up for the loss of rear space.
Really, what I’m thinking about here is a sort of modern Chrysler Sebring convertible. The brilliance of the Sebring convertible, I think, was that it was still just an everyday Sebring, but it happened to have a droptop. I mean, just look at the hole that Sebring convertible owners had to store stuff:
Sure, the backseat wasn’t super huge, but I was comfortable enough in the back of one in years past. I’m not at all surprised that I still see Sebring convertibles driving around here in the Midwest, decades after they were last relevant.
The Sebring was almost the perfect convertible. It didn’t ask you to make insanely huge compromises to be able to look at the sky. Four people and some of their gear could fit in it, which isn’t really a thing with the convertible crossovers of the 2010s, despite the fact that they were bigger vehicles. The Sebring ‘vert was also affordable, reliable enough, and not too flashy. It was transportation that happened to have a soft top.
Now, I’m not saying that a crossover convertible is going to sell like hotcakes. I’m sure one of the reasons why convertible cars are a niche is because of slower sales. However, I bet an automaker might be able to carve out at least some success so long as the execution is good enough.
That execution isn’t just the price, the storage, or the features, either. Power roofs are great! But they shouldn’t be so complicated that owners are afraid to open them. Volkswagen screwed that up with the Eos, Smart screwed up its roofs in the Fortwo, and Nissan absolutely missed the mark on the CrossCabriolet. Automakers keep punching out roofs that are way more complicated than they need to be. Simpler is better.
A year ago, our secret designer, the Bishop, pitched his own idea for crossover convertibles. But his piece focused on the kind of convertible top, showing off what crossovers could look like with a Jeep or Bronco-style top, a targa top, or a roof that obscures the backseat.
For me, I think the kind of roof matters a little bit less than the platform. Asking people to pay $50,000 or more to sacrifice storage for a droptop is a huge ask. But it hurts a lot less if the base vehicle is barely over $21,000.
Crossover Convertibles Can Be A Thing
I don’t think I’m entirely crazy here, either. There is evidence to suggest that some people would buy a crossover convertible if it’s done right. The Volkswagen T-Roc Cabrio was famous for outselling the Mazda Miata two-to-one in Europe, making it a popular pick with people and rental companies who want droptops. In 2023, the T-Roc sold so well that it was second only to the Mini Cooper. Granted, at least some of those T-Roc sales were fleet buyers, and sales were roughly 11,000 units a year. But it’s amazing that more T-Rocs flew off lots than BMW 4 Series convertibles. Shoot, Volkswagen sold more T-Roc Cabrios in one year than Nissan sold Murano CrossCabriolets over three years.
To me, at least, after living with one of these rides, the problem seems to be that, in the past, automakers asked you to pay a ton of money for a crossover whose best attribute was its roof. Otherwise, you paid more for a crossover that drove slower and had less space. I’d love to see a convertible crossover that is both a competent daily driver and a convertible. Ford and Jeep have it more or less figured out with their convertible SUVs, but I bet there’s a market of people who like the idea of a Jeep or Bronco’s roof, but have exactly zero interest in owning an off-road vehicle.
Or, perhaps I have fallen off my rocker in the blind love that I have for the Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet. But I swear I see something in the CrossCabriolet. I see what Nissan was trying to do, and I love the idea. But the execution doesn’t live up to the idea. Maybe, one day, we’ll see something as silly as the crossover convertible again, and that time, maybe it’ll stick.
Top graphic image: Nissan and Chrysler
Convertibles are dying because people just hate fun now.
Well, no. It’s not that (I hope). It’s that most people think they can have one car that fulfills all of their desires when in reality its people refuse to deal with any compromise to have something be better in a given dimension. So more fun isn’t allowed if they have to give up cargo space, or towing capacity, or whatever.
If you want some things to be better, some things MUST be worse. You can’t have everything at the same time unless you want complete mediocrity. You MUST be willing to give up something if you want other things to actually be special.
By the time I stop driving I’ll likely have driven 2-seat RWD roadsters for 55-60 years. This is because I realize to get those high points, I have to make other tradeoffs. I’ve realized I am fine with those tradeoffs, and just work around them, and very rarely I’ll even rent another vehicle to do something infinitely better for that specific task.
I am all for more choice in the market but boy is the “regular convertible” not my thing. And I drove a Miata for 15 years.
They always look wrong and can never shake their economy car origins. They’re floppy, heavy, slow, and handle poorly.
A high school friend had the Sebring model in this article and that car was my first encounter with truly horrifying brakes. Just knowing some people out there drive with brakes that poor changed my driving style overnight.
I have had several Lebaron convertibles, A few Mustang convertibles, One of the lovely Eclipse convertibles (first generation). and a PT convertible. The PT was a turbo model and it was fast and handled well. The convertible top parts were german and held up well and operated perfectly. It was stuctured like a crossover and was easy to get in and out of, and would carry four full size people or the back seat folded down for extra cargo space. I suspect Chrysler didn’t make any money on them, but they were affordable in any case. It didn’t help that journalists made fun of them every chance they got. I have a modern Mustang convertible and it is made well and has a quality feel, but I honestly liked the PT better overall.
As a kid and PT Cruiser and G6 convertibles used in the same sentence turned my 41 year old bones to dust.
Ever since the debut of the “skateboard” architecture I have had high hopes that it would unlock the potential for a few more interesting and attainable convertible options. A convertible outside of a Wrangler or Bronco is never going to be a volume seller, but I’d love to have the continued option for droptop fun as I grow up.
It would be closer to costing $21k more than the hardtop is was based on than be $21k altogether. Engineering is still expensive and costs need volume (unlikely) or a high price. Traditional basic convertibles from back in the day were usually a good deal more expensive than the hardtop versions and it was cheaper to make different versions of something back then. Removable hard panels make a lot more sense as they take up less space, are less complicated, and preserve more structure, but aren’t the same to most people as a true convertible. I think the concerns and values of the market that has turned it to CUVs happens to work against the idea of a convertible. While people might like to sit up high, there are too many other compromises that are important to todays’ buyers to make a convertible work with a 2-box shape (no roof storage, limited interior volume, interior noise, more complication, more maintenance, and reduced safety and ruggedness, or at least the perception of such). To move to a raised 3-box something like a Subaru SUS (not a sales legend) to have trunk space, it’s still going to be a compromised volume or require more length to compensate, which makes it bigger, which makes it more expensive (larger platform).
Also, as once said about the Sebring, a convertible is a ridiculous choice for (most) climates.
We can’t have another Sebring, but we could have another Airflow.
https://chatgpt.com/s/m_6939eca1ae2881918cb67e8dfa12ea3f
I think the PT Cruiser convertible was pretty successful (although a bunch of them went into rental fleets). It had a decently sized cargo hold and could legitimately seat 4. I think the folded top just piled up, like an old Beetle. I could argue that the PT was a crossover of a sort.
I think the other commenters are correct. The market just doesn’t exist anymore. I’m 99% convinced that the Miata isn’t profitable these days; it’s more of a halo car for Mazda.
We had a 2000 Sebring convertible (the version before they became ugly). It was fully loaded and was that very nice GOLD color. The interior was quite comfortable, the stereo was pretty good, the dash even had the glowing backlit gauges. It had the Mitsubishi engine and though it was reliable, it was anemic. Still, it was a fun family cruiser especially at a time when the kiddos were smaller and we could all get in the car for a summertime run to Sonic.
What made it especially nice was how well engineered the convertible design was. Fully electric top, decent sized rear glass window with integrated defroster, and (this is important) LARGE DOORS AND INTEGRATED SEAT BELTS WITHIN THE FRONT SEAT. Anyone climbing in the back had a relatively easy path and no climbing through seat belt webbing!
It was slow, a little thirsty, and wallowed like a Chrysler of old. It wasn’t a 4-seat Miata, but it was okay.
My dream would be the comfort and design of the Sebring + the handling dynamics tuned by Mazda with a plug-in hybrid design + range extender. Let’s let the mid-sized battery add stiffness to the chassis, and full time electric drive for that glorious instant torque.
As a convertible owner, I’ll acknowledge that convertible ownership is not as attractive as it once was:
I’m still gonna drive my Miata, but I’m not surprised that fewer people seem into it these days.
As I remember lug nuts on slightly lifted SuV’s from my vantage point in mt Del Sol
“But we have the Wrangler/Bronco.” -Ford and Stellantis missing the point. And wanting you to spend more money for a less comfortable vehicle.
I say this because it was my first thought, but that’s not what we’re asking for at all. The point is a comfortable, inexpensive, and generally useful droptop just in time for Millenial Midlife Crises.
The problem with the Crossover shape is that it doesn’t lend itself to convertibles very well. You either end up with the top entirely outside the body like a Model T Touring, or having it live behind what used to be a hatch, and taking up what is actually more limited cargo space than you might think. Targa roofs will be too high up to take off. I guess they could fold or slide into the targa support though, but that has to go somewhere…
Noble goal, but a major challenge.
When I was a kid, there were essentially no convertibles to be had on the new market. From about 75 or so, to 1982 with the introduction of the new K-based LeBaron, there weren’t any, or certainly none I was aware of. Maybe a Benz.
I’m okay with convertibles going away. They force compromises onto every car that gets the treatment, and in my opinion never makes the car better.
The origin story I’ve heard for the Porsche 911 Targa is that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was considering banning traditional convertibles for safety reasons. Porsche decided to design a 911 that would still offer an open-top experience while being safer and hopefully not banned. Then, apparently, the NHTSA didn’t ban convertibles after all.
But I wonder if other companies were aware of the same deliberations and decided not to design/release many convertibles in that era.
I’ve heard that, but the Targa came out in ’66, which seems early for that concern. What I’ve heard that sounds more likely is that customers wanted a convertible 911 like the 356 had been offered in, but the 911 hadn’t been engineered to fit a convertible top and the Targa was the solution. To back up it being a design issue, when they finally did a full Cabriolet for ’83, the top was awkwardly dumped over the back. The Speedster in the late ’80s had an integrated hard cover for the top, but lost its back seats.
There were two convertibles available throughout the 70’s.
Rolls-Royce Corniche (and it’s Bentley twin)
And Mercedes-Benz 450SL
In 1979, VW introduced the Rabbit Convertible and Ford introduced the Mustang Convertible.
And the Fiat Spider, plus some two seaters like the MGB and MG Midget and Alfa Romeo Spider. But, domestic brand convertibles were all cancelled in 1976 due to industry fears NHTSA was getting ready to ban them, and there were no more domestic badged ones from then until Lee Iacocca decided to cut the roof off a LeBaron coupe
Oh, I forgot about the Italians and Brits (including TR7 and 8) – You are correct.
Hot take but I think it’ll be one of the American-three or VW that’ll come out with a convertible “car” first.
These seem to rise/fall with the fortunes of companies chasing underserved areas of the market. With GM/Stellantis really empty outside of SUV/Trucks and then VW being VW (wtf are they thinking these days?) – they could easily make a play to jump into the wide-open convertible market to “dominate” it.
Stellantis could bring over the Fiat Tipo, cut the roof, and have an uninspiring, under-performing, convertible in America.
And VW could kitbash something together from a collection of various bits and release it in America – with all the lack of robustness/reliability, and over-complications that only VW could do.
I’ll take the Fiat
The Crossfire convertible looks fine, but it’s better as a hardtop.
Cars built to be convertible-first tend to look right. Coupes that have had the roof chopped off tend to look wrong.
The Crossfire is absolutely better as a coupe.
A couple people at work have Geo Metro convertibles just as cheap quirky beaters. They are bright colors with a convertible top, they seem to at least try to be fun while being close to the cheapest cars on the market. Hard to imagine something like that being made and selling today.
Another way to boost convertible appeal: combine the ‘safari-spec all the sports cars’ with ‘life is better topless’, add roll cages as needed. Keep the sports-car image, which people are used to seeing as convertibles, but add sidewall height and ground clearance. Extreme version: ‘The Excellent’ as created by The Grand Tour.
Well at least with the Evoque’s price, you were getting a Range Rover. Maybe Nissan should have glued an Infiniti badge on the CrossCab.
Modern people don’t want convertibles because the sun washes out their phone screen or the wind noise ruins their influencer live stream.
Funny you say that, I think had they sold it as an infinity and given it a real transmission, it probably could have sold
I bought a Solara convertible a couple years ago, just for this reason. Toyota’s only offering with the LFA and over $100k was just a wee bit out of reach. And I’m not a big fan of the Mustang and Camaro, so they were immediately off the list.
They’re very cheap too, with the main concern (aside from any other old car concern) being a dashboard that likes to develop cracks and that you’ll likely need a timing belt replacement. I spent a little over $10k on mine, but got a car that was in immaculate condition with ~100k miles on the odometer.
I seriously considered the IS and SC convertibles but the back seat was waaaay too small.
Toyota has my money if they offer something in the ~$35k range that’s a soft top and offers the rear seat room of my Solara. Ironically of all the cars I’ve owned, I get the most questions and comments about the Solara lol. What I also didn’t expect as a convertible driver were the amount of random conversations other drivers would strike up at a stop light when the top is down.
The Sebring convertible, and its predecessor, the LeBaron, always felt like a “tent pole” sort of model that defined the Chrysler brand, as much as the minivan and the 300 series full size cars. A moderately priced 5 seater convertible that wasn’t too far into the sporty image so as to turn off the squares waa a big part of their identity for decades and they did very well with it for the majority of the time, except at the very end where they kinda shit the bed with the final gen Sebring and never recovered. But, I think it was more an issue of Chrysler building a bad product than it was the market vanishing
I’m sure I’ll get all sorts of flak about it, but the Sebring convertible was one of the best cars at its job that I’ve ever owned. It sat four comfortably, had a giant trunk, and the top went down with ease. It had good road manners, and though the 2.7 v6 is known for problems, I found it to be plenty powerful and responsive. If I didn’t have a ’92 LeBaron for sentimental reasons, I would swap it for an ’01-’06 Sebring in a heartbeat.
I like your style, KennyB!
LeBarons and Sebrings FTW.
It did have that magic carpet quality. In that the chassis was about as stiff as a carpet.
This is not meant to unfairly malign the car, as it did fulfill it’s intended purpose quite well, but I always felt like the car might snap in half when I drove it (my sister owned one), such was the chassis flex.
The older LeBarons somehow felt stiffer IMO.
I never noticed it. I realize when you cut the roof off of a sedan you’re giving up rigidity, but I never found it to be an issue. Maybe I just never drove mine hard enough.
I just always notice stuff like that. It’s probably one of the reasons you’re probably much more likable than I.
My Camaro was a victim of Chrysler Sebring violence when it got rear ended, I still cringe every time I see one.