Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Chrysler 300 or Nissan Maxima?

retroericretroeric Posts: 4
edited April 18 in Chrysler
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
«1

Comments

  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    I just spent a few days cross shopping these two cars with a friend. However I think we need to know a little bit more about what you're looking for. While competitors, these two cars do have some differences.

    M
  • Not sure what I want yet. My opinion to narrow down to these two cars (as well as a few others not mentioned) are based strictly on cosmetics, and high praise from respected publications. I hope to test drive both this weekend.

    But in your opinion, what do you think are the pros and cons of each car? I'd like to have an idea of what to look out for while I am testing them.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    What are you looking for, what are your priorities?

    Maybe another way to ask this is to ask you what qualities have gotten you to focus on these two vehicles?
  • The only thing that has drawn me to these two are the body styles and the rave reviews from motortrend. As for qualities, I want a big, safe but stylish sedan, V6, good acceleration, around 3.0 to 3.5 hp, smooth and quiet ride, respectable on fuel economy, one that has been redesigned not too long ago so it's not due for another redesign for a good 4 or 5 years. Preferable under $30,000. Both these cars seem to fit these descriptions.

    I know bottom line is I have to test drive them, but I'd like to hear some pros and cons of each before I go test drive so I know what to look out for ahead of time.
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    So you'd be considering the V6 300? Like a Touring or Limited? It has been my opinion (of course without driving any) that if you're shopping V6s, the 300 loses some of its charm. No offense to happy 300 V6 owners. I will say the Maxima will be faster than the 3.5L 300, for sure. If it's an SE, more performance oriented all around. If it's an SL, who knows.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    Be sure to look through the individual discussions on each of these vehicles as well as check out the Vehicle Detail Pages on Edmunds.com. This will give you additional information to process while we have this conversation here.
  • Considering no one has answered your question, let me put in my 2 cents worth. I don't know much about the Nissan Maxima, so most of my comments will focus on the 300 because I own one. I currently have a Cool Vanilla 300 Touring (but with all of the packages available that make it the equivalent of a limited, including the wheels) that I purchased in mid July here in Canada. Style - For distinctiveness, nothing in the price range will turn someones head faster. I would think that most would agree, the 300 beats the Maxima (and many other cars on the road today) in the style category. Power - considering the Maxima is a little lighter and available with a similar sized engine, I'd give the edge to the Maxima. BUT, you won't be dissapointed with the power available in the 300. Quick acceleration that pulls all the way up to 100km/h, and beyond. Mileage - above average. In Canada, it's rated at 35 miles per imperial gallon highway (which is a little larger than a US gallon). I'm usually getting 32 mpg, and almost all (95%) of my mileage is highway. Close enough, considering how unrealistic these fuel economy tests are. Comfort - amazing. I have driven 4.5 hrs nonstop (450 km or 270 miles) and I was still comfortable. Lots of legroom, soft touch materials, etc...It is quiet, especially at speed on the highway, although the Goodyear Integrity tires that came with it are somewhat loud, but thats the tire, not the car. Longevity - this car isn't due for a re-design/freshening until 2009 or 2010, according to Chrysler. I'm not knocking the Nissan. It's a good car. I just think, for me, the 300 is better. Anyway, thats my opinion.But as others have said, you'll need to test drive them both to be able to make an informed decision.
  • abeabe Posts: 19
    if you're comparing the v6 version of the 300 vs the maxima then for size and comfort go for the chrysler. if performance is important go for the maxima.
  • beaugbeaug Posts: 1
    Advise you to look up the Shimmy Issue with 2004-2005 Maxima SE - Nissan Buying back my 2004... Great looks, poor execution. Looking at the 300c myself once i surrender my car to nissan an the buy back is done.
  • jerrymaxjerrymax Posts: 2
    My viewpoint may not be that helpfull because I've never driven the newest addition of the Maxima. But I have owned a 1997 Maxima for many years and a couple of years ago I spent a week in Florida driving a rented 2006 Chrysler 300 touring edition so I can make a comparison between these two cars. I enjoyed the Chrysler very much. It had the 3.5 litre 250 hp V6 [250 lb ft of torque also] and despite the sheer bulk of the car it did not feel under-powered. My Maxima is quicker and more nimble, more like a sports car, but the Chrysler 300 was quite fast for its size and easy to control under all circumstances. The braking power, for instance, was very impressive. I'm sure the eight cylinder models are very fast. It was cavernous inside with plenty of room both front and back and the leather seats were very comfortable. I liked the way the dashboard was laid out and of course the car has drop-dead gorgeous good looks; it's a real head turner. At one point I passed a black Bentley at an intersection in a gaited community and you could hardly tell the two cars apart. I can attest to the durability of the Nissan Maxima---I've got 154,500 miles on mine and it runs like it's new---and I sense that this Chrysler 300 is tank solid also. If I buy another car, the 300 will be high on my list. I've never much cared for the styling of the current Maxima model, which debuted in 2004, which is why I've never bothered to drive one yet but I'm sure the quality is very high.
  • johnmarcojohnmarco Posts: 22
    Wow; that took me a second. This post was started in October, 2005. I was wondering why you thought the Maxima was good for a few more years still, considering all the news of the updated 09 model. Anyways, you've probably long-since checked out of this forum, but I wonder what car you ended up choosing and how that worked out for you?

    I recently rented a V6 Charger, twin of the 300. Actually enjoyed driving it, but the engine was very underpowered for a car this size. It literally struggled to get up a steep hill with me and two normal-sized passengers.

    I've been a fan of the Maxima for years and years; that would get my vote easily. But the style has been just luke warm for me.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    Keep in mind that there are two different V6 engines available with the Charger (i.e. the 190 hp 2.7 liter engine and the 250 hp 3.5). Also keep in mind that a great many of the Chargers in the rental fleets have the smaller of the two engines.

    While I haven't driven a 2.7 liter version, I have driven the 3.5 liter 5-Speed AWD version as well as RWD Hemi. Needless to say the Hemi was by far the faster car, however, the 3.5 was no slouch and very much up to the task of climbing the hills around here in southern New Hampshire.

    I guess that was a long way of suggesting that you probably rented a 2.7 liter Charger, a car that very few individuals would buy.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • coolrunningcoolrunning Posts: 117
    Good point Shipo. I owned two 300M's (1999 and a 2004 Special), both of which were equipped with the 255 HP 3.5L High Performance V6. This is the same engine you will find in the better equipped Chargers. It is a great engine! Chrysler should never have put the 2.7L V6 in anything bigger than a Sebring. Having said that, one of the main reason for buyiong my 300C was the 340 HP 5.7L MDS HEMI V8 and the Mercedes 5 speed autostick transmission. This combination is available in both the Chrysler 300C and the Dodge Charger R/T. The Daytona Charger also has the same engine, but it has a better exhause system that yields ten more horses bringing it up to 350HP. If I could not afford or justify buying the HEMI, I would absolutely buy the 3.5L V6 again. :)
  • smithedsmithed Posts: 444
    While I have a 5.7, I would not hesitate to buy the 3.5 liter in a 300 or a Charger :shades: . I have a 1999 Intrepid with the 3.2 (same as the 3.5 with a smaller bore) and now have 126,000 miles with no engine difficulties. Good power for that big car. :)
  • johnmarcojohnmarco Posts: 22
    I definitely didn't know that Dodge offers two V6s for the Charger. You have to be right that I rented the smaller one. I can't overemphasize how weak it felt.

    You gotta wonder why they offer up poorly equiped models for rent. That's just terrible advertising. I walked away thinking that I would never in a million years consider buying such a gutless turkey, even though I liked the ride.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    Yeah, I've been scratching my head and winding my watch while I've pondered that one as well. Granted, I suppose there are a few (precious few I'm betting) that either don't care about the extra power or who need a car of that size but cannot afford the extra $1,325 that seperates the SE (the 2.7 model) and the SE Plus (the base 3.5 model). Of course the other way to look at the SE Plus is that for that extra dough, you get a far superior motor, Stability Control, ABS, Traction Control, Cast Aluminum wheels, 8-Way Power Seat, Floor mats, and Sirius Radio. Quite a bargain I'm thinking.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • xtecxtec Posts: 354
    I have a 06 Charger SXT with the 3.5,and I can tell you it doesn't lack power.If feels more like a small block V8 instead of a V6.I had borla dual exhaust installed which gave me more power,plus raised my MPG.This is my second 3.5 H.O and think the 3.5 is a great engine.Im very pleased with this car.
  • coolrunningcoolrunning Posts: 117
    I don't think the 2.7L V6 should be mounted in any car bigger than a PT Cruiser or a Sebring. The High Output 3.5L V6 is an excellent engine for many applications, including the Charger and 300. It is great performer, and is economical enough for me. Still, after driving the 340 HP 5.7L HEMI in my 300C, I just couldn't go back. The extreme 425 HP 6.1L HEMI in the SRT was actually a bit too much for the everyday commute. It sure was fun, but not very practical. It always amazes me how saving a thousand bucks on the sticker can strip down a car to where it is not nearly the car it could be. I enjoy all the gadgets and convieniences too much to leave them off the spec sheet. Perhaps that is why the 300 price range is from around $22,000 (base model) to $48,000 (SRT). I was able to land one of my loaded 2006 Heritage Editions for $36,000 though the sticker was over $42,000. I have never found a better car for a better price. ;)
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    Yup, the Heritage is a nice setup. My biggest beef with the 300C is that it cannot be had with three pedals under the dash, and that is one of the biggest things keeping the 300C off of my short list.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • xtecxtec Posts: 354
    You can get the Challenger with a 6 speed.Same platform as the 300.Plus 375 horses with the 5.7 Hemi
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    As a proud owner (errr, former owner) of a 1970 Challenger, I an very much looking forward to the new Challenger, unfortunately I'm now hearing rumors that the 6-Speed manual has been scrubbed, and if that's the case, I'll not be buying. :(

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • xtecxtec Posts: 354
    The latest news I read was there will be a 6 speed 5.7,and the 6.1 without MDS.I was a proud owner of a '68 Road Runner,with a 383 Magnum and a Hemi four speed transmission,fast car.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    "...,fast car."

    I've often described that setup as a car in which it's illegal to flex your right foot. :shades:

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • xtecxtec Posts: 354
    I didn't do much flexing,when I dragged someone I left my foot to the floor until the race was done,or I missed a shift.
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    I guess that was a long way of suggesting that you probably rented a 2.7 liter Charger, a car that very few individuals would buy.

    No, No. There is only one V6 in the Charger. Chrysler did not put the 2.7l in the Charger because it is more sport oriented.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    Funny that this thread is coming back around right now. I was on a trip a couple of weeks back and due to a mechanical failure/canceled flight/very late arrival, the car I reserved was no longer available and they gave me a "free upgrade" to a Charger. Guess what, it had a 2.7 liter engine in it, and yes, it was gutless.

    Your post had me wondering if the rental agencies had el-cheapo special editions made just for them so I checked the Dodge web site. Guess what? They do list a 2.7 liter version of the Charger. Both the Charger SE "C" Package and the Charger SE "D" Package come with the 2.7 liter V6, however, everything from the Charger SE Plus and higher either comes with the 3.5 liter V6 or some version of a Hemi. ;)

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    Well that's new, because they certainly didn't offer the 2.7 when the Charger debuted. It's probably a gas saving move.

    It is funny this thread has been revived, seeing that there is a new Maxima-again. But now, as the new one has decreased so much in size, the 300 wouldn't be a good comparison. But the Pontiac G8 would.
  • coolrunningcoolrunning Posts: 117
    The 2.7L engine serves only to give Chrysler a black eye every time they install in a vehicle. It has never been a comparable engine to any Japanese small engine of similar displacement, and it really spoils the cars. I wish they would just stop cursing their entry level vehicles with this lame engine and contract another engine manufacturer to build some efficient, stronger small engines for them. Some people are looking for just fuel economy, but there isn't that much difference between the 2.7L and the 3.5L. The smaller (underpowered) engine works a lot harder all the time, and the larger engine (more powerful) doesn't have to work so hard to get the job done. I have driven some Toyotas with a 2.4L engine that ran circles around the Chrysler 2.7L and got 34 mpg while doing it. Why can't Chrysler do it? Also, I noticed in the 2008 brochure for the 300C they mentioned "up to 11% more fuel efficiency is possible with the MDS system on the 5.7L HEMI". If it periodically unloads 50% of the cylinders, why isn't it 50% better fuel efficiency?
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    "If it periodically unloads 50% of the cylinders, why isn't it 50% better fuel efficiency?"

    Look at it this way, if the engine was being called upon to deliver say 32 hp to sustain say 65 mph (just an educated/non-scientific guess that probably isn't far off the mark), then each cylinder needs to be fed enough gas and air to develop 4 hp. Since the engine is designed to put out 42.5 hp per cylinder at WOT, running the engine at less than a tenth of that power is not terribly efficient.

    When the ECU shuts off half of the cylinders, the power requirement of 32 hp to sustain the speed doesn't drop one bit, and as such, each of the 4 remaining cylinders must now be called upon to produce 8 hp. Even though the 8 hp isn't likely to be as efficient at burning fuel as whatever the engine's most efficient point is, it's still more efficient than asking 8 cylinders to produce 4 hp each, hence the 11% bump in fuel economy.

    Make sense?

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • xtecxtec Posts: 354
    I agree with you that the 2.7 isn't the best engine that Chrysler made.The good news is the new engines in 2010,the Phoenix engines will be more power with better FE.These will be Mercedes and Chrysler design.
«1
This discussion has been closed.