By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
http://www.cardesignnews.com/autoshows/2003/detroit/highlights/h1- 4-lincoln-navicross.html
And here's another view of the G6.
http://www.cardesignnews.com/autoshows/2003/detroit/highlights/h1- 3-pontiac-g6.html
I imagine I'll get roasted on this board for preferring a smaller GM vehicle to the 300C.
As for Volvo, GM should not be working with them. Ford might get a little upset being that Ford owns Volvo. Maybe you are thinking of Saab.
As for quality, I don't know. The old Chrysler was making strides in this department long before Daimler showed up. It remains to be seen whether Mercedes parts will continue that trend.
Dustin: Success will be measured by the bottom line, as always (just like supermodels). It was interesting how the positive tone of the professional auto scribe in Fastdriver's article contrasts with many M owner's negative one. I think there is more working here than just objective opinion of the new car. We all love our M's styling and there's no question the 300C is a real departure from what went before. Apparently, the general expectation of most M owners here was that there would be much more of a family resemblence. But I truly believe that when this car is available to be seen, sat in and especially driven, the general auto buying public will be very excited about it.
Bluesky: No question the G6 is a sleek design. Is there any doubt that Lutz is responsible (where did he come from?). Personally, as an American who wants the economy to start crankin', I'm glad to see the General making progress. They need to because their car offerings in the coupe and four door sedan markets are awful. I don't have a history of GM reliability but I have rented a lot of GM sedans and they are, quite frankly, crap. Hence my ownership of the M.
I have 62,000 miles on the '01, also with NO problems.
Soon will have a '04 Pacifica with the same engine, and hope for similar performance!
Cast iron block, two valves per cylinder, and push rods. Cheaper to manufacture they say. Well of course it is, look at how simplistic it is. It's a throw back to ancient times.
Look at how they're pushing the "Hemi(R)":
Ads on TV with a couple of hick rednecks acting like doofuses (yes, the ads ARE funny) drag racing a RAM pickup, pulling a 68 or 69 Charger (sorry I haven't look close enough to see the exact year) with a "Hemi(R)" - the "heritage ploy". Point being the ad is for a truck, indirectly pushing the "Hemi(R)" as a truck engine and drilling that pretty hard into the public mind.
Now DC is trying to convince us that the 300 is supposed to be a "premium" brand and what does it use for an engine? The "Hemi(R)"! What is the "Hemi(R)" in the public's mind? A truck engine. A truck engine in a $40k "premium" car, you say? Oh that ought to really have the Cadillac, Lexus, and Volvo buyers just flocking to the Chrysler show rooms. Sorry, but the "Hemi(R)" is an over hyped, lame excuse for an engine especially in the market this car will compete.
[Sarcasm mode on]
Much as I hate saying it, they'd have been better off putting a MB V8 in this thing and calling it the "Chrysler 300" by Mercedes Benz.
"Hemi" is a registered trademark of DaimlerChrysler.
[Sarcasm mode off]
One thing that amazes me is that it has a very upscale interior. Pontiacs I'd seen recently had pretty drab, low-rent interiors. I'm hoping that under Lutz they'll improve interiors, safety (GM has really sucked at those ratings), and put a good dose of sound deadening. This reminds me of the Altima, which looked very nice in the photos, but when produced had a low-rent interior made out of very cheap plastics, and was overly LOUD to boot.
Right now my favorite potential next car is the Accord coupe, 4cylinder, which has surprising acceleration, luxury, and fuel economy of 24/34. But the G6 is much more beautiful and I only hope it can be executed with some hard American sweat to the details.
"Wow, a positive article by"
LOL.... I post them as I find them- good, bad or indifferent. It is interesting to see how this 300C has evoked much discussion here both pro and con.
I guess time will tell how it is accepted by the public once it's in the showroom.
scottjohnson-
Why do you think Ford is dropping the T-Bird? Price? It draws my attention also whenever I see one. If I could afford several cars in my garage, the T-Bird would be one of them. Having owned convertibles in the past, I agree that a convertible is a great ride on a sunny day.
fastdriver
http://www.detnews.com/2003/autosinsider/0304/26/b01-146645.htm
http://www.detnews.com/2003/autosinsider/0304/26/autos-145159.htm
fastdriver
When the '02 birds were finally announced, I went to the dealer and asked about it. They said "we only get four and they're all spoken for so forget about it for a year". Not exactly a way to encourage buyers. When the birds finally did start to come out in more than a trickle, EVERY dealer marked them up 5-10K over sticker.
The bird I bought was actually an extra one the local dealer bought from a dealer in Washington and they paid that dealer 2K over sticker. It sat on their lot for over a month until I bought it - at 2K over sticker. I don't expect to EVER pay over sticker for another vehicle, but my wife really, really wanted to car and so did I.
By the time there were enough birds on the market, the economy turned down. And all the prospective buyers are conditioned to think of the birds as extremely over-priced and hard to come by. I think that is why sales have been disappointing. Ford has missed the market conditions twice in a row.
Having said all that, we really love this car. It turns heads, is comfortable, and just fits us.
I am not talking about the special which you could get a few more HP because of that engine. All I use is regular and have had no problems.
The car will be offered in 3 flavors:
Sedan this fall.
2 door coupe, spring 2003.
retractable hardtop convertible, fall 2005.
Source: Automobile Magazine, May 03 pg. 49
I'll bet somewhere on that G6 is written: "Lutz was here!"
What the M's coulda, shoulda, woulda been if he was still running the real Chrysler Corporation.
LOL... Even I liked the original 300 concept car! Not that I would have ever bought one, but I thought it would be a SURE winner and a great seller!
Oh well, so much for dreams. Guess Deiter doesn't read the comments in that other board either even though he is supposedly a member. I have NO clue who will be interested in the 300C. I cannot imagine anyone paying $40,000+ for a Chrysler, HEMI or no HEMI. I don't think too many people in the snowbelt areas will be looking for a rear drive HEMI. As for the Pacifica- talk about BLAND looking! UGH! I don't think it will be around long either. It's a station wagon no matter what they want to classify it as.
fastdriver
I guess I'm having a hard time blaming "Chrysler" for failing to connect to the current 300M enthusiasts, because the Chrysler that made the 300M is not around anymore. Chrysler Corporation, with Tom Gale and Robert Lutz, designed and engineered the 300M. Now, I wasn't exactly thrilled with the 300M, being that it was nothing like the original 300 letter cars, BUT, it was a nice looking car that drew great reviews, and probably would have been one of the few Chrysler vehicles I would have bought. Robert Lutz is now at GM, where I think he has brought some old Chrysler styling and thinking to the General. Tom Gale and Neil Walling (sp?), who I both expect styled the 300 Hemi C convertible are long gone, as are other top Chrysler employees. I have talked with some Chrysler people, and they told me that it isn't the same Chrysler. Daimler took over. Why do I mention this? Because everybody is blaming Chrysler for screwing up the next 300, when I think Daimler is the one that is giving you guys the 300C concept car. There was an earth shattering move in 1998 that I feel destroyed the Chrysler culture that allowed the 300M, 300 Hemi C concept, Charger R/T concept, PT Cruiser, and Viper to see the light of day. Most of the people who brought those cars out are no longer at "Chrysler". Chrysler is becoming nothing more than a badge. I know many people could care less, they just want a great looking, reliable car. That is fine, but if you want to know why the 300C is a totally different car (in styling and concept) than the 300M, you only have to look at the beginning name of the company to figure it out.
I figure the Pacifica will sell pretty well, but I'm not buying the idea that it is a segment buster. Maybe the Pacifica will be a short timer, but I figure Daimler put a lot of time and money into this vehicle, and they won't give up. I don't know what will happen. The marketplace will decide its fate.
golfnut5: Use 87 octane! I used 89 in my '99 300M for a month, and then switched to 87 for the next 129,000 miles.
May you have the same good luck with your M as I did with my 2!
For Daimler to consolidate its control over Chrysler they had to systematically kill any traces of the Chrysler Corporation identity so they could implement the outdated Daimler culture and its way of doing business.
It appears, on the surface anyway, that DaimlerChrysler is turning the Chrysler portion into nothing more than a low rent Mercedes Benz clone. Sort of like Bentley used to be to Rolls-Royce. Bentley's resembled RR's but with hotter engines and more agressive underpinnings. In this case the cars have MB underpinnings but don't resemble the father. Witness the Crossfire.
After seeing the Pacifica, my reaction is that it simply isn't unique enough to differentiate itself in the marketplace. And it's hobbled by being pretty heavy and underpowered. I don't think it's bad, but it's by no means good enough to grab significant market share either.
The Pacifica need a better engine to stay competitive with the other so called wagons out there. It is sad they took design back to the 60's. anong with engine design.
G6 - I don't really care for it. I can't put my finger on it right now, but it reminds me of something else I've seen (sort of a been there done that thing) -- kinda like the the early Saturn coupes. I'm not knocking Grand Ams though -- I had an 88 and it was a great car for it's price range. One of those "bang for your bucks" type of cars...Just like the M is
So much for the "you get better mileage with 89 octane" theory. I'd still swear that the engine has more grunt during fast acceleration with the 89, but now I'm kind of wondering.
I'm sitting in my 300M wondering if she is ever going to hit the brakes. Or will my marvelous Chrysler and possibly me with it, get covered in gas or even end up in a nasty fireball like the movies.
Her Subaru just kept rolling for about 20 feet. At about 10 feet, the hose broke away from the pump and was dragging behind. She never did look up!
I'm extremely pleased with the engineers who designed the break-away features in the system! I didn't even know they existed until today. I didn't see a single drop of gas get spilled anywhere. The station manager just had the attendant recover the hose, put the gas cap back on, and send her on her way.
It was quite a few miles before my heart rate was back to normal!
The LH cars are an end of an era (as mentioned by Kosh). Get ready for the LX era.
The ironic thing is that Chrysler used to have the swoopy, sleeker cars, while Mercedes was hammered for having boring looking cars. Now, it is flip-flopped.
I think it's beautiful, and I also like the looks of the new Maxima a lot, which BTW looks better in person than in the pix. Sleek and muscular is what I like; I guess that's why I own an 'M.
Jenning's brother, Paul Lienert wrote the Detroit News article on the C. Not surprisingly he likes it as well.
Thanks--Luck to all--Jack
Nissan has come along the most in design in recient years. I was never a fan of over and under headlamps. and those Azzera (not sure how they are spelled) tail lamps are not for me. I do like the 02 300M tail lamps. especially if they get rid of the amber part.
With that said I found my new Automobile mag waiting when I got home from 10 days away. It had a big article on the 300C and also on the faux-Hemi engine. The explanation for the new letter for the car was amusing. But as I visualized all those old diesel MB cars of a decade or two ago I thought that they shouldn't make this a letter car. Give it a new name, and then it hit me, how about the "Menopause?" That name would jibe with its "matronly" appearance, would give it the "age" and dignity it deserves, would highlight its old MB diesel underpinnings, and stop the arguments over New Yorker, Imperial or 300N. Clearly, the writer of the article has not visited this site to get crowd reaction from "loyal" DC owners of the M, who were anxiously awaiting a new brilliant arrival.
I also resent the implication that this new 300 is an "older person's" car, I'm older and wouldn't even consider it given its boxy Buick like appearance and now that I know the Hemi is a tricked-up version of the real Hemi, no way.