The Dodge Magnum article in the May issue of Car and Driver says that a 3.5L equipped wagon will do 0 to 60 in 7.5 seconds, so perhaps the 3.5L 300 models, being a few pounds lighter, could improve upon that figure just a bit. The quarter mile figures for the 300C are 13.9 seconds at 102 MPH; for the 3.5L Magnum they are 15.8 seconds at 89 MPH.
If the 3.5L can propel the Magnum to 60 in 7.5 seconds, that's not bad, as I'm pretty sure my '95 3.5L, the 214 HP one, gets the Intrepid to 60 in a tick over 8. Can't find any numbers on it, though, and my C&D collection is at home...
I have to wonder if the new Magnum station wagon will be called just that, a station wagon, or if we'll apply "SUV" to yet another vehicle which already has a name for the style.
Too bad the 300 has such and ubelievably poor and bone-jarring ride and you can't get the Hemi with a compliant suspension. The reviewer says hitting bumps can knock the wind out of you. Sounds as harsh as a Mini Cooper S.
The simple solution is to add a spoiler. This is not a new problem. The spoiler on my '88 Bonneville SSE really helped when backing the car.
The USA Today review is the only one to claim such a ride problem, even though the photos show they probably drove the cars in palm Springs along with the many other reviews. I think the best review is still the one at auto123.com. It is detailed, and has many photos, such as the suspension, drive train, and cylinder deactivation I have not seen anywhere else.
Consumer Guide says Chrysler claims 6.3 seconds for the 300C. That sounds realistic. C & D presumably didn't test a production car. Who knows what had been done to the engine.
I don't remember any other articles commenting on the ride of the 300C one way or another. Maybe they were more interested in the handling than ride. I would be sad if the car was ruined by a super-hard ride, but that is what the latest USAToday says. The reviewer says it is for masochists. He mentions how poor the ride is over and over. He recommends the 300 Limited since it has adequate power with a livable ride.
Would like to see a test report on the 2.7 engine. It may due 0-60 some were around 9.3 seconds. Does it have a better ride than the other models and is it quieter?
I certainly don't believe most of what I read in a liberal paper such as USA Today. The photo published with the USA Today article seems to have been taken in Palm Springs at the press preview.
Many other reviews have been published. Edmunds, Canadian Driver, Auto123(the best, detailed, and with photos of the suspension, drive train, and cylinder deactivation I have not seen anywhere else), and others. None of those mentioned anything like what he describes.
Regarding acceleration: From what I remember from following the 300M boards back in the late 1990s, the Chrysler automatic was not the most efficient transmission at getting the power from the engine to the wheels. In fact, I remember that a test was done with a bone stock 300M with a ZF automatic, and the acceleration numbers were dramatically improved. That said, I understand that DC is now using the drive train from the W210 E-Class for the LX series. If that's true, the extra weight of the 300 as compared to the Intrepid and 300M could be more than offset by the more efficient drive train. Yes, no?
Regarding the Magnum: I just received an E-Mail from Dodge today about the Magnum. When I clicked on the "Build your own" link I found the Magnum in the section for "Trucks/SUV". Hmmm, I thought it was a Station Wagon.
Regarding the alleged 0-60 in 5.3: well, if the density altitude was low enough, say a couple of thousand feet below sea level, I'd have no problem believing it. Anything else might be a bit of a stretch. It will be interesting to see what the rest of the Auto Rags have to say.
I posted yesterday with a link to another board, so it was removed. Sorry about that!
On my WWW page I have links to two *great* videos of the 300C in action. One of them is in my update from 04/02/2004 and the other 03/31/2004. The 04/02 video is 3.2MB and is of a 300C smoking its way around a corner. The 03/31 video in on a German site and the video is *large* but also worth seeing. Choose your viewer (Real or MS) and click ISDN or DSL. Give it some time and it will start up for you. Here's a link to my site:
The 300 lbs. is relevant, but on the transmission aspect, there are cases related directly to the gear ratio spacing, a six speed will require one more shift before 60 MPH than a five speed, negating any perceived acceleration aid.
Also, isn't the new Goat a manual? Yeah, I thought so. In this case, you have launches which are open to human variance as well as mechanical.
C&D, and I'm sure others, use calculations to equalize ambient conditions so all the timed runs have numbers which were attained under identical temperature/humidity/pressue conditions. Probably sea-level, 40% humidity, 70F, and a certain barometric pressure.
This can't take into account truly hot and cold conditions, as those have noticable effects on a tire's ability to 'grab', but they do pretty well, otherwise.
Ack, the Magnum labeled an "SUV". Sheesh. Someone ought to be smacked around, daily, for about six months for that lame-brained decision.
Based on the video I've just now see, I can see tires aren't going to last long, at least with me at the wheel.... ;-)
that's too bad about the ride characteristics on the c...hopefully, the reviewer is exagerating somewhat because that's EXACTLY what i don't want. the ride should be compliant with some body roll and yet still have some stick in the corners...defintely don't want a harsh ride. it is interesting that one of posters who road tested a 300 commented that he thought it was noisy compared to the cts and ls...imo, i equate the elevated noise with not enough isolation from the road and insufficient insulation...doesn't sound promising...will definitely have to road test the c and judge for myself. jackg
My favorite part of the video is the laugh at the end. BTW I received three letters saying in March I would be among the first to receive all the details on the car and a launch event. I have yet to receive anything more. Did this happen to anyone else?
I finally played both - the excellent RTL video would not play until I changed a cookie setting. Some people will probably install mufflers like on that prototype, but they do get old after a while.
The RTL video also includes the first pictures of the trunk I have seen - a big deal for me, since the trunk will determine my choice between a 300 and a Magnum. It has a wide opening, but the opening is not deep due to the short (front to back) trunk lid.
The drifting video was funny - I'll bet the tire companies invented drifting.
Car and Driver said the 300C has a "slightly crusty suspension", whatever that means. Their other comments about the ride quality were not entirely favorable.
I hear ya on the noise...the snow tire ruts both in Colorado, and the ones here in Portland, OR, drive me out of my mind over time. The Oregon ones seem to be much worse, probably because it almost never snows in-town. <sigh>
However, in the LH cars, the reason they handle so well is because of urethane bushings in the suspension components, instead of more compliant rubber. Rubber does a better job of isolation, which is why the car is noisy, and in some cases, harsh for a car its size. Tough trade off, honestly. I have to admit, I still really like the way it feels, especially for a car its size.
I was truly hoping the close-up of the taillight would give a hint as to whether the 300 has separate rear turn signals or not. Personally, it bugs me how US manufacturers don't seem to understand how much better visibility separate signals give, even if they're red. I can see these wouldn't be amber, unless part of the three clear-appearing 'stripes' at the bottom of the lamp housing have turn signals behind them, but they are likely back-up lamps.
Anyone see one of these sitting at a stoplight, ready to make a turn, yet? Here in Oregon, land of the anti-car, I can't imagine I'll see one in motion until *maybe* summer.
I received 8 or 9 letters from Chrysler in February stating that I would be among the first to hear about the 300, but I haven't received anything more from them either. That happened to me with the PT Cruiser convertible too, so it seems to be a habit for Chrysler. That's too bad!
Re: launch event...Just call Chrysler on Monday and have them send an invite out to you. Apparantly, it seems to be on April 22 across the whole nation. Hope we all have our cars before then.
Another question here regarding courrtesy lamps, if they "are" called courtesy lamps. They're the ones on the door and lightup upon opening to warn oncoming traffic. I haven't seen any in any interior pics....To those people that saw / drove a 300, can you remember if the doors had these type of lamps?? Thanks
The courtesy lamps on the new 300 Series are somewhat different from those that were once used on (but then "decontented" from) the 300M/LHS. They are now used only on the front doors, and are mounted on the underside of the door panel, such that they illuminate the ground when the door is opened. The idea is similar to the "puddle lamps" Ford installs on the undersides of the exterior mirrors on some of its SUVs. I've seen one picture of the 300 interior with a door ajar, and there was light reflected into the cabin off of the door sill, but I can't seem to remember where I saw it.
According to Chrysler, the "Front Door Courtesy Lamps" are standard on all four trim levels.
Maybe my pics from the RI car show will answer your question. Picture 20 shows the light that illuminates the ground and something red on the edge of the door which I assume is just a reflector.
Thanks Svevar, for letting me know, for the wife's sake, as I'm already in the doghouse for spending 535 bucks on a stereo upgrade (Sound Group II), that doesn't have a cassette player for her piles of tapes. I "sort of" appeased her by going out and getting a bunch of C&W cd's. It helped, but didn't exactly let me off the hook.........LOL
I didn't search through this but remember someone was asking about if a full size spare would fit in the trunk...and I don't remember seeing the answer.
That would be me Brad, thanks. It eventually came out that Mopar designed the inflatable spare to sit in the trunkwell at an angle to foldup in the event of a 50 mph collision. That may have been well thought of, but doesn't help the pessimists like me, that would rather carry a conventional spare. Hell, I'm not even sure if those self-sealing Continenetals are "tried & true". Will they seal when they're three years old, and it's -40 below????? I'm still looking at Continental kits. There's an outfit in New Brunswick Canada that has ones that work. They expressed an interest in this, so maybe they'll produce one for 18" rims. Quite a few of these manufacturers only make dummies.
I just saw a 300 on the road today. it was dark blue and it must have been a C model because it had the 18" wheels as far as I can tell.
I have to admit I am impressed by the numbers shown in MT and C&D. There is a significant difference in the braking numbers in the two mags thought. MT has 122 feet which is sports sedan territory, while C&D had 184ft which is average for a large sedan.
in the 300c really come down to a question of design philosophy (sp?). take for example the 300m; this car was built with a decidedly european ride for whatever reason that i won't get into. another example is the buick regal and the now defunct olds intrigue...same basic platform and two completely different rides: the intrigue was euro and the regal gs was american touring, just what i would want.
i was hoping that based on the bold aggressive styling of the 300c that the designers finally realized that copying somebody else is not a good thing...we're in america, guys, not the continent....the ride should be reflective of a large american sedan...some body roll and a little float is not all that bad...especially with the horrible roads we have in this country...well atleast where i live. cadillac has shown repeatedly that you can make a car that has a decent ride but still holds in own in the handling department. i'm hoping that the 300c has the softer suspension settings and the touring components...one can only hope. jackg
I was just up at my dealer and a car carrier pulled in and unloaded a very nice satin jade pearl 300C. The 18-inch chrome wheels are much nicer than the ones on the base model. Also, the chrome dress-up touches on the exterior are nice. I never realized before how tall the rear end was though. Standing next to the trunk lid it was significantly above my waist (I'm 5'7).
The interior was the Jade/Light Gray and was really nice. With the aluminum and tourtise shell accents on the inside, much nicer than the base model I saw previously. By the way, this leather had no "texture" and the was no embossing of the Chrysler Wings on the seat backs like the picture on the Chrysler web site. That myust be just for the limited models or something.
Anyways... back to my title - the sticker on the car (something over $33K clearly had "HOLD FOR PREMIER NIGHT" printed on it!
I think that if you check the fine print that you will see that MT tests braking distances from 60mph while C&D tests from 70mph, hence the disparity in their test numbers.
justgreat47,
Hmmm, I beg to differ. I much prefer a sportier ride to the horribly floaty feeling of the Cadillac CTS that I drove. There is nothing that drives me as crazy as driving a car down the road with suspension compliance that seems about as stable as my old waterbed. :-/
Given that Mr. Bangle has destroyed the BMW line, I am very much hoping that the 300C (or the Hemi Magnum) will have a firm enough ride and crisp enough handling to be a replacement for my 530i when it comes off lease this time next year.
If it is 40 degrees below zero and you have a flat, you're going to pull a full size tire out of a continental kit and put it on the car?
I think it would be easier to pull the smaller tire out of the regular trunk location on the car and put that on the car at those extreme temps. It will get you where you need to go well enough. As the Eagles once said, take it easy, don't let the sound of your own wheels make you crazy.
A continental kit on a 300C would be very expensive and would be in very poor taste.
I'm with you. Give me firm and crisp without harsh handling. I've owned and driven too many of the floating, jiggly, loosey-goosey ones. They scare the hell out of me. The second best ride I've owned is my current E320, and I say second best because I can shake the wheels free of the road on a washboard corner at the right speeds. The best ride I've ever owned never had the tires leave the ground at any time in 99K miles. A 1988 Mazda MX-6. Best handling car (and best seats) with a compliant but firm stance. That's the car that started Mazda's Zoom Zoom attitude.. I sincerely hope that one of the models of the 300 has a carbon copy of the E-class or 5-series ride/handling setup.. If so it will be my next ride.. (I've driven but not owned a 525 and like it a lot except for the underpowered engine.)
Forgive me if this is common knowledge, but are there two styles of headlamps on the 300s? The C version seems to have two large round lights on each side with a body colored bar underneath it (according to the Chrysler brochure.)
The brochure also shows cars (I think the ones that aren't C's) with what appear to be two slightly smaller headlamps on each side with a parking light underneath instead of the body colored piece. Then, the whole thing is covered by a polycarbonate cover. I have seen this in person but did not think to compare it against the "C" at the dealership as it was nose in to the building.
Steven asked: If it is 40 degrees below zero and you have a flat, you're going to pull a full size tire out of a continental kit and put it on the car?
Just this last winter season, we had a low of -44 below, and lucky I never had to change a tire at those temps, but I've changed my share of tires in below zero weather over the last 35 years. (Not to mention a serpentine belt also, and I wouldn't want to do that again)
kvilleboy, Yes the 300c has a different arrangement. See my post at 876. How did the Satin Jade look? That is what I ordered with the Dark Jade/Light slate interior.
The Satin Jade color is very sharp. To my eye it was easily mistaken for silver but the sun was at one of those angles where everywhere you looked it was glaring in your eyes. I hope to go back to the dealer tomorrow to get a better look at it. I am leaning toward that interior/exterior combo myself. Very elegant looking, not seen all of the time, and so much easier to keep clean than black.
At 4am Friday I was taking my youngest daugter to Laguardia for a 6am flight. 15 minutes into the 40 min drive the battery light came on in my 94 New Yorker (still in great shape with 183k miles). You know what happens next, headlights dimmed and 5 miles from the airport the engine died. Then miraculously, the car shuddered, hit a bump on the Grand Central Parkway, compression started and the lights came on full brightness. I was able to get to the airport and then to my mechanic for aa new alternator. A close call. I need my new 300c now!
Unfortunately, with the Banglization of the BMW lineup and Audi's switch to only automatics on the entire A6 line, my choices for stirring my own are becoming limited. Given the choice of driving a CTS 6-Speed with that marshmallow suspension or a 300C automatic with firm setup, I'd take the 300C.
Obviously there are other cars out there that have 4 doors and a stick shift; however, I have issues with each of them. For instance,
G35: Ugly inside and out. The only good news there is that there is a rumored interior freshening due next year. Unfortunately it will still be ugly outside. CTS-V: Expensive and I'm not a fan of GM V8 engines. IS300: Uglier than the G35, CTS and E60 5-Series, combined. Passat: I much prefer RWD cars. The AWD version is interesting but it has too much of a front end weight bias. In any event, I'm not all shot with the styling. TL: FWD, and I think that the styling is uninspired at best, however, it is better looking than the G35, CTS and IS300. 9-3: Quirky and FWD with a GM stain. A4: Too small. Maxima: FWD and not pleasing to my eye. C320 Sport: Too small. S60R: Has potential, but still has a front end weight bias that I'm not fond of.
Ummm, what's left? Cannot think of anything off hand. Anyone?
In favor of the 300C/Hemi Magnum siblings, I have always had a soft spot for Chrysler offerings, and I have always loved their Hemi engines ever since I overhauled one on a 1970 Hemi Charger. Damn those heads were heavy, if memory serves they were something over 100 pounds, each!
So, after nine consecutive new cars with manual gearboxes, will I buy my first new car ever with an automatic transmission? Can't say for sure but I'm sure thinking about it.
Yet another nice review for the 300 Series. Aside from Car and Driver's comment on the "slightly crusty suspension," James Healy from USA Today seems to be the only person with any complaints about the 300's ride. After reading the New Car Test Drive review and others like, in which the authors report a smooth, comfortable ride, I have to wonder if Healy knows what he's talking about. I must admit that I haven't liked his reviews in the past. Perhaps his pre-production test model was defective?
Comments
-- Mark
I have to wonder if the new Magnum station wagon will be called just that, a station wagon, or if we'll apply "SUV" to yet another vehicle which already has a name for the style.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2004-04-01-dri- ve-300_x.htm
Sounds as harsh as a Mini Cooper S.
The USA Today review is the only one to claim such a ride problem, even though the photos show they probably drove the cars in palm Springs along with the many other reviews. I think the best review is still the one at auto123.com. It is detailed, and has many photos, such as the suspension, drive train, and cylinder deactivation I have not seen anywhere else.
I would be sad if the car was ruined by a super-hard ride, but that is what the latest USAToday says. The reviewer says it is for masochists.
He mentions how poor the ride is over and over.
He recommends the 300 Limited since it has adequate power with a livable ride.
How about 300C top speed? I was just curious whether they had to have a rev limiter with those *touring* "H" rated tires.
Many other reviews have been published. Edmunds, Canadian Driver, Auto123(the best, detailed, and with photos of the suspension, drive train, and cylinder deactivation I have not seen anywhere else), and others. None of those mentioned anything like what he describes.
Either he is biased, or the car was defective.
Of course C&D can probably get that down to 9.3 seconds....
Regarding the Magnum: I just received an E-Mail from Dodge today about the Magnum. When I clicked on the "Build your own" link I found the Magnum in the section for "Trucks/SUV". Hmmm, I thought it was a Station Wagon.
Regarding the alleged 0-60 in 5.3: well, if the density altitude was low enough, say a couple of thousand feet below sea level, I'd have no problem believing it. Anything else might be a bit of a stretch. It will be interesting to see what the rest of the Auto Rags have to say.
Best Regards,
Shipo
On my WWW page I have links to two *great* videos of the 300C in action. One of them is in my update from 04/02/2004 and the other 03/31/2004. The 04/02 video is 3.2MB and is of a 300C smoking its way around a corner. The 03/31 video in on a German site and the video is *large* but also worth seeing. Choose your viewer (Real or MS) and click ISDN or DSL. Give it some time and it will start up for you. Here's a link to my site:
http://superdave369.home.comcast.net/300C/300C.html
Dave
Also, isn't the new Goat a manual? Yeah, I thought so. In this case, you have launches which are open to human variance as well as mechanical.
C&D, and I'm sure others, use calculations to equalize ambient conditions so all the timed runs have numbers which were attained under identical temperature/humidity/pressue conditions. Probably sea-level, 40% humidity, 70F, and a certain barometric pressure.
This can't take into account truly hot and cold conditions, as those have noticable effects on a tire's ability to 'grab', but they do pretty well, otherwise.
Ack, the Magnum labeled an "SUV". Sheesh. Someone ought to be smacked around, daily, for about six months for that lame-brained decision.
Based on the video I've just now see, I can see tires aren't going to last long, at least with me at the wheel.... ;-)
BTW I received three letters saying in March I would be among the first to receive all the details on the car and a launch event. I have yet to receive anything more.
Did this happen to anyone else?
The RTL video also includes the first pictures of the trunk I have seen - a big deal for me, since the trunk will determine my choice between a 300 and a Magnum. It has a wide opening, but the opening is not deep due to the short (front to back) trunk lid.
The drifting video was funny - I'll bet the tire companies invented drifting.
However, in the LH cars, the reason they handle so well is because of urethane bushings in the suspension components, instead of more compliant rubber. Rubber does a better job of isolation, which is why the car is noisy, and in some cases, harsh for a car its size. Tough trade off, honestly. I have to admit, I still really like the way it feels, especially for a car its size.
I was truly hoping the close-up of the taillight would give a hint as to whether the 300 has separate rear turn signals or not. Personally, it bugs me how US manufacturers don't seem to understand how much better visibility separate signals give, even if they're red. I can see these wouldn't be amber, unless part of the three clear-appearing 'stripes' at the bottom of the lamp housing have turn signals behind them, but they are likely back-up lamps.
Anyone see one of these sitting at a stoplight, ready to make a turn, yet? Here in Oregon, land of the anti-car, I can't imagine I'll see one in motion until *maybe* summer.
Dave
Another question here regarding courrtesy lamps, if they "are" called courtesy lamps. They're the ones on the door and lightup upon opening to warn oncoming traffic. I haven't seen any in any interior pics....To those people that saw / drove a 300, can you remember if the doors had these type of lamps?? Thanks
According to Chrysler, the "Front Door Courtesy Lamps" are standard on all four trim levels.
-- Mark
Maybe my pics from the RI car show will answer your question. Picture 20 shows the light that illuminates the ground and something red on the edge of the door which I assume is just a reflector.
http://www.ofoto.com/BrowsePhotos.jsp?showSlide=true&Uc=6evsh- 3j.a4diahn3&Uy=4zqn8i&Upost_signin=BrowsePhotos.jsp%3fsho- wSlide%3dtrue&Ux=0
fastdriver
PS: Thanks to you too FastDriver
The answer is no.
Hope this helps.
Brad
Will they seal when they're three years old, and it's -40 below?????
I'm still looking at Continental kits. There's an outfit in New Brunswick Canada that has ones that work. They expressed an interest in this, so maybe they'll produce one for 18" rims.
Quite a few of these manufacturers only make dummies.
I have to admit I am impressed by the numbers shown in MT and C&D. There is a significant difference in the braking numbers in the two mags thought. MT has 122 feet which is sports sedan territory, while C&D had 184ft which is average for a large sedan.
i was hoping that based on the bold aggressive styling of the 300c that the designers finally realized that copying somebody else is not a good thing...we're in america, guys, not the continent....the ride should be reflective of a large american sedan...some body roll and a little float is not all that bad...especially with the horrible roads we have in this country...well atleast where i live. cadillac has shown repeatedly that you can make a car that has a decent ride but still holds in own in the handling department. i'm hoping that the 300c has the softer suspension settings and the touring components...one can only hope. jackg
The interior was the Jade/Light Gray and was really nice. With the aluminum and tourtise shell accents on the inside, much nicer than the base model I saw previously. By the way, this leather had no "texture" and the was no embossing of the Chrysler Wings on the seat backs like the picture on the Chrysler web site. That myust be just for the limited models or something.
Anyways... back to my title - the sticker on the car (something over $33K clearly had "HOLD FOR PREMIER NIGHT" printed on it!
I think that if you check the fine print that you will see that MT tests braking distances from 60mph while C&D tests from 70mph, hence the disparity in their test numbers.
justgreat47,
Hmmm, I beg to differ. I much prefer a sportier ride to the horribly floaty feeling of the Cadillac CTS that I drove. There is nothing that drives me as crazy as driving a car down the road with suspension compliance that seems about as stable as my old waterbed. :-/
Given that Mr. Bangle has destroyed the BMW line, I am very much hoping that the 300C (or the Hemi Magnum) will have a firm enough ride and crisp enough handling to be a replacement for my 530i when it comes off lease this time next year.
Best Regards,
Shipo
I think it would be easier to pull the smaller tire out of the regular trunk location on the car and put that on the car at those extreme temps. It will get you where you need to go well enough. As the Eagles once said, take it easy, don't let the sound of your own wheels make you crazy.
A continental kit on a 300C would be very expensive and would be in very poor taste.
stephen
The brochure also shows cars (I think the ones that aren't C's) with what appear to be two slightly smaller headlamps on each side with a parking light underneath instead of the body colored piece. Then, the whole thing is covered by a polycarbonate cover. I have seen this in person but did not think to compare it against the "C" at the dealership as it was nose in to the building.
Are there 2 styles?? Thanks.
Just this last winter season, we had a low of -44 below, and lucky I never had to change a tire at those temps, but I've changed my share of tires in below zero weather over the last 35 years. (Not to mention a serpentine belt also, and I wouldn't want to do that again)
See my post at 876.
How did the Satin Jade look?
That is what I ordered with the Dark Jade/Light slate interior.
Unfortunately, with the Banglization of the BMW lineup and Audi's switch to only automatics on the entire A6 line, my choices for stirring my own are becoming limited. Given the choice of driving a CTS 6-Speed with that marshmallow suspension or a 300C automatic with firm setup, I'd take the 300C.
Obviously there are other cars out there that have 4 doors and a stick shift; however, I have issues with each of them. For instance,
G35: Ugly inside and out. The only good news there is that there is a rumored interior freshening due next year. Unfortunately it will still be ugly outside.
CTS-V: Expensive and I'm not a fan of GM V8 engines.
IS300: Uglier than the G35, CTS and E60 5-Series, combined.
Passat: I much prefer RWD cars. The AWD version is interesting but it has too much of a front end weight bias. In any event, I'm not all shot with the styling.
TL: FWD, and I think that the styling is uninspired at best, however, it is better looking than the G35, CTS and IS300.
9-3: Quirky and FWD with a GM stain.
A4: Too small.
Maxima: FWD and not pleasing to my eye.
C320 Sport: Too small.
S60R: Has potential, but still has a front end weight bias that I'm not fond of.
Ummm, what's left? Cannot think of anything off hand. Anyone?
In favor of the 300C/Hemi Magnum siblings, I have always had a soft spot for Chrysler offerings, and I have always loved their Hemi engines ever since I overhauled one on a 1970 Hemi Charger. Damn those heads were heavy, if memory serves they were something over 100 pounds, each!
So, after nine consecutive new cars with manual gearboxes, will I buy my first new car ever with an automatic transmission? Can't say for sure but I'm sure thinking about it.
Best Regards,
Shipo
http://www.newcartestdrive.com/review-intro.cfm?ReviewID=1557
-- Mark