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
I hope the report and pics are correct!
Lynn Flowers
McKinney, Texas
Thank you! I will do so. It's so strange that so many of us know about the 300, and so many do not!
How bout zappin a photo of your cool ride to SuperDave so we can all see ur TSW's. Here's his url if u are interested. He seems to really be into his 300, and has a ton of 300 related photos and videos.
http://superdave369.home.comcast.net/300C/300C.html
thanks again for the wheel double check!
I have been leaning towards the Magnum because of the look of the car overall in the wagon form ... plus the extra room, or "utility" benefit is too hard to pass up. But I like the "luxury" of the 300C over the "sporty" Magnum. I have read that if Chrysler made this for the US, then that could take away from the Magnum sales. But I have to disagree! The Magnum is different enough to hold its own, and besides, it is after sports not luxury driving. I have also read that the reason why Chrysler is selling heavy to fleet sales (rental cars etc) is simply for the number of vehicles sold. If that is the case, then introduce the 300C Wagon to the market and add some variety to those just on the edge of buying.
Does anyone have some good info as to whether this car may see the light of day here in the US ... and not just Europe???
For those that have not seen the wagon version of the 300 ... here is a great link with some GREAT pictures:
http://www.fast-autos.net/chrysler/chrysler300ctouring.html
and, it's very doubtful you'll ever see a 300 wagon here in the US...but stranger things have happened!
Then drive it head on into a wall.
When it gets to the body shop, make sure they know you want your "300C" back by the end of the week. Consider it a much needed facelift.
I'm happy for Dodge that they finally have a flagship station wagon, don't get me wrong, it's just not the sort of modern day Polara I'd want to toss my own grocery bags at.
Yeah, yeah, I know, it's not your dad's Plymouth!
For a sedan, however, that is one big trunk! I know the rear seats fold down, but it is the pass-though opening that really limits what you can get in.
Did it not occur to you that "well, the light is on, but my car is not stopping" to be a good sign that a) it's not likely that the brake is REALLY on and b) since it's probably not really on, I can slow down, pull to the side of the road and pull the handle or whatever to correct the problem?
I also find it interesting to note that you never say you previously had the "right pull" problem that others have reported, but saw fit to say after you reached down to pull the e-brake handle, your car "veered right" and you crashed into a pole. I would point out that the problem reported that the camber kit is supposed to correct is a right "drift" and was never, EVER (at least here, to my knowledge) to have been reported as a "veer" to the right. Picky? Not really, since in my world, veering is NOT a synonym for drifting.
Just take some responsibility. You made a mistake, had an accident. It happens thousands of times everyday. File the insurance claim, get another 300 and be grateful the penalty for this accident isn't one 43,000 people pay every year.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
THAT is the kind of junk that eventually evolves itself into rumors and suddenly, it becomes gospel. "Oh, the new 300. It drifts right...it VEERS right...it causes LOSS OF CONTROL...NHTSA is opening investigation"...on and on.
Look at some of the idiotic stuff these "investigations" are opened for. 5 reports of the car turning off suddenly or 8 reports of "car bursting into flame" (which turns out is caused by technician ineptitude) or whatever. Perhaps he's a troll or joking or a fruitcake. Whatever the case, I intend to squash it because what this actually IS, is bad driving. Period.
My first 300M (2000) had a left pull (that seems to describe it better than "drift" or "veer"). It was difficult to keep the car running straight on the road and was a definite driving hazard. Turns out the sub-frame was not adjusted properly at the factory and it was much better after dealer adjustment.
While this condition may have been exaggerated in prior posts, it should not be minimized either. Besides being difficult to drive like this, it is a definite safety hazard and the problem has not been handled in a timely manner by DC.
I have purchased 6 Chrysler products since 1998. I was lucky to find a dealer that went out of his way to make sure my cars met my expectations (and I didn't even buy any of my cars from this dealer!). But dealing with "Corporate Chrysler" was a frustrating experience.
For example, when I purchased my 5th of 6 Chryslers, I received a $500 coupon in the mail from Chrysler less than 2 weeks after the purchase. The coupon was to reward special customers for their loyalty by giving them an additional $500 toward their next Chrysler. However, since I had already purchased my vehicle, they declined to allow me the $500 discount. Although they sent me a letter explaining how Chrysler determines incentives, the bottom line was they had sold me a car without the $500 they had intended me to use and had therefore saved the $500! I guess I was no longer special and my loyalty wasn't going to matter for another couple of years...
DC does a great job in many areas, but their after sale treatment of customers needs a lot of work. That's one reason I would prefer to "have the bugs worked out" before I buy...
I wrote to Chrysler stating that I would not buy the Magnum, and complained bitterly that they were not introducing the 300C Touring that was to be made available in Europe. They replied stating that my comments would be passed to the product manager for the car.
Who knows, perhaps if you all wrote in demanding that they bring the wagon version to the US, that they might just see enough demand to do just that.
By then though, I'll be driving something else... Lost opportunity Chrysler!
hopefully chrysler will learn from this debacle!! from what i've heard the test cars didn't suffer from this problem...it appeared after production started. and only those higher up know why...!
I've not yet heard back. We'll see. I bet a lot of people would like the practicality of the Magnum in a 300C looking package (Vs the Magnum's 'boy racer' street looks).
Actually, I could really like the coupe, itself, given the pictures.
I was surprised at the size of the 300C, as I knew it was smaller than the Intrepid I currently pilot, but I didn't expect it to look smaller. Must have just hit me that way.
Now, if the coupe comes out with the 6.1L and AWD in 2006...I'll be there, itching for a test drive, checkbook in hand.
I will say this. I haven't driven a 300, problematic or not, so I am not saying what I write is gospel. However, maybe I'm just too anal, but to me, "drift" in NO WAY, SHAPE, or FORM is the same as "veer." Drift is a gradual thing that while requires some input from the driver to maintain course is not like veer, which to me, is a sudden, unexpected deviation in direction. Everything I've read here (and I have read every post in this forum) indicates this is a drift kind of thing. If uncorrected, you would gradually go off the road or whatever. It's not gong to make your car take a 45 degree turn off the road into a pole.
"If you are distracted and take your eyes off the road for only a few seconds, this drifting can cause an accident."
That's absurd. Are you saying in a perfectly true car, without a drift, that if you are distracted and take your eyes off the road, no accident would occur? For crying out loud, 960 quadzillion things "can cause an accident". If I take my eyes off the road and become distracted, a child crossing the road "can cause an accident". I mean, if you're taking your eyes off the road and becoming distracted, but depending on the vehicle to track true (as opposed to, oh, I don't know--driving the car!) to avoid an accident, please tell me where you drive so I can stay away, as you sound like as poor a driver as irishdancer.
Yeah, could be. If you don't believe a drifting car can be a factor in an accident, that's fine. Your opinion.
"please tell me where you drive so I can stay away, as you sound like as poor a driver as irishdancer."
You don't know me (and probably don't know irishdancer), so you opinion on my driving is totally invalid. Stay away from the personal attacks, especially when you have no idea who you are attacking...it lowers your credibility.
the drift to the right issue, brake light issue, etc has been happening on the new 300. you said you have a 300m...that is an entirely different car. something doesn't jive with your story!
It is possible that coincidental with reaching for the emergency brake handle, a tire got cut down and caused the car to veer suddenly enough to hit the pole while the driver was partially distracted.
I drove my 300C for 2400 miles with the drift to the right existing, and I don't think it was dangerous. I let my wife drive the car, and she's not the world's greatest driver (to put it mildly). The drift to the right requires no more and no less skill than negotiating a road that curves to the right or the left occasionally. As long as you have one hand on the wheel and your eyes on the road, there is no way possible that I can see that this deficiency would cause an accident.
stephen
Just because you haven't been in an 'accident' or gotten a ticket doesn't reflect how good you are at controlling an automobile, or how well you interact with traffic. In fact, if you don't know how your vehicle handles close to it's limits, IMNSHO, you are a danger, as should the situation get to that point, you don't know how the vehicle will act. At that point, panic typically sets in, which isn't good.
The above is not a comment on the situation as it has been told by irishdancer, as there are several conflicting statements in the telling of the story.
Then again, if it were up to me, I'd have a solid 70% of currently-licensed drivers using mass-transit, or in extensive driver education courses...like Skip Barber, or the like.
Now, is there any real news on the 6.1L motor or the coupe, or is it still fairly speculative?
I don't know about the typical driver, but I don't often take my hands and eyes off the road for twenty second intervals (unless someone calls my cell while I'm reading a map, eating a burger, and sipping my pre-collision latte).
That said, a quick examination of an accident whereby the driver averts his eyes from the road, and upon returning to his eyes to their duties as "seeker of things in road" discovers a permanent structural item (tree, light pole, building) has jumped in front of his vehicle's path....pilot error.
With the way some folks have overhyped the drift issue, anyone who's yet to drive a 300 would get the impression that the car does donuts unless you throw your weight into the wheel and straighten it out. Sheesh!
That's that I'm holding out for... Got to dump my exploder (with 5k mi rotors) and get something more sporty first. Touareg, X3, FX35/45 are all on the list. I do believe that the 6.1L is going to be the motor used, BUT I've also heard that there will be no MDS system and that the MPG would suffer big time. Wasn't there an article in a big auto mag about it? Something that set the idea in stone?
stephen
http://www.chrysler.com/webselfservice/chrysler/index.jsp?screenN- ame=customer&country=us&emailUrl=goToEmailForm%28%27R%27%- 29
Kerry
http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat- _code=carnews&loc_code=index&content_code=03874432
Come on Chrysler! Release the 300C Touring AWD in the States. Overwise I'll have to buy a used Audi A6 Avant (can't afford a new one) or heaven forbid, a Ford Freestyle!
Kerry
stephen
"my emergency light came on two or three times last week it came on and I reached to pull the handle off didn't get there my car veered to the right and I crashed into a pole. I am wondering if this light thing and the veering to the right I have been reading about were the cause of my crash. I did nothing I know of but reach to the left and never did touch the brake handle,"
and in your reply to me, you wrote:
"It was a straight stetch of road and I did not reach the handle to the brake the car just veered to the right and I hit the pole."
So which is it? In this post, I am sincerely trying to be open minded about this without being "rude", but honestly, your writing style is very, VERY difficult to read, so I really don't know what you're saying happened. It sounds like to me, you reached for the handle, maybe, maybe not touched it, and the car went to the right and hit the pole.
Has your car ever veered to the right and hit a pole when you weren't reaching for the handle (regardless of if you touched it)? If not, has it not occurred to you that that action caused the distraction that caused the veer?
Since it seems so important to you, I can tell you I am a 28 year old man. I have had one at-fault accident, for which I accepted full responsibility. Totally my fault. It happened when I was 18. I also have hit a deer, when I was 17. Foggy and at night, so I suppose had I been going slower, maybe I wouldn't have hit it? I don't know. Since 18, I've had no accidents and one speeding ticket in 3/00. That also was entirely on me. Not a speed trap, not unfair cop moves, etc. It's on me, I paid it. Done.
What is my point? My point is, I don't care if you've been driving 6 months or 60 years. I don't care if you've done things that have distracted you from driving and never had an accident. I don't care if you drove school children to see the Pope. The point is, in THIS case, your distraction caused the accident. How can you seriously see this any other way? That suddenly and 100% coincidentally, when you happened to reach for the brake handle (but didn't touch it) and admittedly may have been distracted, THAT WAS THE TIME the car veered and crashed YOU into a pole? Again, I still maintain my original argument that NEVER has a veer been reported with regard to the camber kit repair, etc. Always been reported as drift or pull. As Stephen pointed out, he actually had the problem (your posts seem to indicate that prior crashing into a pole off the road, you never had the drift) and it was never so serious as to cause loss of control. To me, that speaks for itself as to what happened here.
I write this post because, like the conclusion you were so glad to jump to about me being a "loud mouthed teenager who thinks he is god", too often, young people are criticized for not accepting responsibility, for blaming someone or something else for what they've done. In this case, I am the young person who has accepted what he has done for what it is--a screw up, but the older person is one desparate to look for anything to blame except herself, since how could you be at fault? You've been a good driver for 43 years!
Intrepidspirit,
I owe you an apology. I shouldn't have made it so personal. My only point is when you say something like this drift "can cause an accident" when you take your eyes off the road and become distracted, I want to put a shoe through my computer. I mean, really, if I take my eyes off the road, become distracted and crash into a pole isn't THAT as likely to be THE cause as I was distracted AND the car has a drift, but that's the only reason I crashed? Do you understand what I'm saying? That taking your eyes off the road and/or becoming distracted IS a cause...not a reason that drift was allowed to become a cause.
In my own experience, I've found that if I'm looking for a house number or my eyes are otherwise diverted, the car starts to drift, because I'm subconsciously pulling the wheel in the direction I'm looking. Since we've been provided with incomplete and contradictory information, isn't it a more likely and plausible scenario that in irishdancer's case, she leaned down reach for the e-brake handle and her movement of the wheel put the right tires on the shoulder, leading to loss of control? Why in the world should the automatic conclusion be that "oh, the drift everyone's been talking about, but I've never previously experienced must have caused the car to veer, at the exact same time I was distracted."
That's pretty suspect to me.