Chrysler 300/300C

saturno_v

Answering to your post, the right technology can crank out the same HP and torque values from a smaller displacement and a lighter engine than the Hemi helping the handling, fuel consumption and engine progression.
When you design an engine, it has always traditionally been a matter of compromise...the new "adaptative" technologies (variable valvetrain timing, variable intake manifold, variable exhaust, etc...) allows you to "adapt" an engine to any working situation, you can deliver impressive low end punch when needed and have a motorbike-like revving attitude in progression....you can "tune" your unit characteristic depending on the situation....

hardhawk

Not to mention the fact that a fully equipped 2005 STS lists for about $22,500 more than a fully equipped 300C. That is a significant chunk of change in anyone's book. I think Cadillac has done wonders with its new products, but if it is my $$$ that is being spent, I'll take the 300C.

intrepidspirit

"Why I bought the 300M in the first place??? I almost laugh at this when I recall ....because I LOVED the styling and I was foolishly and blindly ignoring my friends and family advice and consumer publications to stay away from the vast majority of American cars and in particular way Chrysler"

I guess you weren't the only one blinded -- Motor Trend was blinded to such an extent that they named the 300M car of the year in 1999. And Car & Driver listed the 300M as one of the 10 best cars of 1999 and 2000.

If you view the 300M or the 300C as an investment, you will be disappointed. But then if you treat any car (other than a classic) as an investment you are making a mistake because they are all bad investments that become worthless.

Might as well have fun with something new and exciting before it becomes worthless...

belias

Here is the link regarding quality of Nissan Motors going down.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/04/29/korea.hyundai/index.html

Quoted from Car and Drive on the 2004 Maxima...
"Thanks to an electronic drive-by-wire throttle that in our test car had a mind of its own, that was easier said than done. In fact, the distinctly nonlinear response we got from our car made performance testing difficult, rendering effective wheelspin modulation a real challenge.

Which probably explains why this car looks slower on paper than the last Maxima we tested in October 2002, requiring 6.4 seconds to achieve 60 mph (instead of 6.0) and 15 seconds flat to cover the quarter-mile. The last Maxima took only 14.7 seconds to do the same job."
The full article is here...
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_- id=4510&page_number=1

So, yes, the Maxima has gotten slower despite the 10hp power boost. The CL-S easily gets 6.0 in the manual, I imagine the automatic is slightly slower than that, so, I stand correct, they would probably fair about even. However, neither is equipped to go against the 300C. I think even conservative estimates put it at 5.6 and when the SRT-8 comes out, it will be a good half second below that.

So, just FYI.

hmk123

I was just in Germany at a Chrysler Dealer and they did sell the 300C there. So your statement is not quite true. He said they were actually selling quite well there (for a Chrysler product in Germany). He said he could sell a lot to Russia if they had an armored version. Interesting note: the 3.5 V6 is also called the 300C there. The V8 has the HEMI logo added.

hmk123

I had a 300M for over three years and had no problems at all. The car handled great and I did many wonderful trips in it.

The Japanese might make better cars but I refuse to buy a car that looks like a copycat or is just boring to look it. There are hardly any decent looking Japanese cars (my opinion).

I am American now but was German. I wouldn't buy a German car because I find them way overpriced. I am not paying for their 6 weeks vacation and 35 hours week.

Had a 300C on order but didn't want to wait that long right now and am happily driving a new Thunderbird. Fit and finish could be better. But it drives and looks great.

pompilius

my 2002 Acura TL-S is still in the shop, having its third transmission replaced, been there for 2+ weeks.

intrepidation

Tell you what, I keep hearing whining about Chrysler build/engineering quality issues on the LH cars, but I've got a '95 Intrepid I've had since '97, and y'know what, it's been incredibly reliable.

Batteries don't count, they're wear items. Even then, I've needed only one new one.

Okay, brake rotors were a weak point, but that was fairly common, for a while, on all cars, trying to gain MPG, shave weight, and shave cost. I've since found a set which don't warp, and I've tried to warp 'em, 'cause I didn't believe it.

Otherwise, besides some front-end bushings, which are a wear item, and abused by me off-roading the 'Trep daily, while we lived in the mountains a few years, it's been a very solid ride.

Oh, wait, I had to replace a timing belt...at 93K miles, not 60K like most of the overseas manufacturers referenced, recommend.

On the other hand, my Japanese designed/built Suzuki Grand Vitara has broken not one, but *two* differential pinion gears (in all of 56K miles, BTW), has a squeak related to the hood I can eliminate only by removing said hood, and the dashboard scratches should you look at it hard. Oh, broke a rear axle shaft, too, again, old Sidekick part carried forward in a bad attempt to save money. Well, it saved *someone* money, just not me.

Oh, and we'll not go into the other common problems that model tends to have, other than by ignoring the factory's idealistic specs on front-end alignment, I managed to have tires last more than 20K miles, and finally fixed a shake in the steering it's had since day one....

bigelm

After reading some posts and getting tired of reading others... especially the testament versions; I just want to add a few 'simple' things:
1) Just like other manufacturers, like Honda... Chrysler has come a long way and even took a chance in being different.
2) Honda was not a car to brag about for many years before 'cleaning house' and spending millions of $$$ to revamp their image.
--So... those on a Asian High Horse can jump off--
3) Comparing Chrysler's HP to other car manufacturers' lower displacement engines that produce equal or more HP comes with a price tag... lots of it too! -Apples to Kiwi people?-
4) Give Chrysler a chance... heck... people gave Honda a chance!
5) Nissan is not something to brag about... and let's not talk about interior plastic either. Nissan has lots of that too!
6) Maxima beating a 300C? LOL!!! Talk about driver error!!! Puleeezzzz!!!

Let's move on to more important things!!!

emale

you...really need to read this:

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/chrysler/300/100378299/roadtestar- ticle.html?articleId=102711&tid=edmunds.h..wkedmunds.roadtest- s.1g.*

scpa

Never understood all this talk about Chrysler Quality. I have been buying new Chrysler and Dodge (trucks) since 1992 when I switched from GM (Pontiac). I have never had a quality problem with any of them. Now have a 300C (traded a 300M) and a '04 Dakota. Guess I have been one lucky guy not to latch on to one of these "Chrysler Lemons".

kevm14

Answering to your post, the right technology can crank out the same HP and torque values from a smaller displacement and a lighter engine than the Hemi helping the handling, fuel consumption and engine progression

And what I'm telling you is, the way engineers work is to meet all of their design criteria, while meeting budget. Engineers don't say "let's do variable valve timing" and just throw it in for the hell of it. That's the marketing department. Put another way, the reason so much stuff has all this variable technology is because they NEEDED it to meet power, economy and NVH goals (or else they wouldn't have used it, unless marketing was pushing for it). So, from my perspective, the Hemi and GM's latest small blocks, are all the more impressive.

kevm14

Suzuki, Mitsubishi and to a lesser extent, Subaru, are vastly inferior to the Japanese big three.

kevm14

you...really need to read this:

I just read it. Glad to hear the stereo as as top-notch as I have been led to believe.
But where is the performance data?? Looks like they just drove it around to get impressions, and tested the stereo, then wrote the article. I could see them get like 6.0 0-60 and 14.4 @ 98 out of it. I also have enjoyed the performance test editor's comments (in other reviews) on launch feel, brake feel and handling feel.

bjsohio

Has anyone removed the airbag warnings on the visors. Do they come off? Does it leave a mark?

jbbw20

I would hate to put any Chrysler huggers knickers in a knot, but I too recently rented a 300 and I found it to be mediocre at best.

justgreat47

electronics can be used to mask certain deficiencies in design and can aid certain systems, such as fuel economy for a large displacement v8. the basic layout of the 300 is designed for the v6 engines. the placement of the 5.7 bears this out...too much engine over the front axle. the v6 cars will handle just fine, without the aid of the electronics.

in time, given enough resources applied to the problem, there is no reason why the software can't be adapted to utilize mds in round town driving, where it's needed the most. take ANY of the 300 models and put them on a hiway with or without mds and they will get great fuel mileage. with ever increasing traffic jams across the country, fuel economy savings realized for in-town driving will have greater benefit to the consumer...well, at least this consumer. regards, jackg 90seville 95k

fuzzywuzzy

All cars are a toss up! I don't care what "brand" they are. There are good ones, there are bad ones. We all hope our cars are the good ones, but that's not the case sometimes, & we get upset & tell ourselfs it's the "brands" fault. That's just the way life is. Deal with it. I had a 300M that was trouble free. My friend who has a 2002 Max has a ton of problems. My 02 Acura CLS had no tranny problems. The 03 CLS I have now is a fine car. I had 3 Ford SUV Trucks & never had problems, but know others who have. I had a Lincoln's tranny die on me at 69K miles. Stranded 500 miles from home! To place blame on a specific brand is jusy plain dumb.

mikeyjohn

I usually don't respond to people like you, but as a previous owner of a 01 300M with no problems and also belonging to the 300M enthusiasts site as well as here I did not see you post any of your complaints, whan all you would have to do was use your search engine to get there.

You also made an incorrect statement when you said you rented a 300C in Maui which you thought had the 3.5 motor. NO YOU DIDN'T. the 300C comes with the hemi, and you also said you took on a 300C with your Maxima. I do not believe this either. I think you came to this site just to flame and you have no credibility. I suggest that you go back to your Maxima site and post over there. If you have accomplished anything you managed to get this site moving in a similar way that the old 300M site did a few years ago.

tayl0rd

Answering to your post, the right technology can crank out the same HP and torque values from a smaller displacement and a lighter engine than the Hemi helping the handling, fuel consumption and engine progression.
When you design an engine, it has always traditionally been a matter of compromise...the new "adaptative" technologies (variable valvetrain timing, variable intake manifold, variable exhaust, etc...) allows you to "adapt" an engine to any working situation, you can deliver impressive low end punch when needed and have a motorbike-like revving attitude in progression....you can "tune" your unit characteristic depending on the situation....

I haven't even read past your post that I'm quoting here to see if anyone else has already, but I must protest! Your first sentence has been shown to be completely false. I enter into evidence the Honda S2000 and the Chevrolet Corvette. The little Honda has a dinky little engine with all the techno-geewhiz-bang-go-bump-in-the-night gadgetry that you engine technophiles LOVE. Yet it makes virtually no torque and has to be revved to high, holy Heaven to make its 240HP. They even bumped the displacement to 2.2 liters to make its around-town driving more tolerable and it still makes virtually no torque. The Corvette, on the other hand, makes more torque at (or just off) idle than the S2000 ever makes, all the while returning the same or BETTER fuel economy with 4 more cylinders and 3.4 more liters of displacement! And PLEASE don't tell me you think the S2000 will out-handle the Corvette. The Corvette uses all the "out-dated" pushrod technology that you technophiles DESPISE! Let's not even bring the VIPER into this with its 505 cubic inches of good ol' pushrod tech!

I'm sorry to keep this topic straying, Pat, but I just couldn't take it anymore. And, saturno_v, please point me to the source that stated the new Maxima hit 60 in 5.8 seconds. As far as I can remember, no Maxima has ever hit sub-6 seconds in 0-60 and the reports I've read say the new Max is SLOWER than the previous one.

belias

Yeah, I hear you on that Maxima part. There has never been a sub 6-second Maxima. You don't have to search too far to find out that the new Maxima is between .3 and .5 seconds slower than the previous model depending on which reports you look at. The BEST report had the old Maxima at 6.0 seconds and the new at 6.4. Every other report I've read gives slower numbers, but not by much.
I love Japanese engines, but, not because of the type of technology (though I suppose not getting burned at the gas pump is something that I enjoy). I think that they are very reliable and efficient. Having said that though, it doesn't mean that I wouldn't get an American car. The problem for me has always been that the engines that I've liked in the American vehicles have been put into vehicles that were just not very practical for me. So, with this new 300C and the Magnum, I can FINALLY get into a large performance vehicle. The 300M and similar Chrysler/Dodge vehicles had a steeply raked windshield that made it impossible for my 6'4"+ frame to see traffic lights with the seat positioned properly without having to lean forward right up to the steering wheel.
The Chrysler and Magnum now have great views for me even with my seat positioned all the way back (as it should be). Good engine, good car, that will be what I trade my Acura CLS in for when the time is right!

300hemifl

I've had my black C now for exactly 4 months. No problems to speak of, and a just a joy to drive. Again, 4 months, and I get the same raving comments now that I did when I first got it.

As I've told some buddies, if it had a "Mercedes" tag instead of Chrysler, this car would fetch $50k+.....easy. Appearance, comfort, ride, acceleration, power, room.....there is nothing in the $30k+ area that comes close, in my opinion.

Some are worried about Chrysler "risk". Get off it. This was a very bold move by this company. I found out about this car before 99% of the public, and when I got the details about it, I knew I wanted it. I bought the first one in Clearwater, Fl and feel like "the man" for doing it. So far, so good!

tornado25

"As mentioned in my first post, I rented the 300 C during my vacation to Maui (I believe was the V6 3.5 liter) and the air conditioning quit working after 4 days forcing me to drive back 40 miles to exchange it with an other identical model."

well, this is exactly where you have ZERO credibility. Not even a little. The 300C is the trim line of the 300 equipped with the Hemi. You then go on to say you drove a 300C with a 3.5L V6. As mikeyjohn pointed out, no, you didn't. You drove what probably was a Base model or at best, a Touring. Further, you contine to shoot yourself in the foot by stating you beat a 300C off the line. Again, no, you didn't. You MAY have beaten a 300, probably a Touring or Limited. I believe a Max could beat that. But, it will not beat a 300C unless the 300C's driver is napping.

Your ranting here is misplaced for a few reasons: 1) whether English is your first language or not, reading your posts is headache-inducing (for me, at least). Lesson One: Paragraphs! 2) Even those who do not like Chryslers or the 300 do not come on this board (the day they joined mind you) simply to toss the "Chryslers are unreliable" red herring into the ring. We can have discussion here with those who love and hate Chryslers, but at least both groups normally present reasoned and unbiased arguments (something you really can't do, having admitted problems with your 300M) and finally, 3) You've proven time and again you don't know what you're talking about. Yet, you keep it up, trying to rile people.

I will gladly sit back and watch this battle go on with great bemusement.

machaan

..if you looking for performace and handling Legacy GT will run with 300C with half the number of cyclinders and displacement.

rentfree

September 2004 Car and Driver has this story

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article- _id=8429

300hemifl

"..if you looking for performace and handling Legacy GT will run with 300C with half the number of cyclinders and displacement"

Well, I never considered a Subaru....as a comparison or to purchase. My first impression does not give me a "Wow" factor when looking at it. I think of it as more as a Maxima/Altima or Camry comparison.
Doing a quick scan of the Subaru website, it does have some nice features. But being a big man (with large golfing buddies), one place I see it is small on is room. Let's compare a few important things (for me):
                        300c Legacy GT
Headroom (Front/Rear) 38.7/38 in 37.5/36.5
Pass Vol (Cub ft) 106.6 93.1
Shoulder Room (Fr/Rear)59.4/57.7 54.4/53.7
Leg Room (Total) 82 in 78
Cargo vol (Cub ft) 15.6 11.4

So, the Legacy is pretty small on space compared to the 300. Subaru states the Legacty GT does 0-60 in 6.2 sec., which is not bad, but still shy of the C. I'm sure the Legacy is a nice car, but it doesn't do it for me. Thanks.

bobm2

I've had my Midnight Blue C for about a month and love almost everything about it. It attracts much attention everywhere I go. Awesome looks and great acceleration when I really need it. Interior was designed with the consumer in mind.
My only real complaint is the harsh ride, which was very surprising to me. Me test drive was on a relatively smooth road, and it was great. However much to my surprise and dismay, I feel every bump in the road. Even a relatively mild ripple at low speed causes major body shift and violent thumps. It's something I'm really not used to, and frankly I'm a bit embarrassed when I'm carrying passengers who politely say how nice the car rides(when I know it really doesnt). I'm not sure whether its the suspension, the 18" tires, or something else, but bottom line is that I'm not at all happy with it. Do others also have the same opinion of the ride? It also has a bit more body lean on turns than I'm used to, but that's a minor problem and something I'll get used to. Hopefully I'll also get used to the thumps and bumps, but it may not be easy for me. Bob

emale

have you checked the air pressure in the tires? sometimes cars are delivered with way too much pressure in em. just a thought.

btw, i recently rode in a 300c and thought it rode pretty well. you could hear the suspension clunk a little on sharp bumps but otherwise it's ride was rock solid...

bobm2

I've had my Midnight Blue C for about a month and love almost everything about it. It attracts much attention everywhere I go. Awesome looks and great acceleration when I really need it. Interior was designed with the consumer in mind.
My only real complaint is the harsh ride, which was very surprising to me. Me test drive was on a relatively smooth road, and it was great. However much to my surprise and dismay, I feel every bump in the road. Even a relatively mild ripple at low speed causes major body shift and violent thumps. It's something I'm really not used to, and frankly I'm a bit embarrassed when I'm carrying passengers who politely say how nice the car rides(when I know it really doesnt). I'm not sure whether its the suspension, the 18" tires, or something else, but bottom line is that I'm not at all happy with it. Do others also have the same opinion of the ride? It also has a bit more body lean on turns than I'm used to, but that's a minor problem and something I'll get used to. Hopefully I'll also get used to the thumps and bumps, but it may not be easy for me. Bob

bobm2

No, I havent checked the air pressure. I'll try that, thanks. My 300M had a much better ride than my Hemi, for whatever reason. Any other suggestions or comments would be appreciated. Bob

bigmike5

Anyone here a believer in coincidence? Some 300's have had a control rod problem with a part that was the wrong size or material and have been pulling to the right, correct? Well, lo and behold I just got a safety recall message on my new Vette and it is for a raft of Caddy models and Vettes, and guess what the problem is? A washer and nut on the control rods are made of "the wrong steel material" and may fail causing, gee the wheel to tilt and things to go bad after that. Strange isn't it that GM got defective parts just like DC did, and for the same friggin assembly. Wonder if it was from a Japanese parts manufacturer? Just don't believe in coincidence in matters like this.

rayainsw

"300C AWD model has a Job #1 of 11/15/04"

according to:

http://www.arifleet.com/production.html

- Ray
Wondering when Job 1 for SRT-8 will be . . .

kevm14

So, the Legacy is pretty small on space compared to the 300. Subaru states the Legacty GT does 0-60 in 6.2 sec

The car's reasonably quick, but I'd like to examine the 5-60 time. I'm thinking 7 seconds. You can thank the turbo for that.

kevm14

A washer and nut on the control rods are made of "the wrong steel material" and may fail causing, gee the wheel to tilt and things to go bad after that. Strange isn't it that GM got defective parts just like DC did

The 300's suspension problem is not a materials problem, so it is not the same as GM's.

bigelm

is very small compared to the 300C. I'm a Subaru owner and looked at the Legacy GT. Heck, even put a down payment and ordered one...
Then I sat in one... and although Subaru claims it's bigger than it's predecessor, it's still not by a long margin. One of the reasons why I looked into the 300C. The 300 is just roomier, more comfortable and it's what a CAR used to be.
Don't get me wrong, the Legacy GT is a great car and if I wasn't 6'5", I would've bought one. But since that's not the case, I understand the whole "I don't fit in this car" thingy.
Oh.. by the way... I sold my Subaru but my wife has the wagon.
PS- Funny thing is, at the Subaru Forum, we're always talking about Subaru needing to bring over a larger platform model... who knows what will happen. They'll be introducing their first Crossover next year (supposely on a larger platform).

300hemifl

Sorry to hear about your ride. The ride on my C is "smooth as silk". I've driven a few different Mercedes (E and S series), as well as a Lexus GS400, and as for ride, they don't have much, if any on my C.
I agree to check on the tire pressure. If you are still having problems, take it in....it SHOULD be taken care of.

soozpk

My last car was a 94 LeBaron with McPherson struts, so moving up to a "C" is like riding on a cloud. Nice and quiet, and the ride is perfect on good roads. On some streets where the pavement is broken-up or heaving, the car does transmit that imperfection in the ride, but it's certainly not as rough or noisey as my Lebaron was.

While I'm at it, just some wisdom from the past on comparing a high output 4 / 6 cylinder to the Hemi........"There's no substitute for cubic inches"

jcz1

... or as I've heard it: "There's no replacement for displacement."

graphicguy

I read the referenced C&D article. I've also read a couple more regional newspaper articles that stipulate the 300c is more comparable to cars costing $20K more than the 300c does.

My sister just traded in her Jag for one. While I haven't spent much time in it, it is quite a nice "piece" that really can't be compared to the other entry level lux cars from Infiniti or Lexus. You have to move well up their price ladder to get something comparable.

Nice job done by MoPar! It's also good to see that Chryco is selling the daylights out of the 300 (all models...not just the "C").

emale

here is an article that might interest some of you. it pertains to the 2.7l v6 engine...

http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=7472&sid=17- 3&n=156

justgreat47

in no particular order: the 5.7 seems to be a fine motor other than the fact that it's cast in iron. this wouldn't be such a big deal if it were not for the fact the motor is too heavy for the chassis on the 300..WAY too much weight over the front end...the designers decided to sacrifice handling and balance for more interior room...check out the distance between the front axle and the fire wall...it's fine for the v6's but way too small for the 5.7... electronic aids can help...but mother nature takes over after a certain point.

the only true way to judge the performance of any motor is not by looking at the peak numbers...you need to see power graphs for torque and h/p...the graphs help in determining the driving characteristics of the motor...obviously, there are other factors: weight of the vehicle, gear ratios and such. another interesting point about the 5.7: the peak torque is made rather high up on the power band...4000 rpm is rather high for a torque monster...but, as i said...seeing the graphs is the only real answer.

the "sludge" problem needs to amplified as to what they're talking about. i do know that some high performance american engines do have problems with build up in the combustion chambers when they're not "exercised" on a regular basis...maybe this is something different. jackg 90seville 95k

wildebeast

I had a Buick Park Avenue Ultra before the C. The C has a slightly stiffer ride but not unpleasant.

michaelg1

Both Chrysler and Road & Track magazine report the balance ratio of the 300C is 52/48. This is fairly close to the ideal of 50/50 and much, much better than the cab-forward front-wheel drive models. Trying to get close to the ideal balance is the reason the battery ended up in the trunk.

justgreat47

actually, in the road and track road test of the 5.7, it lists the weight distribution as being 54% over the front end. the curb weight , with fuel and driver, is listed as 4150 lbs. the 2.7's weight is listed at edmunds at 3711 lbs, with a 3.90 final drive ratio. road and track stated that the balance was nearly neutral in the 2.7 with decent acceleration from a stop light due to the 3.90 gears. jackg 90seville 95k

dkrhardy

I recall you talking about the HEMI before. Iron is not bad, nor is it bad to have a slightly forward biased weight. This IS NOT a sports car where a 50/50 may be better. Please don't even mention sludge! :-) And strange as it may seem to you, the one engine you are enamored with is the one engine that has had the sludge problem. It also does not have enough power for a car that weighs 3700 to 4000 lbs. That gear helps, but it is and always has been a weak engine. OK, IMHO and about a gazillion LH owners.

fuzzywuzzy

Some really ignorant person in a 300 pulled up to me at at light yesterday. Had big rims, a loud stereo, & dark tinted windows. I'm in my decked out Acura CLS 6 speed. He rolls down his window to get my attention. Asked me if I wanted to feel the power of a hemi 300C. I say no thanks & ignor him. The light changes & I let him go. I then see he has a 300 Toring with the 3.5L Thought that was funny. I would have killed him if we did race.

pompilius

some dude in a Magnum SXT tried to race me today. Even though my Acura TL-S is on its 4th transmission, he did not win.

exc230

Hi. Im from Mexico and two days ago I sold my 2004 MB. I first saw the 300c in the street and liked it alot, so I went to the dealership and started aquiring information on the car. I also read almost every message on this forum. I have a couple of friends who told me I was crazy of thinking of this change, because of the chrysler "fame", I told them that this car was a DC car, plus the 7 year engine and trasmission guarantee gave me more confidence as did the 2 year bumper to bumper. My car is in a dealership 100 miles away, but my dealership will trade and they will get it here by monday. It is a loaded black 300c, (except the nav, unfortunatly it wont work in mexico with maps, just gps coordinates). The car cost $38,500. They are a little mor expensive here because of taxes. for example a MB E500 costs 86,000. So it is also a grat deal. Please tell me what you think of the trade. Thanks

David

michaelg1

I believe you. But my information comes from a special supplement magazine published by Road & Track. It is dedicated specifically to the 300C. It's called Chrysler 300: Heritage/Road Test/Safety Development/Technical Analysis.

justgreat47

is critical in a rwd platform...going back to rwd opens up a whole new set of design characteristics that can be very danergous. a front end bias is what you want with fwd but NOT with rwd...wait til the inclement weather comes around in december/january...there will be alot of surprised drivers out there. as far as the sludge problem is concerned, from what i have read, it's due to the driving habits of the owners. the 2.7 is a high reving engine and requires to be "exercised" on a regular basis...this is not unusual...deposits can easily form in the c/c especially with all the additives used in higher grade gasolines.now, whether or not d/c should have put the 2.7 in a minivan...that's debatable, but the 2.7 in the 300 at 24,000$ is a steal, in my book and the base 300 weighs 3712 lbs. that's a big jump down from 4150 lbs. hmmm, there's that cast iron block again.

by the way, the "exercise" of the 2.7 is not just getting up on the hiway and breaking the speed limit...there's a prescribed procedure to clean out the deposits in the cc. jackg 90seville 95k