Chrysler 300/300C

garnes1

Good point about engineering. Great results with a simpler/more economical design is a good benchmark for engineering excellence. I've got a northstar engine now. I love it. However, I have to admire the Hemi C, and what GM is doing with pushrod V8 power as well.

bigmike:

As far as fuel economy - come on, a Corvette weights what compared to a 300C?? You can't compare them. The Hemi C does incredibly well for economy considering the power capability and the immense weight of the car.

dkrhardy

Mark - I agree with V6 vs V6, then factor in price. Now, V8 vs V8, then factor in price. I have owned many new cars, driven/ridden in many Caddies. I am biased now since I own a "C", BUT ... I have never driven a more quiet, solid, kick butt car in my life. I have had no issues so I may be slanted again, BUT .... when you spend your money and you're happy you did, then it is value to you (me).

307web

Not. A base 300 looks pretty plain to me.
Fleet buyers simply can get a Taurus for thousands less than a base 300. Fleet buyers do not care about RWD benefits to high speed skidpad handling.

fsmmcsi

I doubt that you could find many people who care more about the cylinder count than the price and power. If the 300C V8 is less expensive, but in at least the same general price category as the Cadillac, BMW, or whatever V6, then the comparison is valid. Price is the first factor to consider, as it controls which cars a buyer might actually be able to buy.

sls002

VVT northstar is available as a crate engine:
http://www.gmpartsdepot.com/store/product1.aspx?SID=2&Product- - _ID=1297&Category_ID=63

So the engine is not the cost factor. The STS's interior is said to be very nice. However, I think the STS will be a very profitable car for Cadillac/GM if it sells at a rate of 30,000 per year. I expect it to sell closer to 50,000 per year by taking away Deville sales.

I have not looked at a 300, but I doubt that the interior is as nice as the STS's should be. I can say that my 2002 SLS's fuel consumption on a recent long trip averaged 29 MPG. It did over 30 MPG on the highway, but sightseeing brought the overall average down to 29. Between Nevada and Salt Lake City, the instant MPG reading on the computer varied from the low 30's to the high 30's.

From what I have seen posted here, the 300C gets around 25 MPG or less on the highway.

hardhawk

The new STS is quite a good product. However, with respect to the gas mileage part of your post, you can buy a lot of gas for the $20,000-$30,000 difference in cost between the STS and the 300C. The STS should sell well for GM, but it won't likley create the buzz and waiting lists like the 300C has.

bigmike5

I think the STS will have a tougher time garnering a lot of new buyers unless the interior, etc. is so far superior that it damands buying. The exterior design would have been a "breakthrough" a couple of years ago, but as a follow-on to the CTS style it doesn't grab me. [Given that they weren't sure how the angularity of the CTS would be received, I can understand why they didn't take a chance with the flagship vehicle til they saw how the CTS was received.] Now the 300C was such a radical departure from the [beautiful lines] of the five year old M design that it either grabbed you, or it revulsed you. I was in the latter group. But those it grabbed have apparently had to try to get one. I don't see that happening with the STS. A couple of years ago before the CTS, maybe.

sls002

The local Chrysler dealer here has 4 300Cs in stock. While I agree that the price difference will buy a lot of gas, I don't like the idea of owning a car that gets less than 25-30 on the highway. I don't know how the STS will do sales wise, but I expect it to take some sales away from the CTS and Deville. Deville used to run at 100,000 units (or more), and is now down to 80,000. I expect to see it drop to 60,000. Seville was running 30,000 and I expect the STS to do better. I expect total CTS+STS+Deville sales to run 170,000 or more.

For the money, the 300 is a lot of car. But for the money, Chyslers have offered a lot for some time.

300c_kid

The mere fact that we are comparing Chrysler to Cadillac is amazing in itself. I doubt this has happened since the 1930s. Chrysler would not have been able to pull it off without Mercedes Benz's support.

I love the 300C and can't wait to get mine (on order). I must admit, though, that the car lacks in terms of the interior, especially those plain looking door panels.

Whichever the case, Chrysler has an awesome product in the 300C, and a good shot at going after Lexus if it can spread the same level of value across its entire lineup.

Buick also wants to go after Lexus, and it is a legitimate claim. While Lexus is the No. 1 luxury brand in terms of sales, a big chunk of its sales are ES330, RX330 and IS300, whose prices are in reality NEAR Luxury, not Luxury.

Looks like the competition in the Near Luxury segment is about to get REAL hot!

carnaught

I for one wouldn't mind paying another $2k -4k for an upgraded interior variant of the 300C if offered. It would be a "hellova" car for still under $40k.

sls002

The Chrysler Imperial was Chrysler's competition for Cadillac. The New Yorker was really aimed at the Roadmaster. The old 300 letter series was the first of the "personal luxury" cars. Now, sport sedans are aimed at this market segment. The 300C is a good entry for Chrysler in this segment. The 5 speed automatic would give the 3.5 V6 a better edge too, instead of the 4 speed that it gets.

bigelm

Well, after much consideration for the 2005 model, I may have to wait for the 2006 model because of financial draw backs. But now that the 2005's are out and it's a good seller, I wonder what changes, if any, would be introduced to the 2006 models...

Maybe other color options, a 6 speed AT, interior touch up, more accessories options, etc.

I would definitely like to see other color options, a 6 speed AT and more accessories. If they don't come, it won't stop me from getting my 300C but it would be nice!

Any insights/inputs?

300c_kid

I doubt Chrysler will offer a 6-speed AT. Don't think they have in their parts bin. I am sure they will add colors. Charcoal is sorely missing.

rcf8000

I don't think they need a 6 speed transmission. However, more colors would be nice. Also, an 8-way power front passenger seat would be nice, at least on the 300C and Limited. Even my 4 cylinder Camry has one. How much can they be saving with the "6-way" seat?

stoosh95

I doubt it ... why are people so hung up on "speeds"? The engine is a HEMI, its a V8, it makes TONS of power way down low. Heck, it could prbly get away with a 4 speed.

The whole "speeds" issue ranks up there with the "AWD" issue: its a marketing ploy to get "image" people to buy their stuff. Except for subaru.

me: i'd like to see an "imperial" package throughout the line: one that adds upgraded interior bits and luxury features. That would be nice.

pompilius

the name Imperial may not be politically correct

hardhawk

But it brings back fond memories of youth when my parents drove Imperial's rather than Cadillac's or Lincoln's.

ebrock

I love this car, but I will probably be waiting for next years model. That will give them time to iron out any production bugs and add a few new options to the list.

Speaking of which, I hear a 20" wheel option will be coming for the '06. I hope so because that would illiminate one of the upgrades that I would have to do.

sls002

The advantages of more speeds is two fold: better fuel economy and better performance. The 300C has a 5 speed transmission and a 2.82:1 axle ratio, while the 3.5 V6 300 gets a 4 speed with a 3.64:1 axle ratio. This is not the whole story thought. Both engines get an overall first gear ratio of about 10:1, while the overdrive ratio is not the same, the hemi has 2.34:1 while the V6 is 2.51:1. The big difference is a lower low gear in the 5 speed, but also the top gears are closer together. So for hill climbing, dropping down a gear does not speed the engine up as much.

The transmisssions overall ratio is the first gear ratio divided by the top gear ratio: the 5 speed is 3.59/.83 = 4.33; the 4 speed is 2.84/.69 = 4.12. So the 5 speed offers either more low gear or a higher overdrive. But the gears are spaced about 1.6:1 apart in the 4 speed and 1.44 in the 5 speed on average. In reality, planetary gear design does not permit any gear ratio you want, unless you have a gearset for each gear. Most 4, 5 and 6/7 speed automatics have 3 planetary gearsets and combine gearsets to get various gears.

The V6 300 could probably use the 5 speed more than the hemi, although the hemi probably gets better fuel economy with the 5 speed than it would with the 4 speed. Mercedes has jumped over the six speed and gone to seven speeds I think. So if Chrysler goes to more gears, 7 speeds are in the german parts bin, which is where the 5 speed came from. A seven speed with an overall ratio of say 5:1 would have an average gear spacing of 1.31:1 -> 5:1, 3.82:1, 2.92:1, 2.24:1, 1.71:1, 1.31:1, 1.00:1 or you could add an overdrive ratio of 0.76:1 and drop the 5:1 first.

bigelm

I doubt it ... why are people so hung up on "speeds"? The engine is a HEMI, its a V8, it makes TONS of power way down low. Heck, it could prbly get away with a 4 speed

Um.... before you jump into assumptions, the reason why I ask is:
1. 6 speeds that are introduced are not only for the "IN PHASE" era, but also for better fuel consumption and increase in MPG.
2. The purpose of 6 speeds is not only to add one more gear but also to help spread out gear ratios, especially the 6th gear for 'cruising', which in turn reduces RPM.

And since you mentioned AWD and Subaru, one of reasons why Subaru is being critized is their lack of 6 speeds for their turbo models, which can help increase fuel economy, among other things...

Anyway... I agree there should be a 6 way power passenger seat. 20" wheels would be very nice, but I see it as a option (still great by the way). Maybe also a better wheel selection.

sls002:
Better explanation... you beat my post too ;-)

We also have 6 speeds in the bin, that's what MB was/is using...

dennis

If you are going to go 6 speeds, make mine a manual please.

stoosh95

adding more gears adds weight (not much, but it does)

adding more gears adds cost

adding more gears adds complexity

adding more gears is not necessary for engines with lots of low-end grunt.

adding more gears may increase fuel economy, but only if you're not flooring it all the time (see corvette/CTSv trannnies with the 1-4 skip) Economy is not gained via "more gears" but performance is.

If you look at racing: the "increased gears" is to allow peaky engines to STAY in the peak after shifting. Same thing applies to high-reving street cars like the Celica, Mini Cooper S or S2000. If they didn't HAVE the increased # of ratios between lowest and highest gears, the engine would rev down below the "sweet spot" and performance would be compromised.

Besides, what the heck: if your looking for something that gets 30mpg, forget about a V8 powered performance oriented vehicle.

If you want "economy via more gears" get a CVT. That way you can have all the speeds you can think of.

bigmike5

I was pleased to see that the almost perfect 50/50 weight ratio in the new 300C was partially responsible for keeping one afloat for about 10 minutes [of show time] after it drove into the Chicago River on the ER episode last nite. Very impressive. Now if the electric windows had only continued to work...lol Seriously, how could a 300C be pushed/caught by an old Buick Riviera. I kept making that comment and my wife kept telling me to "let it go," "shut up," etc. Bad press for the Hemi in that clip. lol

markcincinnati

The shift, no pun intended, from a German 5spd automatic to a German 6 speed automatic (a recent happening on Audis, Bimmers and Mercs) actually did decrease the transmission weight by 44 pounds (according to the web site about the new manumatics these Germans use).

Moreover, the move to 6 gears allowed the engine to remain more or less in its optimum rev range. The new CVT transmission from Audi and some new transmission pre releases from the other Germans describe 7 speed autos. These 7 speed autos are said to improve power and economy.

My plea, however, would be for a 6 speed manual, at least for the SRT-8 version.

It will NEVER happen.

A 6 speed auto -- now that eventually will, no doubt.

pompilius

>>>1. 6 speeds that are introduced are not only for the "IN PHASE" era, but also for better fuel consumption and increase in MPG.<<<

wow, you get both results from extra gears?

pompilius

That supercharged Buick Riviera was not a slouch. 240HP and 280 lbs*ft torque, and with a $100 supercharger pulley upgrade it could be easily modded to produce a lot more power.

bigmike5

I am pretty sure the SRT-8 I saw at the Dream Cruise had an automatic set-up. The car was locked and I had to peer through the front window from behind the taped off area a few feet away, but I am pretty sure I saw the usual automatic set up.

Pompilius--Riviera vs. 300C--Yeah, ok, it may not have been a "slug," in the true sense of the word, but still to keep up the with C. No way. I test drove both those cars, and IMHO it would have been no real contest. No matter, the C ended up at the bottom of the Chicago River. What a waste.

sls002

There was a Riviera Indy 500 pace car that could produce 500 horsepower or so, if I remember right.

wildebeast

I am still surprised that the C runs at higher RPMs at 70 mph than my v-8 GMC pickup or the v-6 Buick Park Avenue that I previously owned.

hemiman

I agree- Upgraded mine 300C Black
ordered with wood package
Have just completed embroidering 300 Hemi on all four headrest. Also added heated rear seats.

Plus car has smoke tinted glass and chrome pillars.

Looking for a good set of Chrome rocker mouldings

pompilius

you know, most TV viewers probably didn't even realize what car it was.

sls002

Your Park Avenue had a 0.7 overdrive ratio and the axle ratio was about 3.10:1 -> overall ratio of 2.2:1 in overdrive. As I pointed out above, the 5 speed hemi is 2.34:1 overall with the 2.84 axle and 0.83 overdrive.

For a six speed transmission to get better fuel efficiency, the transmission needs to be designed to minimize the use of the torque converter. The torque converter should be used only in first gear to get the car moving and then should be locked up in gears 2 through 6. Most four speeds use the torque converter to "fill in" between gears. When the torque converter is unlocked, the oil is heating up which is energy that could have gone to the wheels instead of the radiator.

jeep

Think about it. The windows couldn't work for the show. How in hell do you think they were going to get that big fat guy through the small window even if they did open?

bigmike5

Jeep-Good point, yeah he would have never made it thru one of those windows.

bigelm

wow, you get both results from extra gears?
IF you do your homework, you could learn a thing or two....

That ER show had me insulting the tv and my wife couldn't stop telling me to calm down. It doesn't matter what mod the Rivera would've had, as mentioned above... to keep up with the C is definitely driver error (in the 300C).

What I can't understand is how the Doc (Prats) was unable to open his door but yet once they reached the bottom of the river, Jean Mei was able to open it.

All in all, the chase is unreal, the opening of the door AFTER the car hits bottom is unreal. It's just obvious it was SCRIPTED!!! :-p

emale

does anyone know what the riv's top speed is? i know the 300c's top speed is relatively low. but it sure does blast to 60 mph in no time!!

sls002

My 1995 Riviera with supercharged V6 was computer limited to 108 MPH because it only came with basic tires rated for 112 MPH. I once took to the fuel cut off speed in Montana. Road & Track says the 300C is limited to 126 MPH.

pompilius

300C is probably limited because of the tires it has.

My '98 Pontiac Grand Prix GTP with the same exact engine as my '96 Riviera was limited to 128mph (again because of the tires). I know of some people removing the electronic governor on their GTPs and pusing into 140's.

hvan

I love the look of the 300C. However, the rear end needs further improvement. It looks so BLAND!!

bobhex40

I sold my 2000 300M last night and I found the 300C I was looking for - Magnesium with all the options. the Vin number is in the 26K range so hopefully the pull to the right has been corrected prior to the build. Anything else I need to be aware of??

intrepidation

I've finally seen a few around...and when my wife saw one, she said, "I can see you in that, conservative, and it hides what's underneath."

That put it into words for me, why I like the 300C so much.

Remember the '59 Cadillac fin-mobile? That was to beat Chrysler's fins of 57-58, and yeah, GM won. I'd still love to have a '59 Coupe DeVille and a '58 Sport Fury, but neither are likely to happen.

What really surprises me, and tells me the non-C's are not going to Europe, is the non-C models have integrated turn/stop lamps, whereas the C's are blessed with dedicated turn signal lamps.

I will readily admit, even though my wife has had her '02 RX300 for about a year, now, I'm still surprised at some of the forward-thinking design/engineering which went into it. Like not having to touch extended headrests when putting the rear seats down. Minor, but someone actually thought about it. This, to me, is the kind of engineering MOPAR used to have, and is getting back to...I hope.

Now to put 4 new KYB struts on the '95 Intrepid ES I can't let go of....

emale

guys,

here is the first glimpse at a dodge sedan based on the LX platform. could it be the charger??

http://www.allpar.com/cars/lx/dodge-charger.html

dennis

"The SRT-8 model is said to have 0-60 numbers of under 5 seconds, with handling comparable to the base Corvette."

WoW! Not bad with 4 doors!!

maggi

Does anyone know what AWD will cost and when it can be ordered?

fbcjr

I'm fan of the 300C and intend to buy one next year, but I don't agree with this statment. While I haven't driven an STS, I have recently driven a full-loaded V8 SRX, and the magnetic leveling system on the car was in the "unbelievable, must be felt to be believed" category. Truly world-class outstanding stuff -- and better than the 300C by a wide margin. Also, based on my experience in the 300C and the SRX, the Cadillac interior appeared to be much higher quality, and had an easier to use navigation system.

So, while I do agree with you that the 300C is at least a comparable car for a lot less money, I don't agree that the extra $20,000 for the STS is for badging. (Admitting that I haven't actually driven one and that I'm basing this on my experience with the similar SRX). Also, a lot of the engineering work on the 300C had already been done for the older Mercedes SLK, which might be partly responsible for its wonderful cost-to-performance ratio.

wildebeast

I drove the SRX before I bought the C. It was the most powerful car this old geezer had driven before I got the C. The SRX would have cost me $10-12,000 more than the C. The front seat area was tight and it was difficult to see out--even worse than the C when backing up. The C just plainly has more character. They will be discounting the SRX heavily if they haven't started already.

bobhex40

I finally got my 300C. Not a factory order but I found it in stock. Its Magnesium with all options. First impressions relative to the 300M. Very quiet and very powerful HID lamps are awsome. The car feels glued to the road (due to extra weight?) Steering is very tight and overall the vehicle feels high-quality. Looking forward to the weekend to really study it and figure out how things work.

kevm14

Also, a lot of the engineering work on the 300C had already been done for the older Mercedes SLK, which might be partly responsible for its wonderful cost-to-performance ratio.

Not SLK, W210 MB, which is the late 90s E-class.

yosito

I agree with you, sorry those guys didn´t come up with the Chrysler Nassau, That´s a sharp looking car!!

rayainsw

The new guide shows the AWD Hemi as only 1 MPG less (HWY) and the same CITY as the RWD version.

Does this seem odd to anyone else?

Edit: Also the 300C AWD 3.5L shows exactly the same as the AWD 5.7L Hemi. . .

The new STS shows a 4 MPG diff.

- Ray
Wondering if the final drive was also changed for the AWD??????