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
You'd advocate buying an AWD car in case you hit "a little bit of oil, water or gravel?" It's your money. If a FWD car did the same thing you're talking about, the stability of the car wouldn't be effected. Although it would accelerate slower through the gravel, water, oil, etc. Is this really a safety issue? That's like saying "I always buy the biggest engine that my car is available with, because I want to have the maximum acceleration at all times, if I need it." No one says that, and it's ridiculous. Acceleration is for fun, not safety. My Camaro runs low 14s in the 1/4 mile and torques around at low speed with alacrity. Do I think it's a safer car because of this? Of course not.
driving on dry plowed road, hit an icy patch with the right side wheels, power is already going to the left side ones and thereby you don't loose control, same thing happens when going from plowed to unplowed pavement.
See, this is where I see the marketing brainwashing. If there's no power being applied, or very little (as is the case when maintaining a cruising speed), then there's nothing to shift and nothing happens. For the sake of argument, say you were accelerating hard. If you were in a FWD car, you wouldn't lose control when one wheel hit ice. That one wheel would simply spin up (if there are no electronic aids). The car would continue in the proper direction. Same with RWD. Your example fails.
but with AWD you are already ahead of the game because the power is already going to that other wheel
If you sent power to only one side of the car and not do the other, and you were on a slippery road, do you know what would happen? The car would rotate/turn to the side that had no power, even with the steering wheel dead straight. This is physics. This is how stability control works, except instead of braking, you're accelerating.
or if a whole axle looses grip, the power is already on the other axle, with electronics + 2wd you don't even have the option to move the power to that other axle.
If a whole axle looses grip....uh, if the front axle looses grip, then you have no steering. Is it really advantageous for the rear to keep pushing the car forward? If the rear axle loses grip, then you'll have potential oversteer. In this case, the front axle can pull the vehicle out of it.
As for accident avoidance, when you make a hard turn in an AWD car even though you are off-throttle, power is still being applied from the engine's momentum to all 4 wheels and you are definitely going to have a better chance of not loosing control.
I'm sorry, you are FLAT WRONG here. You can have three scenarios.
1) the tires are trying to accelerate the vehicle
2) the tires are trying to brake the vehicle
3) the tires are doing neither, but are just along for the ride
One of these is ALWAYS happening. If you are off the throttle, then scenario 1) is impossible. In a manual transmission car, yes, if you were in a low enough gear, you could have meaningful scenario 2). But this is no different than braking. It affords no additional control than braking in a 2wd car. And if the car has an automatic, scenario 3) is the most likely. In this case, AWD also has no advantage, since the tires are receiving no torque, positive or negative.
On your rating list: For purely the best acceleration in slippery conditions, I'd fully agree with your list. However, AWD without traction control can easily have less control than a 2wd car with it, so I don't agree from a control standpoint.
I would love to road race sometime. Drag racing is boring and autocross (the typical cones in a parking lot track) is also boring in cars that prefer to stretch their legs.
Anyone else hear that there are a few F1 teams looking into AWD?
Ditto what Mark said.
But there is a donut. If you keep the steering wheel at lock and apply power, then the direction the front wheels are pointing will be constantly changing. And I disagree with your definition of a donut. What I experienced in my friend's 330xi was a rotation about the CENTER of the car. Both front and rear were sliding somewhat. The front was helping pull the car in rotation. And the rear was helping push the car in rotation. That's why it made the perfect donut. He nailed the gas, turned to the right and the driver's side tires hit the curb after it did a 180. It never crossed the double yellow. That would be possible only if the vehicle rotated about an imaginary pole placed in the center of the roof. Maybe it's only BMW's AWD system that does this. What do I know...
Just so that we are all on the same page
We are.
the car begins to go in the general direction the steering wheel is pointed in.
That's right. Say an AWD car has 30* of turning angle at lock. Now say you hit the gas. The front end will follow the direction of the tires, so the front will want to turn that 30*. Well ok, once the car has turned that 30*, the tires are still a constant 30* off from straight ahead, so it keeps going. This is why the tight donut effect works (in an AWD car).
But, I've been wrong before
Me too
You won't see me disputing AWD's racing success. The primary reason, from a vehicle dynamics perspective, that AWD accels in a racing environment is because you can get on the throttle sooner out of a corner, or even while still partially in the corner. Absolutely. But I still maintain that this doesn't in any way translate to a safer vehicle for Soccer Mom.
Seriously though I'm not going to continue to argue with you as you have ZERO real world experience. As Big Elm said spend a week in an AWD car and you'll realize it's benefits.
-mike
That's great, but what does rally racing have to do with Soccer Mom? My main focus has been safety. Not racing domination.
Bigelm, I think you're REALLY starting to see where I am going with this! My issue is not with the 1% of the AWD owning population that actually has a clue about handling dynamics above a 5/10ths threshold. Those people are great. Paisan appears to be one of them. My issue is with the remaining 99% that receive no *safety* benefit from AWD except via a lightening of their wallet when they check the option on the build sheet.
I already realize the benefits. It is my argument that those benefits are either irrelevant or inaccessible to the VAST majority of AWD car owners from a *SAFETY STANDPOINT*. Not the ability to pull out of your driveway at 45mph. Not the ability to dominate RWD and FWD cars in rally racing.
But uh, sure, we can drop it...we're already pretty off topic and I apologize to the moderators.
So, go 300C! And to a lesser extent, go 300C AWD
Sometimes hands on experience is the best convincer...
Hear hear!!
C'mon folks - there is an archived topic that is perfect for these last 40 or so posts. Find it with the keyword search and email pf_flyer to ask him to reopen it.
In any case, let's agree that some folks are very interested in the possibility of an AWD 300C and get back to talking about the car itself.
Thanks.
I don't know if it is 1% and 99% or 15% and 85%, but the spirit of the statement is clear. . .the proposition is that the vast majority of people who will acquire (for the sake of this forum) an AWD Chrysler 300C will receive no safety benefit. The point appears to be that AWD's safety benefits will only be realized by the small minority of individuals who understand handling dynamics.
I gather that this perspective does grant that "in competent hands" AWD does have some benefits (safety [nominally 'control' enhancements], performance, perhaps even economy) -- with this there is no doubt.
However, the benefits of AWD, are even greater for those who [apparently] are "less competent."
Please recall that the attribute that we have "settled on" as A contributing factor to the characteristic of safety is "control" -- that is, the greater the control, the greater the probability of safety in whatever circumstance we may find ourselves in.
Average consumers, the 99% perhaps, may tend to dismiss the need for "improved control and handling" claiming "we are not going to race this car!" However, even if we were to judge vehicles solely as mere conveyances or appliances, good handling does enter the equation. A good handling vehicle, such as the many excellent all wheel drive examples we have mentioned herein, will "hide" the difficulty of negotiating a turn, making it both seem and actually be more effortless. The average driver would then both feel more comfortable and confident -- and will be able to corner with less risk of a loss of control (and will therefore be inclined to lose less speed when entering a curve, leading to greater efficiency as a by-product of increased control (handling improvements)hence safety.)
The "mom" or "dad" in the AWD 300C will both perceive and enjoy more control, better handling, possibly more "fun and enjoyment" and greater safety.
Perhaps, just perhaps, they won't be as cognizant of the "reasons" they are enjoying these benefits, but for me to believe that they will be (essentially) oblivious to them would be giving way too little credit to the driving public.
The popularity of 4WD, AWD, SUV's and other innovations and inventions is not due to the 1% who do have a clue (although they are part of the buying population, I'd agree) -- rather it is due to the majority of the buying public recognizing the benefits of all wheels being driven all the time (and often coupled to a whole host of sophisticated technologies that for many are meaningless three letter acronyms).
I submit that AWD, like, for instance ABS and ESP may not be technically and fully understood, but that it is unnecessary to understand it in order to appreciate its value, its contribution to control, performance, safety and fun.
The funny thing about the roof rack is that it transformed the "station wagon" into a "sporty SUV" in the words of my wife. She hated the Magnum without the rack and likes it with the rack. Go figure that! I have experienced zero wind noise as a result of the rack being there. Yes, someone will get a great buy on the black 300C that is now about a week out for delivery. I am hoping that in a couple of years the 300C wagon will be sold here and I can then get one and have both the extra goodies and the cargo capacity. My wife took over my 2002 GMC Envoy when I got the Magnum. The only perk I really miss from the Envoy is the rain sense wipers. The 300C has those and the Magnum does not. I converted the Magnum lights to the same "auto" system that the 300C has, so now don't have to turn the lights on and off.
I've been traveling so sorry about delay. I drive an audi a6 2.7t. I looked at the 300c but there are issues with it that bother me. If you want to, search under my ID to see my previous posts on steering defects with the car, plus the use of metal coated plastic parts used, such as door handles. Someone else posted that the chrome wheels are also metal coated plastic.
Jeff
I'll do a search though.
-mike
I am really impressed how this car handles on ice covered with snow, and this car does not need snow tires, but then if it makes you feel good or safe then go for it.
Hmmm wonder what that color looks like?
-mike
Welcome back Chrysler.
-mike
Chrysler 300/300C
The following exterior colors are no longer available for ordering:
(PDM) Mineral Gray
(PMQ) Deep Lava Red
(PB8) Midnight Blue
(PP4) Satin Jade Pearl
(XRV) Rear seat video system production delayed until 2/1/05
(EER) 2.7L engine and (TWH) tire w/o (BNB) electronic stability production delayed until 1/3/05
(LXFP48) 300 Touring AWD model has a Job #1 of 11/15/04
(LXFS48) 300C AWD model has a Job #1 of 11/22/04
(AFB) Comfort/Convenience Group has a Job #1 of 11/29/04
LXCX48 SRT-8 AWD model has a Job #1 of 1/10/05
(PA4) Silver Steel Job #1 is 1/17/05
(PYG -AFS) Linen Gold w/o Signature Series has a Job #1 of 1/17/04
After so many years of mediocrity, the day they score a homerun they get caught with their pants down.
Just in case you missed it.. the SRT8-AWD is coming out. But Chrysler hasn't said anything yet.
To answer your question as per their website:
"Available features like Electronic Stability Program (ESP) ,* antilock brake system (ABS), and all-speed traction control combine to provide the driver with more better command of every situation"
Even the AMG E55 does not come with an LSD. It's all controlled by the ESP Unit. We were up at Pocono doing a track day with some guys driving factory AMG cars (E55, C32) and the E55 had to come in off the track due to overheating rear brake fluid (or so the computer said) because it uses the brakes to act like an LSD even on the AMG cars, I'd think that if they use the electronic stuff to control the rear on the AMG that you wouldn't see the 300c getting an LSD unit.
-mike
I have, as many long time readers of my postings here on edmunds.com know, had nearly 30 Audis (between my wife and me, that is) since 1977. I can't recall the price range of all of these cars, and frankly it probably doesn't matter. Since 1997, the cars we have had have all been between $40,000 and $70,000+ (for TT's, A4' A6's, allroads and one A8). We have enjoyed our Audis.
Our main reason to buy/lease these cars has been a combination of attributes and our ability to afford them. The attribute most important to us has been All Wheel Drive. We can (and have) explore this topic, for many seem to have strong feelings on the subject. That is not what I want to do at this time.
Now, I want to discuss with you who have plunked down your money the subject of value. Since 2002, when my wife and I picked up our recent Audis (hers a TT coupe, mine an allroad) we have had very few problems with our cars -- so all the crying out loud about Audis lack of reliability, etc, will pretty much fall on deaf ears. We have had many Audis and they aren't perfect, but we are not going to bash them for their reliability issues, for we have had few.
As we have still a few months of "flex" to make a final decision, we have test driven numerous cars -- prices all over the board -- from the US, Europe and Japan. We still are drawn to the German cars -- and, we have limited our "serious" test drives to whatever the manufacturer had to offer that was AWD. This means we tested BMW's, Mercedes, Volvos, Audis, VW's, even some Fords, and of course Cadillac (SRX's).
On our short list, even without test driving them remains: 2005 Audi A6 3.2; 2005.5 Audi A4 3.2; 2005 (or newer) Chrysler 300C AWD; and 2005 Acura RL (the TL would be a contender if it comes out with SH-AWD).
Whilst awaiting the availability of these cars to test, I have been reveiwing the "value proposition" based on the build and price features available on the Internet and simultaneously reading every print and cyber article I can get my hands (and eyes) on.
I have visited a Chrysler 5 star dealership to "get on the list" to test drive the 300C AWD, ditto the other cars noted.
I am coming to the conclusion -- again without test driving -- that while these cars have some similarities and some differences, that they will have a price range of ~ $40+K to ~ $50+K -- narrower than we've previously shopped. The Acura RL and the Audi A6 will be at the top and the Audi A4 and the Chrysler 300C will be at the bottom.
I finally got behind the wheel (but did not drive) a Chrysler RWD 300C last weekend. I have not had the pleasure of doing this in the Audi cars (although I did test drive the A6 4.2). The Acura RL's have been presold, so there are none to be tested.
My point? -- first Chrysler dealers (well the one that I went to anyway) are in a time warp. White belt and shoes, Vitalis on the hair, beer guts and very little product information between their ears. I thought I had been transported into the "low rent" district of car-retailing-dom. Ewwww!
The European car dealers are smooth, but not slick, almost like the tuxedo clad waiters at a fine restaurant, or at least like the folks at a fine Chicago Steak house -- and they know their products and they don't hurry you and they only go on the test drive with you if you ask them to.
The Acura dealer was also very cool -- well dressed, articulate and in a setting like the lobby of a 4 or 5 star hotel. Upscale, but not snooty. The Cadillac dealer was up several notches from the Chrysler dealer, but down several from the best European and Japanese makes.
I wonder if I could "get used to" the Texas Roadhouse treatment when I have been used to the Chicago Steakhouse treatment? It was like culture shock.
But, then I thought, well -- I'll only have to interact with these folks when I buy, the rest of the time I'll be dealing with the service department. Gulp. It was closed, so I have no clue if I will be dealing with the guy in the white lab coat, like the BMW service manager, or the slob like at quickie no-name oil change.
Should I be concerned?
I even broach this subject and set myself up to be jabbed by others, because I have come to the conclusion that the 300C (AWD) and the upcoming iterations of this vehicle make it's value index trend ever higher. I sat in the $56K Cadillac (AWD) with a V6 -- it was very nice. I sat in the $36K 300C (RWD) and it too was very nice. Ok, sure the Cadillac was a bit nicer -- a bit.
The Cadillac doesn't include free maintenance like the Audi and BMW, and neither does the Chrysler. Yet, I found a dealer -- a CHRYSLER dealer -- who offers free maintenance for 3 years or 36,000 miles, included in the price.
Where I'm going with this is, I have decided I will not simply buy what I can afford -- I want some (and it doesn't even have to be overwheliming) semblence of "value."
Audis, to me, have always been "of higher value" than their "counterparts" from Europe and Japan -- the times they are a changin' though. At these prices, monthly lease prices, there are some pretty fine cars on the market.
I grow to want some more value -- the 300C (and by extrapolation the 300C AWD) seems to actually offer some value. And this is not the same as saying it is cheap or it costs less. For an MSRP of (probably) under $42K, the 300C seems to provide one with the opportunity to [practically] have one's cake and eat it too.
And, for the unconvinced, it would seem that the SRT-8 AWD version (hopefully more than just a tempting rumor) will offer reasonable, no reason to be ashamed that is, performance -- and probably be AT MOST south of $50,000.
Not asking for affordability responses here -- just looking for your perception of "value."
Bluntly, if you have the capability of "affording" a $50+K car -- what made you pick the 300C instead? I have to assume value entered into the "rationalization."
As I sit and ponder an Audi A6 3.2 with a lease cost of just under $900 per month (which is about what my A8 ran) and a 300C around $600 per month (according to their respective Internet build and price options), I cannot for the life of me find the [extra]$300 in the Audi.
Yes, I know what I said -- these decisions are often largely subjective and emotional.
At this moment, NOT in the heat of passion, that is, I am asking for your comments regarding the value you perceive in your 300C!
Thank you and good night.
My best advice - a good deal is the one you believe is a good deal for you, and you can't make a good deal with a bad guy. Ask your salesperson to walk you through the service department and introduce you to a service manager, a mechanic, a parts guy. Have them show you what to do when you bring your car in for service.
Hmmm... wonder if this becomes a deal breaker to some.
I, just like you looked real hard at the 300c and the coming AWD. There's a lot that I liked about the car, but there were some basics that really bother me. The steering problem/defect was of major concern to me. There are also many reliability issues posted by current owners. I too was amazed by the lack of knowledge and professionalism that I encountered at the dealership. On one of my test drives a salesman fell asleep in the back seat of the car.
My gut feeling about the 3ooc RWD / 300c AWD is as follows:
pros
. you get a v8 with plenty of speed and horsepower
. car has a quiet and firm ride
cons
. many of the components are not made to last
. major steering problem/defect
. autostick is in the dark ages
Coming from an Audi, I don't think you will be happy after the chrome covered plastic parts wear away.
Just my opinion.
I bought a 300C and have been extremely happy with my choice. Oh, the "left-over" $30 to 35K is now going towards my wife's choice of rides.