It's not the mechanical issues that's the cause of the GTO's sales, it's the styling, the badge and what it offers.
I'd say to look into the '05's. It's getting a facelift, with some hood, bumper and fender changes. Plus the HP/TQ will be increased by 25. Minor interior changes is also to be done in the '05's.
IMO, it looks better plus you can't go wrong with the extra umph ;-)
I'm not the one to ask cause I have my own set of "rules" for buying a new car. These "rules" rule out the 300 series for now. I'd take the G35. Only things I can see that favor the 300 are the space & styling. Do you need all that space? I didn't which is why I sold the 300M I had & bought a 2 door Acura. I'd also try to get a better deal. That price sounds high even for Canada dollars.
I went into my 5* for a service on my 300M and laughingly [because they are not a volume dealer]asked them where the SRT 4,6,8 or 10's were. They said "the only thing we have now is the SRT-10 truck, its out on the floor." I popped out to the showroom and there was the meanest Red truck I ever saw, with "Viper" on the hood and with a big red bow on it. I am not a truck guy, but geez, what a monster. That one has 500 hp. They had a sticker of $45K but wanted an additionl $4K bringing it up near the big 50. The 300 SRT-8 cannot be far behind in hitting the market.
. . .after my wife dragged me all over the car landscape (test drives and more test drives), she finally went back to where I thought she would go: Audi. This time, however, to my astonishment, she ordered a 2005.5 A4 2.0T FSI 6spd manual sedan with virtually all the options. I thought she would "cave" and get her fourth TT.
OK, so patience is a virtue, so they say. The STS is off the charts -- the way it has to be optioned to get AWD is nertz or crazy. I can get an SWB Audi A8 for that kind of money (well, almost). The SRX with the magna ride and the V6 is MSRP'd at $53K and change (again this seems out of the league of sanity). So, I sit with my choices (on paper at least) being an open minded test drive of the 300C w/AWD and all options $42K? and MAYBE even the SRT-8 AWD @ $47K?, the Acura RL at just south of $50K and two Audis, both 3.2L FSI V6's: the A4 3.2 north of $42K and the A6 3.2, south of $52K. Have driven the Audi 3.2, have looked at but not driven a 300C RWD (and have no intention of doing so, waiting instead for the AWD flavor) and have looked at the Acura (but they are so rare at this point there are none to be driven in my geography of North East Cincinnati).
The 300C AWD should be in its third week of production now -- unless I miss my guess (which I may have) there must be some hitting dealers soon or already.
Has anyone driven one of these things? Not ordered, but driven? Heck, I would even like to hear from a Company Person who has driven both -- it seems to me that the 300C w/AWD (and with some slight bit more of cred now that it is the COTY) would be a bargain and worth comparing to the A6 and the RL (and if one would buy the Chrysler, well wouldn't that mean "and change back from your $50,000?")
My wife says overcoming the "dealership experience" will be a challenge after having dealt with a premium European car line for so long. . .we'll see.
I just did a "locate" for one of my customers, and no Tourings, Limited's, or C's show up as having been delivered anywhere in the country. The store where I work has a few AWD (various trim) 300's that are in their 2nd to 3rd week of build, so your estimate is about correct. Sometimes with a new model, once the vehicles ship (which should be in about 2-3 weeks), they go to storage for anywhere from 1 to 6 weeks. That's where the real guesswork is. From a sales perspective, I'd love to have them now - not potentially the end of February. BUT, there may be a factory guy or two driving them - I doubt they'd post any comments.
I just got my January 2005 issue of Consumer Reports and the editors are less than glowing in their summary of the C. Poor visibility, low gas mileage, "suspension" noises on bumpy roads, and a harsh ride are all cited as negatives, putting the 300C below the Avalon, Park Avenue, Maxima and Ford 500. I heard that some of the pre-production 300C's had a harsh ride that has since been addressed. Did Consumer Reports, I wonder, have one of the "pre" cars? As one who has recently ordered a 300C, I am wondering about the ride. I am not looking for a boat, but was hoping terms like "harsh" and "jittery" would not be creeping into reviews of the car's ride. Any opinions? Thanks.--Frank
I'd like to know how they compared the 300C to the vehicles you mentioned. First of all, they compared a 8 cyl to 6 cyl. ~ Mistake #1. In what category does the 300C fit? Not in the cars mentioned above. ~ Mistake #2. Low MPG against who? How? ~ Mistake #3.
In the beginning, the 300C's had complaints about harsh ride, but supposely was corrected. The car I test drove didn't have the "harshness" they are claiming but the suspension is not Cadillac. I prefer some 'stiffness' in the suspension as long as it's soft enough for comfort. CR tends to be biased too so none of what you wrote surprises me... plus if their testing holds true (as per your post), then someone in CR doesn't know what they're doing.
The 300 was just ranked one of the 10 best cars by Car and Driver. I don't know about you, but I certainly know which publication I would rely on for an opinion on cars.
'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
Consumer Reports doesn't like the 300C huh? What does Better Homes and Gardens have to say about it or Martha Stewart's publication?
Car and Driver put the 300C on their 10 best list -- I don't go to Car and Driver for advice on washing machines or toasters, why listen to CR on this [automobiles] subject?
I don't know if the 300C is a great car or not -- from a reader's point of view it seems like a bargain -- a lot of car for the money. Frankly, such a review from Consumer's Reports is, in an odd way, encouraging since they know little about cars when compared with the writers and editors of Car, Car & Driver, Road & Track, Autoweek, and, gulp even Motor Trend from time to time. Oh BTW, the 300C is Motor Trend's COTY, which means a bit more than anything CR could say on that subject.
CR is, IMO, a decent source of information about appliances -- the 300C regardless of what it may ultimately turn out to be is NOT an appliance.
I would not be so dismissive of Consumer Reports automobile testing. They probably do test cars with much the same philosophy they use for toasters or washing machines – primarily objective, measurable parameters. That isn’t such a bad thing when most car testing publications tend to have plenty of subjective evaluation. Since most of us probably choose vehicles for emotional and subjective reasons, we tend to feel comfortable with the emotional and subjective opinions of the car magazine experts. However, I think you will find some pretty exciting vehicles that make the grade in Consumer Reports testing. For example: Audi, BMW, Porche, Acura, Infiniti, Lexus and many other Japanese and U.S. vehicles all are listed as “recommended”. Even the Subaru WRX is on their recommended list. Hardly a toaster.
Seems to me that cars getting high praise from both Consumers and Car & Driver (et al) are plentiful and worth considering. Just as a car that is ripped by C&D is probably one not very interesting to a lot of people who would consider a 300C, knowing a vehicle’s warts before you’ve owned it for a week should be interesting to everyone. It’s real easy to fall in love with the appearance, acceleration, and handling of a car like the 300C. Those warts have a way of annoying you for years.
Another point to consider – Consumer Reports buys their test vehicles from a dealer just like any of us do. The car buff magazines get theirs supplied directly from the manufacturers. Those car magazine vehicles are not necessarily in the same condition as the vehicles sold to customers. That includes both quality and performance.
I am seriously considering acquiring a 300C. I know it is not a perfect car. The visibility is lacking, the trunk is too small, and the gas mileage is probably lousy. I’m happy to see a published evaluation that talks about these real-world things that an owner has to live with long after the ink is dry. I’ll do another road test to evaluate the negative points raised. Give me both Car & Driver and Consumer Reports. Cars can co-exist in both worlds
I don't know how much you can value a magazine who compares apples to oranges.
In a way I do agree with certain points you made about CR, BUT the truth of the matter is that a company who dedicates itself on a wide variety of points in different product categories, will tend to miss the key elements of what makes a car great or garbage. I still have yet to hear why they made such a comparison like previously mentioned. - That alone tells me they missed a 'key' element.
I bought my 300C as it came in "off the truck" on August 5th. The car is nice except for two things. Very hard, harsh ride. Smooth but hard. Nothing like my 300M. Also, after 1,000 miles a rattle coming from the center of the instrument panel housing the radio, heater etc. The dealer has replaced the surrounding chrome-colored trim and padded it. The rattle isn't there on rainy days. But on dry days it bothers me a lot.
One of the folks in the office had a 300M, no problems to speak of with it for 39 months.
Wouldn't get another M, might get a C -- he also has a BMW X5 and had before the M a 5 series BMW.
The issue both he and my wife stipulate is "dealer treatment" -- which at a regional 5 star dealership would be at best a B-.
I guess you "gets what you pays for" -- maybe a 300C represented and serviced by an Acura or Lexus or BMW dealer would cost another $10,000.
Maybe I am kidding myself. My co-worker admonishes me that it has taken decades for the Premium guys to get where they are -- and it will likely be decades before almost any reasonable Chrysler dealer will [be able to] "rise to the occasion"
I still want to test a 300C AWD -- but I am beginning to think that the Acura and the Audi dealer personnel "get it" -- maybe even the Cadillac folks get it, but it must be too much to expect at this time from a Chrysler dealer.
I like the simple life -- where the customer is treated well after the sale -- my co worker gets that from his BMW dealer and I get it from my Audi dealer.
My Chrysler dealer here in Jackson, Michigan is fair and good to customers. They've treated me very well. This 300C is my 3rd car with them. Right now they are bending over backwards to fix my rattle problem. They had the car for 4 days and rented me a brand new Jeep to use. I'm learning that rattles and/or noises are among the most difficult things to trace and stop. But this dealer and service dept. are top notch for customer relations.
Regarding the choices of cars ranked along with the 300C by consumer Reports, the current issue tests cars which they consider "large sedans". Specifically this issue tests two versions of the Ford 500 and two versions of the 300 along with a Kia Amanti. While these are the models tested in this issue, the article includes a ranking of similarly-sized cars from recent issues. That's where the ranking listing the Avalon, Park Avenue, Maxima, and Ford 500 above the 300 models came from.
It may seem odd (and unheard of in C&D or R&T) to rank a 300 C against a vehicle like an Avalon. However, when you consider it by size - particularly interior size- it makes some sense. Speaking from personal experience, my wife drives a current generation Avalon because she wanted a car with a roomy interior and didn't want an SUV. At the time the Avalon seemed like the obvious choice. If the 300C had been available at that time, it would certainly been considered and, knowing my wife's penchant for fast driving, probably chosen. In her case, comparing these "large cars" makes plenty of sense.
On the other hand, this comparison doesn't work so well for me. I am interested in what most would consider a sports sedan so size is a secondary consideration. That's why I find myself comparing the 300C against something like a 3-series BMW. Size-wise it is an invalid comparison, but for performance it is quite appropriate. Because I am not looking for a particularly sized car, their choice of cars which were ranked aganist the 300C is not so interesting to me. However, their test data and their opinions about the car remain worthy of consideration, in my opinion.
mike300c- There is a procedure to eliminate your rattle problem that you can do yourself. Forum rules prevent me from posting it here. You could email me though.
I've lived with my 300C for six months now, and I've decided that for me, the ride is too stiff. Too hard. My sister bought a new 300 touring which I drove for a couple of days, and I think the ride in that one is too hard also.
Took delivery yesterday of a second vehicle, a 2005 Colorado LS with the standard Z85 suspension, and even though it is a 4 wheel drive truck, it has a notably smoother more pleasant ride than the Chrysler 300. I like my 300C well enough to keep it for its other myriad attributes, but the ride is definitely disappointing.
Even though I agree with Consumers Reports that the 300C ride is harsh, as an automobile enthusiast for 40 years I must say I have never, and will never consider anything Consumer's Reports has to say about cars. They have demonstrated no soul, no ability to detect what makes for the most delightful ownership experience overall.
If cars are your number one interest in life as they are in mine, you select them as you would your wife. You go for the one you love, and then for lasting pleasure of it, you overlook the flaws.
It's meant to have a firm, sporty feel and very tight handling for a large car. Thus, the ride will be kind of crispy--but you should have known and accepted that fact going in.
The Colorado, like most GM trucks, has a pretty mushy suspension, so of course it's going to ride "smoothly". Want a large car w/ similar pricing and an cloud-like ride? Buy a Town Car.
If cars are your number one interest ... you select them as you would your wife. You go for the one you love, and then for lasting pleasure ..., overlook the flaws.
Wow! No truer or more accurate words have ever been spoken for a true car enthusiast. I'm gonna have to use that as a signature statement in another forum! Hope you don't mind.
Cars have been the focus of my leisure time for all of my adult life. I've owned 53 since I graduated from high school in 1962, including just about everything German and Japanese, and my share of domestics, as well. I read ALL of the car magazines, the websites, and obviously, participate here. I have also been reading Consumer Reports for well over 40 years.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, works harder at getting it right, doing valid comparisons, and most importantly, using REPEATABLE test procedures than CU. I know from experience that if they praise the handling or ride of a car, when I drive that car, I'll agree. If they criticize, I'll usually agree after a thorough test drive.
As for their "lack of car enthusiasm", or whatever the alleged crime is here, I can tell you that in the past 15 years or so, their automotive testing editors have pretty much the same biases as the rest of us - they value handling, good brakes, comfortable interiors, and they tell it like it is when a car sacrifices "enthusiast" values for comfort alone - read the test on the Amanti carefully.
What did they say? That the 300C in particular rides more firmly than the Touring, and can be harsh and occasionally noisy. Yep. That it's hard to see out of that squashed greenhouse. Yep on that too. That the trunk doesn't have as much room as the 500. Yep.
And the Avalon as competition? If you READ what they had to say about the Avalon, it is clear that they don't consider it an "enthusiast" choice - just happens to be the best value in the class, if you take into account EVERYTHING they use as criteria, of which handling and such are just part of the equation. And that's before the new Avalon arrives on the scene. Does an Avalon interest most people interested in a 300? Probably not, but that doesn't make their observations and ratings invalid.
Every time CU publishes something that doesn't praise some particular vehicle to the skies, a firestorm erupts on sites like this one. Like having your favorite child evaluated realistically by the teacher? "Johnny can't always do his sums, turns in the homework late, likes to skip out occasionally, but he's a terrific football player..."
Last spring/summer I test drove a 300C and thought that the ride was jittery but firm over pavement bumps. I attributed it to overinflated tires. A month later at a second dealer I drove another 300C and found that it did not have the jittery/bouncy feel as in the first one I drove. I then drove the Touring at the same dealer and found it to be nearly identical to the 300C. Both cars at the second dealer I thought had an excellent suspension; firm and in control, but not harsh.
But then I prefer a firm suspension. I've owned and enjoyed driving Fiat Spyders, an MX-6, and in recent years two different E-class sedans. It may be that some folks really don't like a firm suspension and to them the firmness is exaggerated as compared to their previous rides.
For me, the offending comment that started this whole thing was this one: putting the 300C below the Avalon, Park Avenue, Maxima and Ford 500.
You can say anything you like about how they nitpick a vehicle effectively or whatever, but any publication that suggests buying a Ford 500 over the 300C is NOT on my reading list. The only way this suggestion happens is by completely removing all enthusiast criteria because the 500 is the epitome of boring and playing it safe. I, for one, don't even care that the 300C is the one below the Ford 500, or Park avenue for that matter, its the fact that a couple of boring cars (once again, APPLIANCES) top the list AT ALL.
'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
I would challenge the overflated tires vs. 'harsh' ride.
I do consider the 300C to ride firm but comfortable but I can't say it's "harsh". What are you going to expect from a performance luxury sedan? You want soft? Drive a Lincoln....
Note: Firm + overinflated tires = harsh.
Since CR 'buys' their cars from dealers (like someone mentioned), then chances are those tires were overinflated and overlooked when testing was done... um.. wait... that's a "key" element!
Oh.. and appliances vs. enthusiast cars doesn't seem like apples to apples. No matter how much praise you give CR, their rated reviews (regardless of what car you're talking about) are not of any significance to the majority of car enthusiast because they just "miss it". One out of all the reviews that are out there claims that the 300C is subpar to those tested or even considered to compare to those mentioned. The 300C is compared to higher standard vehicles, like the Audi, BMW and MB, and they get their share of spanking. The 300C is not glorified, but it's respected for what it offers and for the price. I'll trash any car, but give credit where it's due.
You want to have it all, then I suggest making your own car.
A reporter is interested in speaking with anyone who has recently purchased any of the following vehicles: Chrysler 300, Mazda 3, Scion xB, Audi A6, Land Rover LR3 or the Honda Odyssey. He would like to discuss which other vehicles you considered, why you bought the vehicle you bought, likes/dislikes, etc. If you are interested in speaking with this reporter, please forward your name, the vehicle you purchased and your daytime contact information to Pam Krebs, Edmunds.com PR, at pkrebs@edmunds.com no later than end of day Tuesday, Dec. 14. Thank you
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
. . .since this isn't rocket surgery we're talking about here, this disagreement over Consumer's Reports ability or lack thereof to be a credible source of information continues.
Consumer's Reports certainly is able to report factual information clearly. No issue there.
Personally, I do not find their prose able to get to the essence of driving a car -- sure they can tell you it will stop in 172 feet or accelerate in 5.9 seconds or whatever. But their style does not lend itself to describing well the "feel" of the experience.
Perhaps we are making mountains out of molehills -- perhaps their ratings do sway buyers away or towards a car.
They certainly march to the tune of. . .
And there is nothing wrong with that.
However, I find their "analysis" of cars to be "less helpful" with respect to the attributes that make me "cough up" a medium sized 5 figure number. They will, certainly, keep printing their auto reports -- I will, certainly, keep ignoring them.
But, I could be wrong, in doing so -- it is a risk I'm willing to take.
...the tire pressure can tend to have a lot to do with how a car's ride and handling feels, and dealer's usually never have it right when the car's prepped--usually way overinflated, making certain cars feel overly jittery and rough on test drives or when you pick your new car up. Check the pressure and see if a lower one makes a difference, is what I would say, if it bothers you.
Yes, I agree. The way our shop is set up, our detail department has three bays right next to several service bays. Whenever I drop a car in detail (for delivery at that point), I grab a tire pressure gauge and check the tires. Almost always are they overinflated. Especially during the first few days/weeks of ownership, tire pressure can dramatically effect a customer's perception of their new vehicle (too hard, too soft, pulls left, pulls right, etc). I'd put a tire pressure gauge on the list of items to bring with you when you pick up your car.
>>>The Colorado...has a pretty mushy suspension, so of course it's going to ride "smoothly". Want a large car w/similar pricing and an cloud-like ride? Buy a Town Car.<<<
I apologize for complaining about the ride quality. The 300C is a lot of car for the money and I really love it. I just wish DC would consider a Chrysler Imperial 300 model that would still feature the hemi but also a more comfortable ride by adding magnetic ride control. And price it $2500 extra so everybody could get excited next year again about more car for the money.
It may be that some folks really don't like a firm suspension and to them the firmness is exaggerated as compared to their previous rides.
I think you summed it up. It's a matter of expectations. If someone sees a 300C and then later test drives one expecting a Town Car-like disconnected feel, then they were probably not in the 300C's demographic to begin with. I could probably find someone who thinks a Crown Vic with the upgraded LX suspension (picking a random example) rides "harsh." That thing's a soggy marshmallow.
I personally consider the 300C a joke and pathetic choice for "luxury". This is obviously not so. I have read in several car magazine articles (MotorTrend, C&D, R&T, etc) that the 300 is supposed to be a luxury car and alternate choice when it comes to more upscale brand models, such as Cadillac, Audi, and BMW. This "Chrysler" will never achieve the status quoeo fhte upscale brands. It cheaply attempts to be some "American Mercedes".
Here are my list of complaints: 1. Great style, but wont last long---Yes, we love the looks of the 300 now, but just give it maybe three years down the road and you will see that it will become just another car as far as style is concerned. Besides, with it priced so affordably, you will have individuals that dont take care of their vehicles, neglect it...
2. Cheap interior---Even on the most expensive trim levels, the evidence of cost cutting is obvious. The materials on the upper areas of dash and doors are sadly, hard plastic. Leather seating areas, but loads of vinyl materials on on the rest of the seats. That headliner looks awful and is an eye sore. Carpeting is very thin and gives me feet tension from riding in it for more than 30 minutes.
3. Value--Yeah, great prices, but the depriciation will be catastrophic to owners...lol
My aunt and uncle just purchased this vehicle with all the options and they think that it is just an amazing vehicle. I wont tell them, but it is a poor vehicle made by an unrespected maker. As for me, a Mercedes is built, engineered, drives, and handles miles better. You are instantly and genuinely reminded of what a true luxury car is (Mercedes E500). And the image of the Mercedes brand adds impact, respect to my image as a person of better class and taste. The Chrysler 300: Absolutely not. Its a joke. I work in an area in Dallas, Texas (Turtle Creek) where most of the folks (working professionals) drive mostly Bimmers, Porsches, Mercedes, and Jaguar. Imagine someone driving up in the 300C, lol...It doesnt belong in our world of finer things, even though it poses cheaply as a luxury car.
My point: The 300C is a car for folks that want to pretend to have a real luxury cruiser. But cant afford it.
Yikes! So if everything you say is true then maybe we should all save our pennies and go out and buy an E500. Now on the other hand, no matter how you cut it (optioned or not), the E500 is TWICE the cost of the 300C. Of course as a result, I'm thinking that your noise is not going to find too many sympathetic ears around here, pretty much no matter what else you have to say (or not say as the case may be). But you are certainly welcome to try!
I am just saying that all those who buy this car and brag about it are in a way acting ironic. The car isnt all that...and its just a fad, believe me...just like the "famed" Pt Cruiser. The only vehicle I would even consider buying from Chrysler is the Dodge Viper, and even its unrefined as a sports car. A Ferrari 360, on the other hand, is a true sports car with a rich heritage.
When it comes to Mercedes and Ferrari makes vs. Chrysler brands, there are two kinds of people. The generic car owners who admire the upscale brands and wish they could afford the better car, then the upscale owners who are the objets of envy...they are the privileged few who are admired....lol
Well, as far as your perception of the 300C and comparing it to vehicles that cost 10K-20k more, you seem to be more concerned about "image" than anything esle.
You praise MB as if it's the glorious, untouchable brand. Meanwhile, look at the reputation of MB and the realibility; it's hasn't gone up, just down. Audi.. another big disappointment. The only thing that's saving BMW is their customer service and their dealers, because their 'new' design models are barfable!
You come in here trolling about the 300C. It's not the fact that people who own one can't afford a MB, Audi or BMW for that matter. I can get those vehicle without a problem. I already mentioned the reasons why I don't have one and BMW is just an overpriced brand, IMO. So back to Chrysler, just like any other brand, you take chances. Give me ample, comfortable space, performance, handling at a good price and I'll consider it.
You act as if MB, Audi and BMW (or whoever else), started at the top. So now that other car manufacturers are trying to make it there, there's no chance for them. Go ahead and buy your "insert car here" you want; that's why there are other brands that tailor to your tastes. Since you're all about "image" and how people will look at you by what you drive, think about it when you're sitting at the service dept or even better, when the person next to you is driving a 300C and shows alittle of what it can do.
Oh.. and one more thing... let's see how far this 300 design phase lasts... it's kind of moronic to say that designs only last 2-3 years... there's a reason why companies change the designs of their cars. Or did you expect the 300 or PT Cruiser to last 10 yrs with the same design? *rolleyes*. And.... DC owns MB... same company that makes Chrysler and Dodge. So much for superior image huh?!
I really dont give a crap if DaimlerChrysler owns both Chrysler and Mercedes. I am talking about the differences between the two brands. Mercedes is for the elite and the prosperous, and the Chrysler....well, less so. (LOL)
The engineering and numerous safety, conveience, comfort, and handling features found on a Mercedes is not found on a mere Chrysler.
My goodness, lets get back to reality here. Dont you remember Chrysler and all the lemons of the past, all the freakin recalls, and the numerous quality/reliabilty issues that have had. Is one car going to change all that? I dont think so.
Let's face it....Maybe Chrysler will be an upscale brand one day (100 yrs maybe?) but it sure isnt now.
I have literally seen the lying, hateful, cunning acts of Chrysler dealers, and they simply aren't people I ever want to deal with. Mercedes Benz, however, has always treated with me with respect, courtesy, and I am proud to say Mercedes is a maker I'll always stay with. There's just something about that privileged Mercedes owner. The Chrysler on the other hand, I have seen pimped out with dubbs, ragtops, and ridiculous amounts of more chrome and rims that make it look more like a ganster's car that wouldnt be too welcome in my neighborhood.
So, do yourself a favor everyone, think about the better car...
By that same logic, a MB 500 owner is just someone who wants a Rolls or a Benz but can't afford it. And a Ferrari 360 owner is just one who wants an Enzo and can't afford it. I could go on and on and on. But is that really productive? Or is it more productive and useful to compare two similarly priced cars in the same category? I easily vote the latter. But thanks for playing!
'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
and the designs will last...lol....Its just all this ridiculous "hype" about it will become mundane very soon indeed. The styling of a Mercedes with it's corresponding design is understated luxury. It doesnt have to be brash and "retro" in order to make a statement of its obvious richness. When you look at an S-Class, E, or the SL, you are instantly reminded that this is a car of true, geniune luxury, and not some cheap carbon copy...
That analogy is theoretically inaccurate. The discussion is about practical daily drivers. 99% of S-class (MB) owners are somewhat satisfied with their vehicle. An "exotic" car doesnt have to be a factor. So again, your statement is severly misguided.
Comments
http://home.comcast.net/~bangaroo/p1.htm
Just click "Videos" and you're there.
I'd say to look into the '05's. It's getting a facelift, with some hood, bumper and fender changes. Plus the HP/TQ will be increased by 25. Minor interior changes is also to be done in the '05's.
IMO, it looks better plus you can't go wrong with the extra umph ;-)
This is what we call a "hopeless case." Everyone take notes...
OK, so patience is a virtue, so they say. The STS is off the charts -- the way it has to be optioned to get AWD is nertz or crazy. I can get an SWB Audi A8 for that kind of money (well, almost). The SRX with the magna ride and the V6 is MSRP'd at $53K and change (again this seems out of the league of sanity). So, I sit with my choices (on paper at least) being an open minded test drive of the 300C w/AWD and all options $42K? and MAYBE even the SRT-8 AWD @ $47K?, the Acura RL at just south of $50K and two Audis, both 3.2L FSI V6's: the A4 3.2 north of $42K and the A6 3.2, south of $52K. Have driven the Audi 3.2, have looked at but not driven a 300C RWD (and have no intention of doing so, waiting instead for the AWD flavor) and have looked at the Acura (but they are so rare at this point there are none to be driven in my geography of North East Cincinnati).
The 300C AWD should be in its third week of production now -- unless I miss my guess (which I may have) there must be some hitting dealers soon or already.
Has anyone driven one of these things? Not ordered, but driven? Heck, I would even like to hear from a Company Person who has driven both -- it seems to me that the 300C w/AWD (and with some slight bit more of cred now that it is the COTY) would be a bargain and worth comparing to the A6 and the RL (and if one would buy the Chrysler, well wouldn't that mean "and change back from your $50,000?")
My wife says overcoming the "dealership experience" will be a challenge after having dealt with a premium European car line for so long. . .we'll see.
The AWD 300C driven question still stands.
Thanks for your input. . .
In what category does the 300C fit? Not in the cars mentioned above. ~ Mistake #2.
Low MPG against who? How? ~ Mistake #3.
In the beginning, the 300C's had complaints about harsh ride, but supposely was corrected. The car I test drove didn't have the "harshness" they are claiming but the suspension is not Cadillac. I prefer some 'stiffness' in the suspension as long as it's soft enough for comfort.
CR tends to be biased too so none of what you wrote surprises me... plus if their testing holds true (as per your post), then someone in CR doesn't know what they're doing.
'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
Car and Driver put the 300C on their 10 best list -- I don't go to Car and Driver for advice on washing machines or toasters, why listen to CR on this [automobiles] subject?
I don't know if the 300C is a great car or not -- from a reader's point of view it seems like a bargain -- a lot of car for the money. Frankly, such a review from Consumer's Reports is, in an odd way, encouraging since they know little about cars when compared with the writers and editors of Car, Car & Driver, Road & Track, Autoweek, and, gulp even Motor Trend from time to time. Oh BTW, the 300C is Motor Trend's COTY, which means a bit more than anything CR could say on that subject.
CR is, IMO, a decent source of information about appliances -- the 300C regardless of what it may ultimately turn out to be is NOT an appliance.
Seems to me that cars getting high praise from both Consumers and Car & Driver (et al) are plentiful and worth considering. Just as a car that is ripped by C&D is probably one not very interesting to a lot of people who would consider a 300C, knowing a vehicle’s warts before you’ve owned it for a week should be interesting to everyone. It’s real easy to fall in love with the appearance, acceleration, and handling of a car like the 300C. Those warts have a way of annoying you for years.
Another point to consider – Consumer Reports buys their test vehicles from a dealer just like any of us do. The car buff magazines get theirs supplied directly from the manufacturers. Those car magazine vehicles are not necessarily in the same condition as the vehicles sold to customers. That includes both quality and performance.
I am seriously considering acquiring a 300C. I know it is not a perfect car. The visibility is lacking, the trunk is too small, and the gas mileage is probably lousy. I’m happy to see a published evaluation that talks about these real-world things that an owner has to live with long after the ink is dry. I’ll do another road test to evaluate the negative points raised. Give me both Car & Driver and Consumer Reports. Cars can co-exist in both worlds
In a way I do agree with certain points you made about CR, BUT the truth of the matter is that a company who dedicates itself on a wide variety of points in different product categories, will tend to miss the key elements of what makes a car great or garbage. I still have yet to hear why they made such a comparison like previously mentioned. - That alone tells me they missed a 'key' element.
Wouldn't get another M, might get a C -- he also has a BMW X5 and had before the M a 5 series BMW.
The issue both he and my wife stipulate is "dealer treatment" -- which at a regional 5 star dealership would be at best a B-.
I guess you "gets what you pays for" -- maybe a 300C represented and serviced by an Acura or Lexus or BMW dealer would cost another $10,000.
Maybe I am kidding myself. My co-worker admonishes me that it has taken decades for the Premium guys to get where they are -- and it will likely be decades before almost any reasonable Chrysler dealer will [be able to] "rise to the occasion"
I still want to test a 300C AWD -- but I am beginning to think that the Acura and the Audi dealer personnel "get it" -- maybe even the Cadillac folks get it, but it must be too much to expect at this time from a Chrysler dealer.
I like the simple life -- where the customer is treated well after the sale -- my co worker gets that from his BMW dealer and I get it from my Audi dealer.
It may seem odd (and unheard of in C&D or R&T) to rank a 300 C against a vehicle like an Avalon. However, when you consider it by size - particularly interior size- it makes some sense. Speaking from personal experience, my wife drives a current generation Avalon because she wanted a car with a roomy interior and didn't want an SUV. At the time the Avalon seemed like the obvious choice. If the 300C had been available at that time, it would certainly been considered and, knowing my wife's penchant for fast driving, probably chosen. In her case, comparing these "large cars" makes plenty of sense.
On the other hand, this comparison doesn't work so well for me. I am interested in what most would consider a sports sedan so size is a secondary consideration. That's why I find myself comparing the 300C against something like a 3-series BMW. Size-wise it is an invalid comparison, but for performance it is quite appropriate. Because I am not looking for a particularly sized car, their choice of cars which were ranked aganist the 300C is not so interesting to me. However, their test data and their opinions about the car remain worthy of consideration, in my opinion.
Took delivery yesterday of a second vehicle, a 2005 Colorado LS with the standard Z85 suspension, and even though it is a 4 wheel drive truck, it has a notably smoother more pleasant ride than the Chrysler 300. I like my 300C well enough to keep it for its other myriad attributes, but the ride is definitely disappointing.
If cars are your number one interest in life as they are in mine, you select them as you would your wife. You go for the one you love, and then for lasting pleasure of it, you overlook the flaws.
CR people are a bunch of pansies who care more about cupholders than vehicle performance, even when reviewing performance cars. What a joke.
The Colorado, like most GM trucks, has a pretty mushy suspension, so of course it's going to ride "smoothly". Want a large car w/ similar pricing and an cloud-like ride? Buy a Town Car.
Wow! No truer or more accurate words have ever been spoken for a true car enthusiast. I'm gonna have to use that as a signature statement in another forum!
Nobody, and I mean nobody, works harder at getting it right, doing valid comparisons, and most importantly, using REPEATABLE test procedures than CU. I know from experience that if they praise the handling or ride of a car, when I drive that car, I'll agree. If they criticize, I'll usually agree after a thorough test drive.
As for their "lack of car enthusiasm", or whatever the alleged crime is here, I can tell you that in the past 15 years or so, their automotive testing editors have pretty much the same biases as the rest of us - they value handling, good brakes, comfortable interiors, and they tell it like it is when a car sacrifices "enthusiast" values for comfort alone - read the test on the Amanti carefully.
What did they say? That the 300C in particular rides more firmly than the Touring, and can be harsh and occasionally noisy. Yep. That it's hard to see out of that squashed greenhouse. Yep on that too. That the trunk doesn't have as much room as the 500. Yep.
And the Avalon as competition? If you READ what they had to say about the Avalon, it is clear that they don't consider it an "enthusiast" choice - just happens to be the best value in the class, if you take into account EVERYTHING they use as criteria, of which handling and such are just part of the equation. And that's before the new Avalon arrives on the scene. Does an Avalon interest most people interested in a 300? Probably not, but that doesn't make their observations and ratings invalid.
Every time CU publishes something that doesn't praise some particular vehicle to the skies, a firestorm erupts on sites like this one. Like having your favorite child evaluated realistically by the teacher? "Johnny can't always do his sums, turns in the homework late, likes to skip out occasionally, but he's a terrific football player..."
http://wardsauto.com/ar/auto_muscle_economy_ways/index.htm
But then I prefer a firm suspension. I've owned and enjoyed driving Fiat Spyders, an MX-6, and in recent years two different E-class sedans. It may be that some folks really don't like a firm suspension and to them the firmness is exaggerated as compared to their previous rides.
putting the 300C below the Avalon, Park Avenue, Maxima and Ford 500.
You can say anything you like about how they nitpick a vehicle effectively or whatever, but any publication that suggests buying a Ford 500 over the 300C is NOT on my reading list. The only way this suggestion happens is by completely removing all enthusiast criteria because the 500 is the epitome of boring and playing it safe. I, for one, don't even care that the 300C is the one below the Ford 500, or Park avenue for that matter, its the fact that a couple of boring cars (once again, APPLIANCES) top the list AT ALL.
'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
I do consider the 300C to ride firm but comfortable but I can't say it's "harsh". What are you going to expect from a performance luxury sedan? You want soft? Drive a Lincoln....
Note: Firm + overinflated tires = harsh.
Since CR 'buys' their cars from dealers (like someone mentioned), then chances are those tires were overinflated and overlooked when testing was done... um.. wait... that's a "key" element!
Oh.. and appliances vs. enthusiast cars doesn't seem like apples to apples. No matter how much praise you give CR, their rated reviews (regardless of what car you're talking about) are not of any significance to the majority of car enthusiast because they just "miss it". One out of all the reviews that are out there claims that the 300C is subpar to those tested or even considered to compare to those mentioned. The 300C is compared to higher standard vehicles, like the Audi, BMW and MB, and they get their share of spanking. The 300C is not glorified, but it's respected for what it offers and for the price. I'll trash any car, but give credit where it's due.
You want to have it all, then I suggest making your own car.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Consumer's Reports certainly is able to report factual information clearly. No issue there.
Personally, I do not find their prose able to get to the essence of driving a car -- sure they can tell you it will stop in 172 feet or accelerate in 5.9 seconds or whatever. But their style does not lend itself to describing well the "feel" of the experience.
Perhaps we are making mountains out of molehills -- perhaps their ratings do sway buyers away or towards a car.
They certainly march to the tune of. . .
And there is nothing wrong with that.
However, I find their "analysis" of cars to be "less helpful" with respect to the attributes that make me "cough up" a medium sized 5 figure number. They will, certainly, keep printing their auto reports -- I will, certainly, keep ignoring them.
But, I could be wrong, in doing so -- it is a risk I'm willing to take.
stephen
I apologize for complaining about the ride quality. The 300C is a lot of car for the money and I really love it. I just wish DC would consider a Chrysler Imperial 300 model that would still feature the hemi but also a more comfortable ride by adding magnetic ride control. And price it $2500 extra so everybody could get excited next year again about more car for the money.
stephen
I think you summed it up. It's a matter of expectations. If someone sees a 300C and then later test drives one expecting a Town Car-like disconnected feel, then they were probably not in the 300C's demographic to begin with.
I could probably find someone who thinks a Crown Vic with the upgraded LX suspension (picking a random example) rides "harsh." That thing's a soggy marshmallow.
Here are my list of complaints:
1. Great style, but wont last long---Yes, we love the looks of the 300 now, but just give it maybe three years down the road and you will see that it will become just another car as far as style is concerned. Besides, with it priced so affordably, you will have individuals that dont take care of their vehicles, neglect it...
2. Cheap interior---Even on the most expensive trim levels, the evidence of cost cutting is obvious. The materials on the upper areas of dash and doors are sadly, hard plastic. Leather seating areas, but loads of vinyl materials on on the rest of the seats. That headliner looks awful and is an eye sore. Carpeting is very thin and gives me feet tension from riding in it for more than 30 minutes.
3. Value--Yeah, great prices, but the depriciation will be catastrophic to owners...lol
My aunt and uncle just purchased this vehicle with all the options and they think that it is just an amazing vehicle. I wont tell them, but it is a poor vehicle made by an unrespected maker. As for me, a Mercedes is built, engineered, drives, and handles miles better. You are instantly and genuinely reminded of what a true luxury car is (Mercedes E500). And the image of the Mercedes brand adds impact, respect to my image as a person of better class and taste. The Chrysler 300: Absolutely not. Its a joke. I work in an area in Dallas, Texas (Turtle Creek) where most of the folks (working professionals) drive mostly Bimmers, Porsches, Mercedes, and Jaguar. Imagine someone driving up in the 300C, lol...It doesnt belong in our world of finer things, even though it poses cheaply as a luxury car.
My point: The 300C is a car for folks that want to pretend to have a real luxury cruiser. But cant afford it.
Best Regards,
Shipo
When it comes to Mercedes and Ferrari makes vs. Chrysler brands, there are two kinds of people. The generic car owners who admire the upscale brands and wish they could afford the better car, then the upscale owners who are the objets of envy...they are the privileged few who are admired....lol
Best Regards,
Shipo
You praise MB as if it's the glorious, untouchable brand. Meanwhile, look at the reputation of MB and the realibility; it's hasn't gone up, just down. Audi.. another big disappointment. The only thing that's saving BMW is their customer service and their dealers, because their 'new' design models are barfable!
You come in here trolling about the 300C. It's not the fact that people who own one can't afford a MB, Audi or BMW for that matter. I can get those vehicle without a problem. I already mentioned the reasons why I don't have one and BMW is just an overpriced brand, IMO. So back to Chrysler, just like any other brand, you take chances. Give me ample, comfortable space, performance, handling at a good price and I'll consider it.
You act as if MB, Audi and BMW (or whoever else), started at the top. So now that other car manufacturers are trying to make it there, there's no chance for them. Go ahead and buy your "insert car here" you want; that's why there are other brands that tailor to your tastes. Since you're all about "image" and how people will look at you by what you drive, think about it when you're sitting at the service dept or even better, when the person next to you is driving a 300C and shows alittle of what it can do.
Oh.. and one more thing... let's see how far this 300 design phase lasts... it's kind of moronic to say that designs only last 2-3 years... there's a reason why companies change the designs of their cars. Or did you expect the 300 or PT Cruiser to last 10 yrs with the same design? *rolleyes*. And.... DC owns MB... same company that makes Chrysler and Dodge. So much for superior image huh?!
The engineering and numerous safety, conveience, comfort, and handling features found on a Mercedes is not found on a mere Chrysler.
My goodness, lets get back to reality here. Dont you remember Chrysler and all the lemons of the past, all the freakin recalls, and the numerous quality/reliabilty issues that have had. Is one car going to change all that? I dont think so.
Let's face it....Maybe Chrysler will be an upscale brand one day (100 yrs maybe?) but it sure isnt now.
I have literally seen the lying, hateful, cunning acts of Chrysler dealers, and they simply aren't people I ever want to deal with. Mercedes Benz, however, has always treated with me with respect, courtesy, and I am proud to say Mercedes is a maker I'll always stay with. There's just something about that privileged Mercedes owner. The Chrysler on the other hand, I have seen pimped out with dubbs, ragtops, and ridiculous amounts of more chrome and rims that make it look more like a ganster's car that wouldnt be too welcome in my neighborhood.
So, do yourself a favor everyone, think about the better car...
'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
I dont like BMW by the way...