Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
-- Mark
I have to wonder if the new Magnum station wagon will be called just that, a station wagon, or if we'll apply "SUV" to yet another vehicle which already has a name for the style.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2004-04-01-dri- ve-300_x.htm
Sounds as harsh as a Mini Cooper S.
The USA Today review is the only one to claim such a ride problem, even though the photos show they probably drove the cars in palm Springs along with the many other reviews. I think the best review is still the one at auto123.com. It is detailed, and has many photos, such as the suspension, drive train, and cylinder deactivation I have not seen anywhere else.
I would be sad if the car was ruined by a super-hard ride, but that is what the latest USAToday says. The reviewer says it is for masochists.
He mentions how poor the ride is over and over.
He recommends the 300 Limited since it has adequate power with a livable ride.
How about 300C top speed? I was just curious whether they had to have a rev limiter with those *touring* "H" rated tires.
Many other reviews have been published. Edmunds, Canadian Driver, Auto123(the best, detailed, and with photos of the suspension, drive train, and cylinder deactivation I have not seen anywhere else), and others. None of those mentioned anything like what he describes.
Either he is biased, or the car was defective.
Of course C&D can probably get that down to 9.3 seconds....
Regarding the Magnum: I just received an E-Mail from Dodge today about the Magnum. When I clicked on the "Build your own" link I found the Magnum in the section for "Trucks/SUV". Hmmm, I thought it was a Station Wagon.
Regarding the alleged 0-60 in 5.3: well, if the density altitude was low enough, say a couple of thousand feet below sea level, I'd have no problem believing it. Anything else might be a bit of a stretch. It will be interesting to see what the rest of the Auto Rags have to say.
Best Regards,
Shipo
On my WWW page I have links to two *great* videos of the 300C in action. One of them is in my update from 04/02/2004 and the other 03/31/2004. The 04/02 video is 3.2MB and is of a 300C smoking its way around a corner. The 03/31 video in on a German site and the video is *large* but also worth seeing. Choose your viewer (Real or MS) and click ISDN or DSL. Give it some time and it will start up for you. Here's a link to my site:
http://superdave369.home.comcast.net/300C/300C.html
Dave
Also, isn't the new Goat a manual? Yeah, I thought so. In this case, you have launches which are open to human variance as well as mechanical.
C&D, and I'm sure others, use calculations to equalize ambient conditions so all the timed runs have numbers which were attained under identical temperature/humidity/pressue conditions. Probably sea-level, 40% humidity, 70F, and a certain barometric pressure.
This can't take into account truly hot and cold conditions, as those have noticable effects on a tire's ability to 'grab', but they do pretty well, otherwise.
Ack, the Magnum labeled an "SUV". Sheesh. Someone ought to be smacked around, daily, for about six months for that lame-brained decision.
Based on the video I've just now see, I can see tires aren't going to last long, at least with me at the wheel.... ;-)
BTW I received three letters saying in March I would be among the first to receive all the details on the car and a launch event. I have yet to receive anything more.
Did this happen to anyone else?
The RTL video also includes the first pictures of the trunk I have seen - a big deal for me, since the trunk will determine my choice between a 300 and a Magnum. It has a wide opening, but the opening is not deep due to the short (front to back) trunk lid.
The drifting video was funny - I'll bet the tire companies invented drifting.
However, in the LH cars, the reason they handle so well is because of urethane bushings in the suspension components, instead of more compliant rubber. Rubber does a better job of isolation, which is why the car is noisy, and in some cases, harsh for a car its size. Tough trade off, honestly. I have to admit, I still really like the way it feels, especially for a car its size.
I was truly hoping the close-up of the taillight would give a hint as to whether the 300 has separate rear turn signals or not. Personally, it bugs me how US manufacturers don't seem to understand how much better visibility separate signals give, even if they're red. I can see these wouldn't be amber, unless part of the three clear-appearing 'stripes' at the bottom of the lamp housing have turn signals behind them, but they are likely back-up lamps.
Anyone see one of these sitting at a stoplight, ready to make a turn, yet? Here in Oregon, land of the anti-car, I can't imagine I'll see one in motion until *maybe* summer.
Dave
Another question here regarding courrtesy lamps, if they "are" called courtesy lamps. They're the ones on the door and lightup upon opening to warn oncoming traffic. I haven't seen any in any interior pics....To those people that saw / drove a 300, can you remember if the doors had these type of lamps?? Thanks
According to Chrysler, the "Front Door Courtesy Lamps" are standard on all four trim levels.
-- Mark
Maybe my pics from the RI car show will answer your question. Picture 20 shows the light that illuminates the ground and something red on the edge of the door which I assume is just a reflector.
http://www.ofoto.com/BrowsePhotos.jsp?showSlide=true&Uc=6evsh- 3j.a4diahn3&Uy=4zqn8i&Upost_signin=BrowsePhotos.jsp%3fsho- wSlide%3dtrue&Ux=0
fastdriver
PS: Thanks to you too FastDriver
The answer is no.
Hope this helps.
Brad
Will they seal when they're three years old, and it's -40 below?????
I'm still looking at Continental kits. There's an outfit in New Brunswick Canada that has ones that work. They expressed an interest in this, so maybe they'll produce one for 18" rims.
Quite a few of these manufacturers only make dummies.
I have to admit I am impressed by the numbers shown in MT and C&D. There is a significant difference in the braking numbers in the two mags thought. MT has 122 feet which is sports sedan territory, while C&D had 184ft which is average for a large sedan.
i was hoping that based on the bold aggressive styling of the 300c that the designers finally realized that copying somebody else is not a good thing...we're in america, guys, not the continent....the ride should be reflective of a large american sedan...some body roll and a little float is not all that bad...especially with the horrible roads we have in this country...well atleast where i live. cadillac has shown repeatedly that you can make a car that has a decent ride but still holds in own in the handling department. i'm hoping that the 300c has the softer suspension settings and the touring components...one can only hope. jackg
The interior was the Jade/Light Gray and was really nice. With the aluminum and tourtise shell accents on the inside, much nicer than the base model I saw previously. By the way, this leather had no "texture" and the was no embossing of the Chrysler Wings on the seat backs like the picture on the Chrysler web site. That myust be just for the limited models or something.
Anyways... back to my title - the sticker on the car (something over $33K clearly had "HOLD FOR PREMIER NIGHT" printed on it!
I think that if you check the fine print that you will see that MT tests braking distances from 60mph while C&D tests from 70mph, hence the disparity in their test numbers.
justgreat47,
Hmmm, I beg to differ. I much prefer a sportier ride to the horribly floaty feeling of the Cadillac CTS that I drove. There is nothing that drives me as crazy as driving a car down the road with suspension compliance that seems about as stable as my old waterbed. :-/
Given that Mr. Bangle has destroyed the BMW line, I am very much hoping that the 300C (or the Hemi Magnum) will have a firm enough ride and crisp enough handling to be a replacement for my 530i when it comes off lease this time next year.
Best Regards,
Shipo
I think it would be easier to pull the smaller tire out of the regular trunk location on the car and put that on the car at those extreme temps. It will get you where you need to go well enough. As the Eagles once said, take it easy, don't let the sound of your own wheels make you crazy.
A continental kit on a 300C would be very expensive and would be in very poor taste.
stephen
The brochure also shows cars (I think the ones that aren't C's) with what appear to be two slightly smaller headlamps on each side with a parking light underneath instead of the body colored piece. Then, the whole thing is covered by a polycarbonate cover. I have seen this in person but did not think to compare it against the "C" at the dealership as it was nose in to the building.
Are there 2 styles?? Thanks.
Just this last winter season, we had a low of -44 below, and lucky I never had to change a tire at those temps, but I've changed my share of tires in below zero weather over the last 35 years. (Not to mention a serpentine belt also, and I wouldn't want to do that again)
See my post at 876.
How did the Satin Jade look?
That is what I ordered with the Dark Jade/Light slate interior.
Unfortunately, with the Banglization of the BMW lineup and Audi's switch to only automatics on the entire A6 line, my choices for stirring my own are becoming limited. Given the choice of driving a CTS 6-Speed with that marshmallow suspension or a 300C automatic with firm setup, I'd take the 300C.
Obviously there are other cars out there that have 4 doors and a stick shift; however, I have issues with each of them. For instance,
G35: Ugly inside and out. The only good news there is that there is a rumored interior freshening due next year. Unfortunately it will still be ugly outside.
CTS-V: Expensive and I'm not a fan of GM V8 engines.
IS300: Uglier than the G35, CTS and E60 5-Series, combined.
Passat: I much prefer RWD cars. The AWD version is interesting but it has too much of a front end weight bias. In any event, I'm not all shot with the styling.
TL: FWD, and I think that the styling is uninspired at best, however, it is better looking than the G35, CTS and IS300.
9-3: Quirky and FWD with a GM stain.
A4: Too small.
Maxima: FWD and not pleasing to my eye.
C320 Sport: Too small.
S60R: Has potential, but still has a front end weight bias that I'm not fond of.
Ummm, what's left? Cannot think of anything off hand. Anyone?
In favor of the 300C/Hemi Magnum siblings, I have always had a soft spot for Chrysler offerings, and I have always loved their Hemi engines ever since I overhauled one on a 1970 Hemi Charger. Damn those heads were heavy, if memory serves they were something over 100 pounds, each!
So, after nine consecutive new cars with manual gearboxes, will I buy my first new car ever with an automatic transmission? Can't say for sure but I'm sure thinking about it.
Best Regards,
Shipo
http://www.newcartestdrive.com/review-intro.cfm?ReviewID=1557
-- Mark