Chrysler 300

I've been thinking about one. All lowered and horny looking.

GENO, DO A PHOTOSHOP ON THAT BAD BOY SO WE CAN SEE WHAT IT WOULD REALLY LOOK LIKE ALL PIMPED OUT.

But now that Rich has weighed in and ripped it, I may have to rethink it.
icon12.gif


I've really been thinking about that car. With the 4th kid on the way, I need to step up to a decent 4 door car. I'll keep the Marks. The boys want them to tinker with and I still like the '98 for long road trips by myself.

I hate buying new and Ron has been trying to talk me into a Lexus, so I don't know. Definitely won't buy it new unless it is the new SRT version of the 300C, then I would.
 
since now benz is part of chrysler, the crossfire looks like a mini SL but with the slk 320 kompressor engine! but too me the chrysler 300's front grille looks like a wanna be bentley! but if i remember reading correctly the 05-06 300's is going to have a 5.7lL V8 pushing around 450hp! so the muscle wars are back!
 
I love those! Looked at one and almost signed the papers. Ended up with a '05 Z71 Tahoe on Tuesday, had to have another vehicle to pull the boat. My Lincoln is now retired to the barn undercover for my son when he's ready for it.
 
I gotta agree with the consensus, But the 300, I will admit, is not very photogenic, Up close and personal they are wickedly beautiful! Especially in a deep,dark blue with a light tan leather interior, and the "Bentley" grille! Hell, the Magnum is even hotter! A guy in my neighborhood has a black Magnum and it looks EVIL!
:L (but may be swayed by a 300{if done right!}) :biggrin:
(DAAAAAAAM! they even have a version called the Signature Series?!?)WUWTS?!?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well I guess it's just me then. I'm not talking about the engine just the design. I'd rather have the older 300 look, or the power put into the something a bit more sporty.

I'm done with the young kids so I don't need the back seat space.

To me it looks like it's a plow pushing through air, just doesn't grab me. Hope everythings not going this way.

Do like the power factor though. Nice seeing cars looking for muscle again, muscle wars hmmm I like that thought.
 
The car DOES utilize styling cues from the "old" 300's and the front end DOES remind many of the Bently, so what? So I guess that means that Bently is actually borrowing from the old 300's!
As for the styling as a whole, at first it kind of turned me off (and I still don't like the rear end), but like many other automotive designs these days, it actually takes some time to grow on you. Not unlike the CTS actually. The performance is great, although I've seen more 14's than 13's. Still, that's fast for a full-size car. The proof of any car is in the DRIVING, and this car is no exception, and this car shines there. If you're even remotely interested in the car, DRIVE one and you'll most likely BUY one. They are extremely tight and quiet on the road yet have a fairly compliant ride. The power is evident from virtually any speed but really pulls once in the beef of it's powerband. (Side note: the V6 version is also no sloutch.)
Unfortunately, to me, I just can't live with that interior. Beautiful car on the outside, great ride, plenty of power, plenty of room (although smallish trunk) but, that interior is terrible! The fit is good, but finish and materials are both sub-par for a car like this. In my book, it screams, "we ran out of money". Or more accurately, they were beginning to push their target price-point, and this is DEFINATELY where the 300 shines best. You can argue all day about many points on this car but one thing you can't argue is the fact that Chrysler gives you a hell of a lot for the money on this car. If you doubt that, just try to make a list of cars that are truely competition for the 300. A Grand Marquis?, A Deville? A Town Car? An Impala? I've heard of people cross-shopping the CTS but I think that's a stretch. No, I think Chrysler hit another home-run with the 300 and the way they're flying out of dealer lots is proof.
 
ONEBADMK8 said:
Thats so HOT!! Runs 13's too!
Click to expand...

From Road & Track:

Chrysler 300C
340hp Hemi V8
0-60: 5.6 seconds
0-100: 13.8 mph
1/4 mile: 14.1 @ 101 mph
Top speed: 126 mph
$37,310

Chrysler 300 Limited/Touring (the majority of what is sold)
250hp V6
0-60: 8.0 seconds
0-100: 22.3 seconds
1/4 mile: 16.1 @ 87.2 mph
Top speed: 126 mph
$34,215

The base 300 has an even smaller V6 and posts 0-60 times in the 10 second range.

Road & Track also has some of the better times I've seen. Other publications have the 300C doing 0-60 around 6.1. But there is hope: The upcoming 425hp SRT-8 300C is expected to have quarter mile performance in the mid to low 13 second range and a 0-60 in the low 5's.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gothicaleigh said:
From Road & Track:

Chrysler 300C
340hp Hemi V8
0-60: 5.6 seconds
0-100: 13.8 mph
1/4 mile: 14.1 @ 101 mph
Top speed: 126 mph
$37,310

Chrysler 300 Limited/Touring (the majority of what is sold)
250hp V6
0-60: 8.0 seconds
0-100: 22.3 seconds
1/4 mile: 16.1 @ 87.2 mph
Top speed: 126 mph
$34,215

The base 300 has an even smaller V6 and posts 0-60 times in the 10 second range.

Road & Track also has some of the better times I've seen. Other publications have the 300C doing 0-60 around 6.1. But there is hope: The upcoming 425hp SRT-8 300C is expected to have quarter mile performance in the mid to low 13 second range and a 0-60 in the low 5's.
Click to expand...

C&D got a high 13 out of a 300C on their 1st test. Then in a later test they got a mid 14. Can't wait to see what the 425HP 6.1L SRT-8 will do.
 
Well it's not like Chrysler doesn't have the "potential" for high-performance. Look at the ME412, 0-60 in 2 sec., 1/4 mile in 10 sec., top speed is something like 230mph as I recall. Now THAT's performance!
No matter how you cut it, high 13's or low 14's, it's a quick car, and I'm sure the SRT-8 will be even better! They upgrade the interior and I'd be looking at one myself.
 
It's good to see Chrylser back in the lincoln/caddy fight (We'll ignore the Daimler poor choice to offer an underpowerd 24K version for now). For too long the brand has been making pseudo luxury cars, and unable to shake paired reviews with its more plebian Dodge siblings. Now if only they could bring back a flagship imperial...
 
MonsterMark said:
Congrats on the Tahoe purchase. Good boat puller for sure. What motor did you wind up with?
Click to expand...
Thank you! Have the5.3 Vortec, and a little modding is not out of the question. :headbang: Has everything but the touch screen GPS, but I know where I'm going. LOL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I haven't seen a 300C Hemi at the track anywhere near 13's. Clearly the press had "ringer" press cars....
 
i dont know who is B.Sn with there numbers, motor trend says the 300c is a 14.3 in a quarter! that is the mag i usually pick up. car and driver & road &track, i usually browse though, so i really dont know the numbers they post! it is like when i first saw the CTS-V' s numbers late last year, car and driver says it did a 13.1, even caddys site says it does 13.1. but now im looking at other numbers and i see road&track says 13.3, motortrend says 13.4. i dont get it! im all confused...ahhhh... lol
 
JoeyLincolnMK8 said:
i dont know who is B.Sn with there numbers, motor trend says the 300c is a 14.3 in a quarter! that is the mag i usually pick up. car and driver & road &track, i usually browse though, so i really dont know the numbers they post! it is like when i first saw the CTS-V' s numbers late last year, car and driver says it did a 13.1, even caddys site says it does 13.1. but now im looking at other numbers and i see road&track says 13.3, motortrend says 13.4. i dont get it! im all confused...ahhhh... lol
Click to expand...

The reason for this is NOT that there are "ringers" or anything. Of course the OEMs want their cars to look as good as possible in published tests, and it IS possible that certain magazines could be slightly biased towards certain cars due to the size of their advertising budget but, I think a lot of the time, there's perfectly reasonable excuses for the descrepencies in data published.
One big reason is that many (but not all) magazines use corrected data (basically corrected to "standard day" temps/pressures). Another reason is that the tests are done in varying climactic and track conditions. The only way to get a good set of comparative data on two or more different vehicles is to have them tested side by side. Hell, go to the track on any day/night and you'll see huge differences in ETs on the same cars, let alone similar cars. I've seen guys pulling high 12's to low 13's on Buick Regals, and on the same track, guys getting 15's out of EVOs and STi's! I've seen guys getting high 13's out of ZO6's, 14's out of Cobra's too. So don't think that drivers are all the same.
One thing you seldom get in a magzine article is a COMPLETE record of ALL ETs. Most times, the only published ET is the "BEST" of many run. So hell, if the same professional driver can get a large spread in ETs at a single session, why is it so hard to believe the ETs published in different magazines could be spread out too?
 
Some friends of mine just bought a Chrysler 300 it is black, they are going to get the windows tinted blackand the right set of chrome wheels, it looks Smokin. :cool:
 
I'm trying very hard. My wife loves it. I'm trying to let it grow on me. I do like the STS and CTS and I know they have a similar look but the Caddy's have something different that draws me to them.
 
As far as ringers..YES it does happen. As far as test times, the magazines remove the variable of driver. They stage their 1/4 mile runs with a laser affixed to the car that shoots onto the ground. The instant the car starts to roll, it starts timing. Thus there is no timing lights, racer's nerves or other "driver" variables when they post their times. But there is no question that ringers or "perfectly tuned" cars make it to magazine shoots. You'll always notice the "pre-production" cars or "press cars" seem to magically run a bit quicker (usually) than the full on production cars...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 99 (members: 0, guests: 99)
Back
Top