1SICKLEX

BTW, the 420hp, 6.1 liter SRT-8 300C is coming soon...

TLKEJ

All I can say is that the 300c is a strange beast.

It doesn't fit in the near luxuary market segment at all (TL, G35, 330i, ES-330, CTS, Audi A4, Jag x-type, Mercedes C class, Saab 95, Volvo S60, Maxima, etc.).

Also, I wouldn't compare it to a Grand Marquis either. The Grand Marquis is in the old, out-dated, need-to-be-retired category of cars.

There isn't much difference between a brand new 2004 Grand Marquis and my uncle's old 1977 Delta 88 that he drove decades ago.

Someone implied that the 300c belongs in the same category as the PT Cruiser. I would agree.

I am not sure about Chrysler.

300c, PT Cruiser, Crossfire, Magnum???? What gives? None of these are mainstream cars.

Thank god for pick-up trucks, mini vans, and SUVS. At least they got the Dodge Ram and Caravan right.

The hemi is really cool, but at this point, Chrysler is destined to become nothing more than a niche player in a very competitive, complex automotive marketplace.

neuronbob

Oh, no, not ANOTHER TL vs. 300C comparo thread.....jeez.

That said, I'll plunge right in....

I'm going to go against the crowd. I love the way the 300C looks. The retro look is hot. The bigger-engined model is simply going to be totally SICK. I mean, it will be FAST. How can people simply react negatively to that? Chrysler, then DC, has come up with some pretty damned innovative models the last few years. It's really too bad their quality issues have dragged them down so much. I can tell you about both the good and the bad as a former Chrysler (actually, Dodge, but that's just semantics) owner.

I went from Honda to Chrysler and back to Honda/Acura mostly because of quality issues....

snickle

I thought I would chime in here. I think a comparison of the Acura TL and the 300C is a little unfair. They are not really targeted at the same market. Some comments:

Looks: Personally, I am not a big fan of the looks of the 300, but too each his own. I prefer the Magnum

Drivetrain: First rate. It will keep up with quite a few supposed performance cars. Not bad for a heavy car.

Handling: I think most people would be suprised, how well these heavy cars handle. Yes the lighter TL would out handle it in curves, but not by as much as yo would think.

Fit and Finish: By far the best Chrysler has had in years.

Just to be honest, I own a 2005 Dodge Magnum RT, even heavier than the 300C.

The Acura TL is a great car, just don't knock the 300C or the Magnum without driving one. YOu can knock the looks, that is all personal preference.

Aegir

The burden is on Chrysler to demonstrate that they are capable of building a quality product that is reliable, holds its value, and has a reasonably good total cost of ownership. I'm not going to cut them any slack - they haven't earned it.

I do appreciate the edgy styling and powertrain in the 300c. It does not compare well to the TL or other cars in this class, not because it is inferior, but because they are disimilar in many regards. I agree with TLKEJ, what do you compare it to? Chrysler is ignoring and perhaps trying to shake up traditional vehicle segments. A lot of risk and I do give them credit for taking it. Jury is still out whether they can pull it off.

rets

Another quick review...

http://motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0405_300c/

Aegir

Thanks for chiming in with such good comments and welcome to A-TL!

Pot80h

I have to agree that Chrysler's build quality seems to be improving. We own a 2004 Ram 3/4 ton pickup, and so far, so good. The Hemi is plenty powerful to move such a big lump of metal - almost as good as the old 8.0 V-10 in the 99 we had. New brakes and steering and nice and tight - feels very solid off-road too.

As for their less than conventional styling on the 300 and the Magnum - heck, at least it's different!! Kudos to Chrysler for coming up with some good designs. FOr once, a car manufacturer isn't ripping off another's designs (Mazda taking from Honda/Acura; Pontiac taking from BMW - grill designs, in these cases, before I get flamed).

hacksaw

Two words that describes my TL test drive - rice grinder
Once you drive a 300c you will never enjoy a wimpy V6 high revving TL again.

6spdzoomzoom

Statistically the cars are almost the same (according to C/D). In the real world I raced one he could keep up but, he was never able to pass and pull away!!!

BTW I have a six speed.

jjsC5

I agree that the burden is on Chrysler. But if nobody buys their cars, they have no way to prove it. How do you do that? You build a car that offers more for less. The 300C does exactly that. It has the goods of a BMW540 for much less money. I'm not trying to say it's as good as a 540. But when you build a car that offers the performance, features and a large dose of refinement for $25,000 less, that's about all you can ask.

I dissagree with your comment about ignorng the "traditional vehicle segments". What segments do you think they are ignoring? I had a G35, and now have a TL. If the 300C was not so hard to buy, there is a good chance I would be driving one now. And I have owned seven Honda/Acuras, six Nissan/Infinitis, and seven Mazdas. I think I AM the segment you are refering to. Plus, like many auto enthusiasts, the V8 in a grown up sedan is like manna from heaven to me.

Nawww

You can't say it's the BEST engine in it's class, some of us (or maybe just me) still take pride in the fact that the TL is a ULEV-2 despite its 270hp V6. Nobody makes internal combustion engines like Honda. Everyone else just uses the engineering cop-out of making a bigger engine instead of a better one.

xlilbluux

gotta love the way japanese people work, 4 cyclinder STi has 300 hp. American companies would use a v8 to make that much power.

1SICKLEX

STi is turboed using high boost for a factory car. I think 16 or 18lbs from the factory. That is high boost.including Honda. Their V-6 has grown from 2.5 liters to 3.0 to 3.2 liters.

fathemi

BS. Must have been a 6 cylinder 300. You're giving up 150lbs/ft of torque to a 300C and are only about 500lbs lighter. Even with drivetrain losses figured in, it's not even a close match. A nonmodified 300C will decimate a nonmodified TL in any practical contest of acceleration.

jjsC5

300 is a nice number. But have you ever driven one in the real world? Especially with an automatic transmission. Turbo lag is pretty significant. There is nothing worng with a big cube V8 to make horsepower. It's a much more usable power. Someone once said "buyers ask for horsepower, but the buy torque". There is a lot of truth to that. My Corvette has a "low tech" pushrod V8. I have personally run 12.6's in the quarter mile, and get 30mpg on the highway. I'll take that kind of "low tech" all day long.

Obviously my comments are not aimed as a negative against the TL. I have one and love it. But it's engine is not the best. Smooth and refined - yes. But not torquey at all.

VQ35DE

Disregarding it's butt-ugly appearance (which is IMHO), the claim about Chrysler's inferior QC is legitimate given it's history. You cant just dismiss it with a "that was then, this is now" approach. Maybe you can afford to unload 30-large on something as speculative as Chrysler product quality but, most of the buying public does not have that kind of disposable income.

When CR and JD Powers start reporting positive feedback on 1-2 year old Chrysler cars, then I'll reexamine their cars as an alternative to Japanese and German alternatives.
However, I DO credit Chrysler for being innovative in their current product development. It's just too bad that only the Viper developed in my direction.

$.02

kosh2258

The 300C/Magnum is simply proof that P.T. Barnum was right.

The cars are totally unexceptional, mechanically speaking. The bodies are heavy, simple and cheap, using sheer mass for strength. The Hemi is simplistic in design, being cheap to build and using raw displacement to achieve power - wasteful and relatively inefficient by todays standards. The GM LS1 V8 is the same displacement, has the same HP and torque output and is more fuel efficient without that "hemi" configuration.

In short, the LX is a throwback. Simple, cheap, easy and inefficient which creates a vehicle with a low initial cost but high long term operational expense. DCX just deftly shifted the costs from themselves to the customer.

The only thing the LX has going for it is a "look" that attracts some simply because it' s different. Once the newness wears off, the reality of the mediocrity of these cars will begin to sink in. Corners have been cut in a lot of areas and are being hidden in plain sight by visual slights of hand. Example: Take a hard look at the HVAC controls.

The LX is unsophisticated and uses a lot of unsophisticated, off the shelf, last generation MB technology. Contrary to the urban legends, the LX is only based off the last generation E-Class bits. It isn't an E-Class under the covers. The only parts the cars "share", so to speak, are the 5-Speed tranny (being built in Indiana, not Germany) the rear differential, the steering column, the front seat frames, and the electrical architecture. The cylinder cutoff system is MB's adapted to the Hemi. And there are unsubstantiated claims that much of the engineering was done in Stuttgart, not Auburn Hills - at a high cost to Chrysler Group.

DCX is selling smoke and mirrors and they'll play that game as long as they can get away with it. For as long as the public and the press are unwilling to admit the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

The 300C is the absolute antithesis of the TL.

jjsC5

I see you have no regards for facts! The only "large" four place car that the LS1 is offered in is the GTO. You might want to check the gas mileage of that car with an automatic transmission. Then compare weight of both the GTO and 300C. I think you are in for a pretty big surprise.

Next you say the hemi "has the same HP and torque output and is more fuel efficient without that "hemi" configuration". Do a little more homework. The "hemi" does not actually have true hemispherical heads. That is just marketing hype.

VQ35DE

FYI: If you're referring to the quote, "There's a sucker born every minute then it was a criminal by the name of Joseph Bessimer who was quoted as saying this not, PT Barnum.

gyrus

TL vs 300c? christ... that's like... elegance vs brute force... football vs soccer... dell vs sony.... microsoft vs apple.... bruce lee vs arnold.... each are "cool" to someone... in the end it's just personal preference.

I want s2k

jdone

Who said "you'll never go broke underestimating the American public"? Was it someone at Chrysler?

Aegir

You're on the right track. Perhaps closer to the mark in this case are "F1 vs. NASCAR" or "road racing vs. drag racing". Nothing wrong with appreciating both but preferring one.

Aegir

I'm commenting on their strategy more than their execution. By traditional vehicle segments I mean that they did not choose to build a 3500 pound mid-sized four door sedan to compete with 3500 pound mid-sized sedans. They built a 4100+ pound full size car, a big beast, and equiped it with the power to compete - at least in the stoplight wars - with the smaller sport sedans. Another example - they brought back the station wagon (a cool station wagon with a cool name is still a station wagon). That's a huge risk. Consumers may not go for these non-traditional vehicles. Plus, trendy styling can get stale fast. They are either heros or fools - time will tell.

kosh2258

You mean the unrealistic EPA numbers or the real world actual mileage?
C/D only managed an average of 15 MPG when they recently tested (September 2004) the 300C and couldn't reproduce the 5.3 sec (5.9 sec, same place, same conditions) 0-60 time they got with the prepped press cars they first tested. C/D got an observed 22 MPG out of the GTO when they tested it in December of 2003. No surprises for me.


That would be it...

Indecision

Typical american muscle car lovers. Keep driving in a straight line and see where you'll end up.

Think of it like having sex, the high power low rpm V8 will always end prematurely

Ken1997TL

The 300C appeals to those who put outside appearances above substance, quality and practicality. In other words, the vain and shallow.

Its pillbox like structure with gunslit windows make me feel like Al Capone driving it, the dash is too high, the interior plastics cheap as hell and as if it will make it all better, a giant FAKE Hemi engine that does not even use hemispherical combustion chambers....


So yeah, what we have here is a poseur of a car, screaming with all its marketing hype to those who want to be flashy-looking with their bling bling but are really just driving a piece of crap with some chrome sprayed on.


This is all, of course, in my most humble opinion.

jjsC5

Once again, no regards for facts. The GTO tested had a six speed. Do your homework on EPA ratings for six speed versus automatic GTO's.

And yes, I read the same road tests on the 300C. 5.9 0-60 is still in some pretty rare teritory for a full size four door sedan with an automatic transmission.

kosh2258

The EPA numbers are absolutely meaningless. What's achieved in the real world is. C/D got 15 MPG out of the 300C which has an EPA of 17/25. You have a disregard for reality. I have a disregard for the EPA numbers because they have no basis in reality.


Ken1997TL;

Don't hold back, tell us what you really think!

AcuraVic

The 300C is not a new design, its the same car that bumped you off the road in the original 'Spy Hunter' game for Nintendo.

Ken1997TL

Man.. i'll have to take a screenshot of that game sometime and do a comparison.

Lore

YES! Dick Tracy era!

Indecision

Now that you mentioned it

jjsC5

No, I don't disregard reality. You apparently have not been understanding my post. My point was to compare the automatic 300C to the automatic GTO. You have yet to acknowledge that.

Also - you point to C&D's test as if the two cars were driven in identical manners (which the EPA DOES do). Driving one car in only heavy stop and go driving with a few quick passes down the track will be a huge difference compared to driving one predominately on the freeway. C&D makes no claims to how they drive each test car. I have quite a bit of experience with the LS1 engine (two Corvettes) and I can attest to the difference in mileage based upon how they are driven.

While EPA numbers may or may not be totally realistic (which there are some good reasons for) they are done scientifically and the same for each car. Therefore, comparing one car to the other they do have meaning. The main reason they are not as accurate anymore is a well known factor - they have not changed their test methods since the highway speed limits have been increased the past few years.

cvajs

a mix between this and a bentley.

if the engine is gonna be big, then i expect to get 1.2 to 1.4 HP per cubic inch (doable on pump gas). the 300C falls short of those #'s.

missmyprelude

Right on my friend. Think about all those people that would say the s2k has no torque (Nissan fans especially ), so it sucks. All I can say is that I love driving fast high reving cars and could give a rats ass about torque. I like the smooth acceleration better than that big kick in the rear. That's not the "in" thing to say these days (just like back in the 60s and early 70s), but that's what I like. Seems like the muscle car era is coming back. The 300C, Magnum, GTO, etc are proof of that. I will probably never get into this though, because it's just not what I like...

snickle

The 300C and Magnum RT give plenty of smooth acceleration or a kick in the ass. Drivers Choice :-)

The comment about them be unexceptional mechanically, may have some merit, but find any other cars in that weight range that perform anywhere near as well.

Brute force someties has its place. As an engineer, I need to knwo when a big hammer is the right tool.

I would love to see an honest one on one comparison between the two. Even though it is an unfair comparison, as they target different markets

TLKEJ

Chrysler should have produced a more traditional (but modern) looking sedan with a hemi stuffed in it.

Ford hit the target dead-on with the new 2005 Mustang...Why screw around with a winning formula?

Could you imagine a more generic, more stylish, mid-size sedan with a hemi in it?

Chrysler could have crushed all the competition in the $25k to $35 market segment.

Instead, they got all gooofy and went over the edge...

6spdzoomzoom

Well, I know what I did and your wrong. BTW it is goverened at 130....

jjsC5

Chrylser cannot keep them on the lots. I know - four months after they came out I could not find a 300C in town to test drive. So much for your theory that they "got all gooofy and went over the edge". How would you define "could have crushed all the competition...." If they are selling them as fast as they can make them, then I'm thinking they have succeeded. Mind you, I am talking the 300C here. The Magnum wagon thing has not been quite a big of a hit.