Finally checked out & drove the 300C firsthand.

Had nothing to do Sunday, so me & my boy went to the "Auto Mall" over in Seaside & checked out just about everything.

The Pontiac dealer had only 1 GTO left, complete with a $4,000 "Limited edition" and a $795 "Classy Vehicle" markups, and a total price of $38,000. :rolleyes:

My kid really fell for the GTO interior, and I think of all the cars we checked out (including a Cobra and GT Mustang, as well as a H2), the GTO was his favorite by a long shot (15 years old). He's counting down the days till that GTO show comes on TV. You know I'll be watching it too. ;)



NOW about that 300C! :bow:

The dealer had only 1 300C and 1 Touring car left! He told me that those cars are going as quickly as they get them in, and they get at least 1 new special order for them per day. After talking to him I found out that the 300 is likely to become Chrysler division's best selling car by far. And the car is full of stop-in-your-track surprises.

*The 250 horse V6 300 is sticker priced lower at $26,770 than the 240 horse supercharged Impala SS's $28,795.

*Contrary to popular belief (including mine) the 300 isn't a pig. Get this, Comparing the 300 Touring 250 horse V6 to the 240 horse Supercharged Impala V6, the Impala weighs only 100 pounds less at about 3600 pounds to the V6 300's 3700 pounds! !!! :shock:

*There is NO DEALER MARKUP on the cars (at least here) even though they can't seem to keep them in stock.!! :eek:

*Despite the gun-slit windows, visability is actually excellent!

*The 300C is surprisingly quick! To be sure, you won't go racing Corvettes or Cobras with this car (some people here don't understand the concept of relativity and market segment, so I need to say that :rolleyes: ), but I want to say this and make this completely clear:

Anyone who says that the Chrysler 300C isn't QUICK has their head up their ass! Seriously!!!

Anyone who compares this car to a Corvette, or says "Well all I have to do is take my Camaro and add...", or compares the 300C to the modified cars they've been watching on a dragstrip, then says the 300C isn't quick is a moron. The 300C doesn't snap your neck in 2, but it does have some ferocious acceleration. It's a big automatic transmissioned luxury sedan that I can say firsthand is definately a sub 6 second 0-60 car. Car & Driver says 5.3 (just .1 seconds off their test of a CTSv and identical to their LS1 F-body numbers) and being that they probally had time to figure out the best way to launch it, I believe them. Completely.

Looking under the car, it has rear resonators, and an absolutely huge dual inlet/outlet muffler that looks like a economy car's fuel tank. It's that big, and it just has to soak up horsepower. It would be pretty interesting what the car would sound (and go) like with a pair of flowmasters, or straight pipes, or even the seemingly smaller muffler from a Cummings Turbo Diesel.

The 300C interior seems better made than the Cadillac CTSv (which I also checked out, but didn't drive). While the Caddy was more edgy on the outside, it's interior was more businesslike than the 300C, but it didn't seem as well made, and it didn't have the same attention to detail the Chrysler had. While the Cadillac had black everything, with a touch of metal here & there, the 300C had what I can only describe as "tortoise shell" trim on the steering wheel and the door pull handles, a 2 tone interior with plastic that felt closer to solid but soft rubber, more & better use of metalic surfacing, and whitefaced guages. The whole interior felt much classier without being over the top. This is easily the 1st interior that tops Ford in combining at least percieved quality along with a great "wow" factor.

The trunk is easily 4 or 5 bodies big, and the battery is under the floor with the spare tire. Unlike Ford initially did with their Thunderbird, Chrysler sprang the extra 10 cents to cover the terminals to avoid shorting out the electrical system. :)

One thing that really stands out about the 300 is that the car really isn't that big! When you get up to it, it doesn't seem any larger than the CTS. It's a tall car, but it's styling is very deceptive. The car has 18 inch wheels, massive (and almost oversized) wheel arches, a high beltline, a massive grille, a trunk that almost comes up to your chest, but it's relatively short. It's waaay shorter than an LHS or Concorde, and it's no bigger or taller than a 300M when you look at the 2 about 10 feet apart. It's like someone took a modest sized car, raised the beltline to crossover vehicle levels, slammed the roof, and stuck on oversized wheels and styling touches.

The sticker price of the 300C at the dealer was $34,000, but it had quite a few options including a sunroof and the top CD player. The base price on the car was $32,000, and there is incentives on the car (though not alot) that should bring the Hemi powered 300C down to the $30-31K mark. Try finding a V6 Cadillac CTS for that! :no:

The engine and drivetrain are also warrantied for 7 years or 70,000 miles.

Get a base 300C in black for about $30K out the door, replace the 225s with at least 245 tires, loose the oversized muffler, replace the chip (and the 129 mph governer), and you will have one hell of a sedan. It already has huge 18" wheels, huge dual piston 13.5" front disc brakes (12.5 rear), and is pretty damn quick out the door.

Monday I was out most of the day, and I easily saw a dozen new Chrysler 300s, and now I see why. With Lincoln's management believing that they shouldn't have anything quicker than 8 seconds to 60 mph, and Cadillac's move into the pricing stratosphere, you can have a CTSv-quick, Mercedes-Benz sourced, well made, fantastic handling, high styled luxury car for thousands less than a 275 horse Pontiac Bonneville GXP ($35,270) or the same price as an Acura TL ( $32,650).

Chrysler hit thisone out of the ballpark! :thumb:

:thumb:

I really like what I've seen of the uplevel 300C's so far.

IMO, it is a winner so far as far as the way it looks, the features it offers, and the price points it comes in at.

Well written as usual ... when do you come out with car reviewing as your full time job?

I think the 300C is amazing (content, systing and price). I can't wait for the Charger. My 14 year old has a Subaru fetish (WRX STI Spec what?)... so I won't be bringing him shopping for cars.

Ted

"The trunk is easily 4 or 5 bodies big"

Just what do you need this room for??:confused:

full luggage for 4 people on vacation.

This full sized car sounds hot!



Originally posted by rwb
"The trunk is easily 4 or 5 bodies big"

Just what do you need this room for??:confused:

Originally posted by rwb
"The trunk is easily 4 or 5 bodies big"

Just what do you need this room for??:confused:

Because of the business I'm in. :blah:










:p (j/k)

Naw, seriously it was a tounge in cheek nod to a couple of reviews I've read that compare the new 300's styling to the gangster cars of the 30s.

The trunk is huge. Bigger than my T-bird. I find that amazing since the car isn't actually that big, and all those years of car makers telling us that FWD means bigger passenger & trunk room.

You could always use a big roomy trunk for something.....even moving bodies.

I guess I should include a disclaimer that I don't condone using the trunk in that way. ;)

Call it trivial, but one of the biggest problems for me is the beltline. The car looks slick because it appears to be "chopped." However, when you get in the thing, it doesn't feel so neat (in my opinion). I love to be able to place my arm up on the window ledge, and this cannot be done with this car or a car like the 350Z. The window is just too high up on the door...

not very biased are you? i think thats good, too bad we don't have you working on the 5th gen.that we know of

Originally posted by guionM

The 300C interior seems better made than the Cadillac CTSv (which I also checked out, but didn't drive). While the Caddy was more edgy on the outside, it's interior was more businesslike than the 300C, but it didn't seem as well made, and it didn't have the same attention to detail the Chrysler had. While the Cadillac had black everything, with a touch of metal here & there, the 300C had what I can only describe as "tortoise shell" trim on the steering wheel and the door pull handles, a 2 tone interior with plastic that felt closer to solid but soft rubber, more & better use of metalic surfacing, and whitefaced guages. The whole interior felt much classier without being over the top. This is easily the 1st interior that tops Ford in combining at least percieved quality along with a great "wow" factor.



I agree 100 percent.:D

However, you really missed the point. The interior of the 300C is great, but the best parts are the Mercedes-sourced steering column and seats. Personally, I like the metalic accents and "tortoise shell" inlay on the wheel and door pulls. However, I can wait to see my first Magnum RT-8. Will less flash, a tailgate and $3,000 less MSRP make the Hemi Magnum an even bigger hit? :confused:

Originally posted by guionM

The trunk is huge. Bigger than my T-bird. I find that amazing since the car isn't actually that big, and all those years of car makers telling us that FWD means bigger passenger & trunk room.


I'd say that the trunk is usefull but not huge in a traditional American sense. In contrast, the trunk of an old fashioned American car is normally huge but not very usefull.

Still, the packaging of the 300 makes similarly sized cars (CTS, Lincoln LS, etc.) seem cramped and dowdy. Chrysler of Europe will have to careful not to steal sales from short-wheelbase Mercedes S-class models.:usa:

I tried getting my g/f to look at the 300 Touring, but she didn't even want to touch it. She thought it was way to big, and honestly, so did I. I've heard people say that they have to make a few attempts at parking into a parking spot. I couldn't imagine her having a car that big without it getting dings all over the place from edging random stuff. It was quite a bit larger than the CTS we test drove.

I test drove the 300 and it handled OK for what it was, like the CTS. They both had supple rides though, not every road vibration came through to the cabin. I didn't really get either car at WOT, I really hate doing that with new cars because I feel like I might be ruining it in some way for the guy who actually buys it and because when their brand new they're not as quick as they will be after their broken in anyway....

The interior in the Touring edition was great, I liked the CTS better because it was more fit to me, but the Touring was gorgeous on the inside too. Lots of little things to check out, I had to feel all different materials before I was completely satisfied.

Anyway, great review Guy as always. I definately don't think it is as great as you do, but then again I only drove the 300 and not the C, so I missed out on a bit more performance. For the same price I would take a "used" CTS over a 300. I have a feeling these 300's will hold their retail value pretty well.

Yep, if it was a Caddy, it would cost $55K.

(Before rebates, of course.)

I've only seen one so far, and it was a base model at the dealership with a sticker of $23,000! I asked my friend what his guess on the price would be (before I told him), and he said $40k. :lol: I didn't get to sit in it, but from the outside it didn't look that big to me, although I've become used to trucks and giant classic cars. :D

Originally posted by JEDCamino
I didn't get to sit in it, but from the outside it didn't look that big to me, although I've become used to trucks and giant classic cars. :D

This big honkin', full sized sedan is only 4" longer than a 4th gen F-car.



THINK ABOUT IT.:eek:

Originally posted by Z284ever
This big honkin', full sized sedan is only 4" longer than a 4th gen F-car.



THINK ABOUT IT.:eek:

Yeah, it always sounds weird to me when someone calls an F-body "huge". :o

argh, i love the 300c. think will go test drive one right now.

Originally posted by Meccadeth
The interior in the Touring edition was great, I liked the CTS better because it was more fit to me, but the Touring was gorgeous on the inside too. Lots of little things to check out, I had to feel all different materials before I was completely satisfied.

... I definately don't think it is as great as you do, but then again I only drove the 300 and not the C, so I missed out on a bit more performance. For the same price I would take a "used" CTS over a 300. I have a feeling these 300's will hold their retail value pretty well.

Not so much that I think the 300C is great (though if I was going to buy a sedan, I'd eat through a wall to get at one :D), it's that after seeing it so many times in pictures, and seeing them pop up pretty frequently before they were "supposed" to be on sale, I got really curious, and the car wasn't what I expected.

I expected a big heavy car (which it isn't), with an OK interior (which was turned out well above what we normally see out of Chryslers), and good acceleration (which turned out a hell of alot quicker than I expected it to be.

I didn't drive the V6 300. They had the "C" suited up for test drives because according to the dealer, that's the only thing most people were interested in. The 2.7 V6 of the base 300 is a dog, but the 3.5, so I'm told, is pretty decent. At just 100 pounds heavier & 10 horses stronger than the supercharged Impala SS, I'd expect them to be nearly the same.

Used cars will ALWAYS be a better deal (thanks to a combination of depriciation & and much better durability), and it's actually financially smarter to buy a 2 year old car than a brand new one.

But next to a brand new Lincoln LS or Cadillac CTS, or even a Bonneville GXP or Grand Prix GTP, the 300C's a steal.

I will wait a year or two to buy my 300c in lava red. =) with awd, navidgation and hid.

In the mean time, the 2002 Lincoln Ls's look pretty good for around 12k.

I would still consider the 300C heavy...a tick over 2 tons. That is no lightweight by any means.

Also, what do the torque figures look like for the 3.5 vs the supercharged Impy? Those roots blowers produce tons of low end torque that helps to get these "heavier" cars moving. I'd be willing to bet the curve of the Impy is quite a bit more desirable...

I drove one yesterday, and it really handles well. Like Guion said, it isn't as large in the flesh as it appears on paper. Handling is very neutral, and while it rained, with esp on, it seemed very surefooted. I can't wait for my 300C to be delivered.

Originally posted by uluz28
I would still consider the 300C heavy...a tick over 2 tons. That is no lightweight by any means.

Also, what do the torque figures look like for the 3.5 vs the supercharged Impy? Those roots blowers produce tons of low end torque that helps to get these "heavier" cars moving. I'd be willing to bet the curve of the Impy is quite a bit more desirable...

Just a few measurements to put the 300 into perspective.

Impala SS (supercharged):
$28,795
Weight: 3606
Length: 200.0"
Width: 73.0"
Height: 57.3"
240 hp @ 5200 rpm
280 lbs/ft @ 3600 rpm
0-60: approx 6.8 seconds

Chrysler 300 touring sedan:
$27,395
Weight: 3711
Length: 196.8"
Width: 74.1
Height: 58.4"
250 hp @ 6400 rpm
250 lbs/ft @ 3800 rpm
0-60: approx 7.2 seconds

The 300C is over 3" shorter, 1" wider, 1" taller, and a mere 105 pounds heavier (which is great considering the 300 is RWD, IRS, and loaded with sound deadening) than the Impala. The car is looks deceptively bigger than it really is but not as heavy as you'd think.

The 300 also pushes about the same power and performance in medium strength as the top "performance" Impala SS while coming in at a lower price.

Not bad for a luxury car vs a family sedan.

IMO the 300 doesn't really compete with the CTS...I mean the car is after all replacing the 300M....hardly a car that is a Cadillac competitor.

I mean it's a great car...but because the CTS is a Cadillac and costs more I think comparisons should be restricted to similarly priced cars.

Now you say a 300C is a honking value to say a GTP Comp G and I wole heartedly agree.

Originally posted by formula79
IMO the 300 doesn't really compete with the CTS...I mean the car is after all replacing the 300M....hardly a car that is a Cadillac competitor.

I mean it's a great car...but because the CTS is a Cadillac and costs more I think comparisons should be restricted to similarly priced cars.

Now you say a 300C is a honking value to say a GTP Comp G and I wole heartedly agree.


I don't see a problem comparing the 300C to the CTS at all.. the "C" is in the CTS price range... right in the middle of it actually, and as far as the 300 replacing the 300M, well, CTS replaced Catera ... which is pretty much equal to what the 300M was (FWD, V6 pseudo-luxury car).

I think it's pretty obvious that Chrysler is trying to make an upmarket move not unlike Cadillac, and I am beginning to think they are making some headway.

I belive that the 300C is an inch shorter then the outgoing 300M.

Originally posted by Darth Xed
I don't see a problem comparing the 300C to the CTS at all.. the "C" is in the CTS price range... right in the middle of it actually, and as far as the 300 replacing the 300M, well, CTS replaced Catera ... which is pretty much equal to what the 300M was (FWD, V6 pseudo-luxury car).

I think it's pretty obvious that Chrysler is trying to make an upmarket move not unlike Cadillac, and I am beginning to think they are making some headway.

I dunno...you compare the CTS to the 300C then do you also compare it to the CTS's BMW and Mercedes competition?

The Park Avenue can be in the CTS's price range, but if you mentioned both in a comparison you would get laughed out the room.

As for quality I am sure some people would say a Jetta or Passant has a better interior than the CTS...so does that matter?

Also the CTS is meant to take on the the BMW 3/5 series and has nowhere the interior room off the 300...it is also designed to be a great handler (tuneed a Nuremburg).

The 300 on the other hand is built from cheapened, (steel instead of aluminum) last generation E classs parts and is basically meant as a return to big American RWD muscle sedans. I really think the Bentley styling is what makes this thing seem so upscale..

The CTS is priced and designed to compete with sports sedans made by BMW and Mercedes....so I think it is unfair to compare it with a Chrysler that is obviuosly priced to compete in a different segment.

A Bonneville can be priced to nearly as much as a CTS, let I am willing to bet not many people cross shop them.

What makes me mad about the whole CTS-V thing is that I am willing to bet the Ls6 is cheaper to make than the DOHC 3.6L

Again I am not dissing the 300...it is a great car, I just think we need to keep in perspective what it is.

Originally posted by formula79
I dunno...you compare the CTS to the 300C then do you also compare it to the CTS's BMW and Mercedes competition?

The Park Avenue can be in the CTS's price range, but isn't.

As for quality I am sure some people would say a Jetta or Passant has a better interior than the CTS...so does that matter?

Also the CTS is meant to take on the the BMW 3/5 series and has nowhere the interior room off the 300...it is also designed to be a great handler (tunered a Nuremburg).

The 300 on the other hand is built from cheapened (steel instead of aluminum) last generation E classs parts and is basically meant as a return to big American RWD muscle sedans. I really think the Bently styling is what makes this thing seem so upscale.

The CTS is priced and designed to compete with sports sedans made by BMW and Mercedes....so I think it is unfair to compare it with a Chrysler that is obviuosly priced to compete in a different segment.

A Bonneville can be priced to nearly as much as a CTS, let I am willing to bet not many people cross shop them.

What makes me mad about the whole CTS-V thing is that I am willing to bet the Ls6 is cheaper to make than the DOHC 3.6L

Again I am not dissing the 300...it is a great car, I just think we need to keep in perspective what it is.


Valid points.

But, it's probably hard for Chrysler to go up against Cadillac, BMW, and Mercedes , being that Mercedes is in the same family now.

Maybe a better perspective is similar cars to Cadillac at a slightly lower price. I guess it is sort of it's own niche... maybe something along the lines of what GM wants Buick to be, but so far, Chrylser is doing a much better job at finding that niche.

I guess I can picture Chrylser above Buick and below Cadillac in the world of automobilia.

Originally posted by formula79
I dunno...you compare the CTS to the 300C then do you also compare it to the CTS's BMW and Mercedes competition?

The Park Avenue can be in the CTS's price range, but isn't.

As for quality I am sure some people would say a Jetta or Passant has a better interior than the CTS...so does that matter?

Also the CTS is meant to take on the the BMW 3/5 series and has nowhere the interior room off the 300...it is also designed to be a great handler (tunered a Nuremburg).

The 300 on the other hand is built from cheapened (steel instead of aluminum) last generation E classs parts and is basically meant as a return to big American RWD muscle sedans. I really think the Bently styling is what makes this thing seem so upscale.

The CTS is priced and designed to compete with sports sedans made by BMW and Mercedes....so I think it is unfair to compare it with a Chrysler that is obviuosly priced to compete in a different segment.

A Bonneville can be priced to nearly as much as a CTS, let I am willing to bet not many people cross shop them.

What makes me mad about the whole CTS-V thing is that I am willing to bet the Ls6 is cheaper to make than the DOHC 3.6L

Again I am not dissing the 300...it is a great car, I just think we need to keep in perspective what it is.

Great post ;)

Originally posted by guionM
Just a few measurements to put the 300 into perspective.

Impala SS (supercharged):
$28,795
Weight: 3606
Length: 200.0"
Width: 73.0"
Height: 57.3"
240 hp @ 5200 rpm
280 lbs/ft @ 3600 rpm
0-60: approx 6.8 seconds

Chrysler 300 touring sedan:
$27,395
Weight: 3711
Length: 196.8"
Width: 74.1
Height: 58.4"
250 hp @ 6400 rpm
250 lbs/ft @ 3800 rpm
0-60: approx 7.2 seconds

The 300C is over 3" shorter, 1" wider, 1" taller, and a mere 105 pounds heavier (which is great considering the 300 is RWD, IRS, and loaded with sound deadening) than the Impala. The car is looks deceptively bigger than it really is but not as heavy as you'd think.

The 300 also pushes about the same power and performance in medium strength as the top "performance" Impala SS while coming in at a lower price.

Not bad for a luxury car vs a family sedan.

Nice post and thanks for the info. However, I'd still be willing to bet that the SC Impy would trounce that 300 in a drag (not that it really matters). Combine that with nice Impy rebates...make mine the bowtie :D

Originally posted by Darth Xed
Valid points.

But, it's probably hard for Chrysler to go up against Cadillac, BMW, and Mercedes , being that Mercedes is in the same family now.

Maybe a better perspective is similar cars to Cadillac at a slightly lower price. I guess it is sort of it's own niche... maybe something along the lines of what GM wants Buick to be, but so far, Chrylser is doing a much better job at finding that niche.

I guess I can picture Chrylser above Buick and below Cadillac in the world of automobilia.

See that is where the waters get muddied. If I were DCX I would not want the 300C compared to a Cadillac. Not when you have Mercedes running around with new, better compents that easily do the job. Really the only comparisons that can be drawn between the Cadillac and the 300C are that they are RWD and can be had with a nice V8. Inside the 300C is larger in every dimension, and drives much larger than the performance tuned CTS. The CTS is a luxury BMW chaser, the 300C on the other hand will compete with the Impala, Grand Prix, Maxima, Crown Vic, etc for sales. I really don't think many buyers in that group would be seriously cross shopping a CTS. Better yet how many BMW buyers will cross shop a 300.

The GTO is in the same boat.....it can compete with much more expensive cars....but does that mean it's in the same class....or a direct competitor? Not quite. The test I use for this is that I ask myself..."I don't see anyone saying screw the 6 Series, I want a GOAT!"

On top of that...would a CTS with a lower price point would contradict the whole notion of Cadillac being a premium brand and moving up.

Sorry for the rant....

An again I praise the 300C and the alimighty Hemi!

Originally posted by uluz28
Nice post and thanks for the info. However, I'd still be willing to bet that the SC Impy would trounce that 300 in a drag (not that it really matters). Combine that with nice Impy rebates...make mine the bowtie :D

I find the interior of a 1989 Crown Victoria Taxi more inviting than the Impala,, and it is the sole reason I would never consider it.

Add to the fact that you are comparing a car built on the 13 year old FWD W-body platform with a ugly interior, okay exterior, and a glass transmission that will implode with more than minor mods...to a RWD sedan with Mercedes parts (old...but not as old as the W-body), stunning styling, a well-built unoffending intrerior, and huge jaw dropping ability. Considering how close the price on these cars is picking the IMPY would just be a porr decision.

Originally posted by formula79
I find the interior of a 1989 Crown Victoria Taxi more inviting than the Impala,, and it is the sole reason I would never consider it.

Add to the fact that you are comparing a car built on the 13 year old FWD W-body platform with a ugly interior, okay exterior, and a glass transmission that will implode with more than minor mods...to a RWD sedan with Mercedes parts (old...but not as old as the W-body), stunning styling, a well-built unoffending intrerior, and huge jaw dropping ability. Considering how close the price on these cars is picking the IMPY would just be a porr decision.

Most of your arguement is opinion...which means jack to me. I'll give you the fact that 300 has a better interior, but I think the exterior aesthetics are hideous. A poor decision...not quite.

check this out...

CTS beats BMW, MB, and Audi. 300 is also in there and places ahead of BMW and Audi (http://members.roadfly.org/jason2/R&T530comparo.jpg)

Originally posted by formula79
See that is where the waters get muddied. If I were DCX I would not want the 300C compared to a Cadillac. Not when you have Mercedes running around with new, better compents that easily do the job. Really the only comparisons that can be drawn between the Cadillac and the 300C are that they are RWD and can be had with a nice V8. Inside the 300C is larger in every dimension, and drives much larger than the performance tuned CTS. The CTS is a luxury BMW chaser, the 300C on the other hand will compete with the Impala, Grand Prix, Maxima, Crown Vic, etc for sales. I really don't think many buyers in that group would be seriously cross shopping a CTS. Better yet how many BMW buyers will cross shop a 300.

The GTO is in the same boat.....it can compete with much more expensive cars....but does that mean it's in the same class....or a direct competitor? Not quite. The test I use for this is that I ask myself..."I don't see anyone saying screw the 6 Series, I want a GOAT!"

On top of that...would a CTS with a lower price point would contradict the whole notion of Cadillac being a premium brand and moving up.

Sorry for the rant....

An again I praise the 300C and the alimighty Hemi!

I see your point, but I think Chrysler would be happy to takes sales from anyone, Cadillac included.

The GTO compared to the 6-series from BMW is not realistic because a 6-coupe costs more than twice as much as a GTO ... that's not particularly fair, and for that reason alone, I wouldn't compare the two. I don't think GM currently offers anything that comapres to a 6-coupe. Maybe a STS coupe could do the job in the future if they felt the need?

Now, the 300C on the other hand, costs virtually the same as a CTS.

Also, I am definately not suggesting Cadillac offer anything at a lower price point than CTS, and I would not lower the price of CTS either, though over it's short life it quickly slipped away from it's original $29,990 base price by a few GRAND, I think $30k has to be the floor level for the Cadillac makeover.

Originally posted by Darth Xed

Now, the 300C on the other hand, costs virtually the same as a CTS.

An insanely optioned 300 is around $10K cheaper than a comparable CTS. The 300C is nearly $15-20K less expensive than the CTSv. I'd say that the new Chrysler is spectacular value

Originally posted by Darth Xed
Also, I am definately not suggesting Cadillac offer anything at a lower price point than CTS, and I would not lower the price of CTS either, though over it's short life it quickly slipped away from it's original $29,990 base price by a few GRAND, I think $30k has to be the floor level for the Cadillac makeover.

Even if Cadillac threw in the $9,950:alert: 1SC Package for free, the CTS would still represent lousy value in the near-luxury segment.:(

The 300C represents the same sort of quantum leap that Lexus made with the original LS400 over 15 years ago.:D Daimler-Chrysler has done a great job in differentiating the 300 from the E-class. Better yet, they have cracked the styling formula for making a high-beltline car looking right. Instead of another 3-series clone, they built a genuine American car.

The viciously aggressive pricing just seals the deal. On the flip side, the laughable MSRP on the CTS brings into question just how serious GM really is.

Originally posted by redzed
An insanely optioned 300 is around $10K cheaper than a comparable CTS. The 300C is nearly $15-20K less expensive than the CTSv. I'd say that the new Chrysler is spectacular value





Good point redzed.

The CTSv has got to be my favorite GM product. I like more than the 300C. Do I like it $20,000 more than the 300C?

Nope.

Originally posted by guionM

Used cars will ALWAYS be a better deal (thanks to a combination of depriciation & and much better durability), and it's actually financially smarter to buy a 2 year old car than a brand new one.


I'd say that a used BMW or Honda is a rotten value. When the price of a used car is too close to a new one, you've got to have a head full of rocks to buy used.

The only 1-3 year old used vehicles that make sense are the high depreciation American, Korean and lesser Japanese products.

Originally posted by redzed
Better yet, they have cracked the styling formula for making a high-beltline car looking right. Instead of another 3-series clone, they built a genuine American car.

I thought you were here not too long ago bashing the 300's styling? :confused:

Originally posted by redzed
An insanely optioned 300 is around $10K cheaper than a comparable CTS. The 300C is nearly $15-20K less expensive than the CTSv. I'd say that the new Chrysler is spectacular value

If you read what I typed, you'd see I said the 300C (read the "C", it's important) and the CTS (do not read the "V", because I didn't type it) are virtually the same in price... and they are.



Even if Cadillac threw in the $9,950:alert: 1SC Package for free, the CTS would still represent lousy value in the near-luxury segment.:(

What makes CTS a "lousy value"??!? What are you not getting that you do get from BMW or Mercedes? (This should be good...)


The 300C represents the same sort of quantum leap that Lexus made with the original LS400 over 15 years ago.:D Daimler-Chrysler has done a great job in differentiating the 300 from the E-class. Better yet, they have cracked the styling formula for making a high-beltline car looking right. Instead of another 3-series clone, they built a genuine American car.

I like the 300C... I think I made that pretty clear so far, so I won't say this is wrong, though I'll wait to see if this will be the latest car to "save" a Chrysler Company.



The viciously aggressive pricing just seals the deal. On the flip side, the laughable MSRP on the CTS brings into question just how serious GM really is.

There's nothing laughable about CTS's pricing... it's pretty much right where it should be, and since CTS is still selling way above where GM expected it to, maybe they should RAISE the price more?!?! Probably not, but you just don't look at the big picture because of your odd view on most subjects that involve GM products.

Originally posted by Z284ever
Good point redzed.

The CTSv has got to be my favorite GM product. I like more than the 300C. Do I like it $20,000 more than the 300C?

Nope.

look at the price of the 300 in that RT run down. Thats 35k for a v6 model.

Originally posted by formula79
IMO the 300 doesn't really compete with the CTS...I mean the car is after all replacing the 300M....hardly a car that is a Cadillac competitor.

I mean it's a great car...but because the CTS is a Cadillac and costs more I think comparisons should be restricted to similarly priced cars.

Now you say a 300C is a honking value to say a GTP Comp G and I wole heartedly agree.

Agreed from a standpoint that a Cadillac should be expensive the way a BMW should be expensive.

I'd have to disagree from a position and quality standpoint. 300C represents the best Chrysler, and it happens to be in the same area of the best GM at the moment, the CTSv. But you have demonstrated that comparing the 2 is dicey because there isn't a base Cadillac CTS going for $23,000. Heck, even I'm comparing the midlevel 300 to an Impala!

I think perhaps the 300 series should be compared to vehicles like the Mercury Grand Marquis, Buick Park Avenue & Pontiac Bonneville since they are in the same price range in top trim. But then again, if a mid-grade 300 is a better deal than a loaded Impala, it certainly turns out a far better deal (and even smaller still) next to those cars.

As far as comparing it to a loaded Grand Prix GTP... fugetaboutit! :lol:


But it does bring up the question: With both cars seemingly of similar quality and the $32K Chrysler running about as quick as the $50K CTSv (at least to 60 mph) is the 300C a steal or are CTS buyers simply paying for a Cadillac name.

Is a loaded 300C about $32k :confused:

I was building one on chrysler's site and it was damned near 40...

Originally posted by Big Als Z
look at the price of the 300 in that RT run down. Thats 35k for a v6 model.

MSRP for the 300C is $32,995. Magnum R/T is $29,995.

Chrysler really nailed it down with this car. The styling is like nothing else on the road.

They also created a new segment in the market, there is nothing that directly competes with it right now. Name another LARGE RWD car that ranges from $25K-$35K. Grand Marquis and Crown Vics are much larger cars that do not have the power or handling of the 300. Not to mention they look really boring when compared to the 300. The CTS is a much smaller and sportier car, made to compete with other small sedans like the G35, 3-Series, etc.

We were at the Chrysler driving event and drove a 300C.

Lots of 300 and 300c models there, all with stickers. There were SEVERAL 300C models with stickers of $32-33k. The most expensive one was $37k. There was a base V6 with a sticker of $23k. Didn't see a 3.5 model.

The stickers are real, and they are a shocker--as in reverse sticker shock. The cars look like they should cost a LOT more--not something you can say about a CTS.

The idea of a $10K option package on the CTS makes me want to throw up. GM would do very, very, very well to take a long, hard look at this example.

Originally posted by Z284ever
MSRP for the 300C is $32,995. Magnum R/T is $29,995.

No, you missed my link.
Road and Track posted the price of the 300 with the 3.5 at 35k. Thats with the 3.5 V6. Like someone said, its probably over 40k full loaded with the Hemi.

Originally posted by centric
The idea of a $10K option package on the CTS makes me want to throw up. GM would do very, very, very well to take a long, hard look at this example.

ahaha yeah, so sick it sells by the boat loads :rolleyes:. Yeah, GM is taking a very long look.... at the sales figures!

Ok, first and foremost i doubt the 300c , the whole 300 series was designed to compete with the cts. Will it steal sales? hell yeah it would.

the 300 series will outsell anything else on the wrong, there is a model for everyone, and when the awd ones come out, the 300's will be selling that much better.

Alot of people bought the cts due to great marketing, is it worth 32k plus? hardly, I would gladly take an Acura TL over any CTS any day, the side profile of cts looks amazing, but hte front, just looks ghey to me and and now every cadillac using same front is making it that much worse, the only caddie, not including trucks, that has a good front is hte xlr, the old seville, and deville to some respect, cts, new sts look hideos from the front.

The 300c as you will find will be taking sales from everywhere, of course you will find a 3.5 for 35k if you load it up with everything, luxury package, sunroof, chrome bling bling, walnut inside, white leather, navigation, hid. but at the same rate, what else will have the interior luxury of a fully loaded 300 luxury edition for 35k? before rebates at that.

then throw a 300c for 32k, where there are limited options, , hid and navigation, all else standard, and for 35k you get a 300c loaded to the full, that has more room and power than anything in its class, nevermind the looks.

As always, when AWD becomes option and you get all that, for 36k, it is a all weather, mean machine, lol, then iin a few years they will come down in price and you will be able to pick up a preowned for half hte price in 2 years. lol.

Wow, you guys get pretty strict and detailed when you start naming cars that compete with eachother. If you don't think the 300 competes with the CTS, then why would you ever think that a Camaro competes with Mustang, or F150 competes with Silverado? The whole car market is a huge grey area now instead of being black and white like it used to be.

I consider any car that can steal significant sales away from another car to be competition. In that definition, the 300 will compete with CTS, as well as some FWD cars.

Jo American is going to see the CTS and the 300 if he's looking in the sedan market, and he's probably not going to buy both, but he is likely going to look at both. The car manufacturers have equipt their respective cars with all kinds of things to win the buyer over, this has created a competition between the two cars. Jo American is also going to base his purchase off of his needs, ability to drive that car in an environment he has to deal with on a daily basis and for the money he can afford. If he lives in the snowbelt, he's likely to look at some FWD models like an Impala or Grand Prix. Depending on how well GM has made those vehicles, he could choose one of those over the 300. Or he could like the 300 more because the traction control is enough for his duties. This is all competition among car manufacturers. He has a wide variety of choices, and his choices can include a 300 and a CTS and a Grand Prix and whatever, their all competing for his $$, therefore they are competition to eachother.

Originally posted by Big Als Z
No, you missed my link.
Road and Track posted the price of the 300 with the 3.5 at 35k. Thats with the 3.5 V6. Like someone said, its probably over 40k full loaded with the Hemi.


Okay, I went to Chrysler's web site and did the build your own 300C. I checked every single option box including CD changer, DVD navigation, HID headlights, sunroof, etc. I came up with a total of $38,625. That is the most expesive 300C avaible, and a good value if consider how many gadgets you are getting. I don't give a rat's arse about DVD navigation bling-bling screens, so if you can live without that, it'll save you about $2000.

Mecca, dont forget, the lx cars will have AWD as well starting in september. =) so that is what I am waiting for, lol.

Originally posted by guionM


I think perhaps the 300 series should be compared to vehicles like the Mercury Grand Marquis, Buick Park Avenue & Pontiac Bonneville since they are in the same price range in top trim. But then again, if a mid-grade 300 is a better deal than a loaded Impala, it certainly turns out a far better deal (and even smaller still) next to those cars.



I'd say that the 300 model range spans from the low end of the large car segment ("stripped" Grand Marquis, LeSabre, etc.) all the way up to the luxury segment (anything from a Lexus LS to a Town Car). However, the 300C is by far the most competitive model. I couldn't seriously compare the lesser 300s to the Infiniti G35, but all of the domestic "near luxury" nameplates are fair game.

Any input as to why the car version on the Hemi isn't aluminum?!?

I just can't see myself going back to a cast iron motor!