Piston Slap: Impala Vs. 300?

Sajeev Mehta
by Sajeev Mehta

Joe writes:

Hi Sajeev,

As the resident car enthusiast in family, I’d appreciate your input on the following situation I’ve been asked for my input on.

My parents (in their late 60s) are currently looking to replace one of their two vehicles with a new small crossover. Their current vehicles are as follows:

– 2000 Chrysler 300M w/sport package, 80k miles, virtually all city miles


– 2003 Chevy Impala, 110k miles, virtually all highway miles (my dad was a salesman and bought the car for peanuts after he used it as a company fleet vehicle)

Both cars are in excellent condition and are maintained faithfully by my retired father, including religious fluid changes and twice-yearly waxings. Both garage-kept from new and no rust. As expected with two older vehicles, there have been a few issues over the years:

300M:


– Transmission was replaced early on (20k miles) under warranty after getting stuck in second gear; no further issues with new tranny


– Weak A/C that needs to be recharged yearly to maintain cold air


– Various minor electrical problems that my father addressed himself: window regulators, power seat motor

Impala:


– Something with the steering rack that was replaced by the dealer


– Again, weak A/C that needs to be recharged yearly

The value of both cars is about equal. The car that is kept will likely be kept for quite a while and driven very little by my father who only drives about 2,000 miles per year at this point.

I honestly don’t know which car to recommend they keep. My father wants to keep the 300M because it has lower miles, and it’s much better equipped and nicer to drive than the Impala. However, the lower miles on the 300M have been much harder city miles, and the Impala is three years newer. Plus I feel that any future repairs on the Impala will be cheaper to fix than on the 300M. Quite the quandary.

Would love your opinion on which vehicle would be more reliable for the long haul.

Sajeev answers:

Considering the 300M is a somewhat impressive sports sedan and that Impala is generally a horrid place to do business…AND your Dad will barely use it, the Chrysler 300 is the hands down winner.

(balloon drop, flashing ChryCo message on-screen, audience applause)

I’d change my tune if the 300M had more miles. And if your Dad drove more often. It’s still a safe bet that the Impala is a far superior value proposition in many other ownership scenarios. Oh, and before I forget, my apologies to that one guy on TTAC who loves him some W-body Chevy.

My parting shot: why punish Mom and Dad with the dark ages of General Motors’ design if, more than likely, the superior Chrysler LH stablemate’s style/design won’t completely fall apart under Dad’s care?

Send your queries to sajeev@thetruthaboutcars.com. Spare no details and ask for a speedy resolution if you’re in a hurry…but be realistic, and use your make/model specific forums instead of TTAC for more timely advice.

Sajeev Mehta
Sajeev Mehta

More by Sajeev Mehta

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 42 comments
  • That guy That guy on Jun 12, 2013

    Another thing, somewhat related, it's too bad Daimler ruined Chrysler. Their products from the late 1990s were vastly superior to what GM and Ford were putting out.

  • Slantsixbuzzinaway Slantsixbuzzinaway on Sep 10, 2013

    My friend has a 96 LHS w/3.5L with just under 200k miles, still works well for him, but the car did have to have the timing belt replaced after the original snapped. I have a 2000 Impala LS w/3.8L with 207k miles, this car runs and drives very well. I like both, but still lean toward the Impala due to the sheer abundance of parts both new and used. If the Impala is a 3.4L, then Chrysler all the way.

  • ToolGuy First picture: I realize that opinions vary on the height of modern trucks, but that entry door on the building is 80 inches tall and hits just below the headlights. Does anyone really believe this is reasonable?Second picture: I do not believe that is a good parking spot to be able to access the bed storage. More specifically, how do you plan to unload topsoil with the truck parked like that? Maybe you kids are taller than me.
  • ToolGuy The other day I attempted to check the engine oil in one of my old embarrassing vehicles and I guess the red shop towel I used wasn't genuine Snap-on (lots of counterfeits floating around) plus my driveway isn't completely level and long story short, the engine seized 3 minutes later.No more used cars for me, and nothing but dealer service from here on in (the journalists were right).
  • Doughboy Wow, Merc knocks it out of the park with their naming convention… again. /s
  • Doughboy I’ve seen car bras before, but never car beards. ZZ Top would be proud.
  • Bkojote Allright, actual person who knows trucks here, the article gets it a bit wrong.First off, the Maverick is not at all comparable to a Tacoma just because they're both Hybrids. Or lemme be blunt, the butch-est non-hybrid Maverick Tremor is suitable for 2/10 difficulty trails, a Trailhunter is for about 5/10 or maybe 6/10, just about the upper end of any stock vehicle you're buying from the factory. Aside from a Sasquatch Bronco or Rubicon Jeep Wrangler you're looking at something you're towing back if you want more capability (or perhaps something you /wish/ you were towing back.)Now, where the real world difference should play out is on the trail, where a lot of low speed crawling usually saps efficiency, especially when loaded to the gills. Real world MPG from a 4Runner is about 12-13mpg, So if this loaded-with-overlander-catalog Trailhunter is still pulling in the 20's - or even 18-19, that's a massive improvement.
Next