By Sajeev Mehta
November 10, 2006 -
Buzzwords like “breakthrough”, “paradigm” and “integration” are management Viagra. They give ignorant execs and clueless PR folk the power to appear talented. But no word sets the flack-talker’s soul afire like “synergy.” And no other word was deployed more often to justify the merger of Daimler-Benz with Chrysler. But what happens when you synergize top-dollar Mercedes underpinnings with Chrysler engineering and sell it for the price of a Camry? I’ll give you 300 guesses.
Judging by its looks, the Chrysler 300 is still a winner. The chopped roof, crisp overhangs, Audi TT-esque fender flares and jeweler’s grade front fascia are still the stuff of urban legend. The SUV-like stance (generated by a sky-high beltline) and K-car influenced rear deck further distinguish the big Chrysler from the Boyz in the bland. Personally, I find this flying brick (with a drag coefficient to match) a far cry from Bentley sedans and vintage 300’s. Put another way, who stole a Checker Marathon and ran it through a wind tunnel?
Too bad that chunky profile only looks solid. Rest your butt on the front end, lean back and give your best “mean mug” for the camera and the front clip flexes and twists in disapproval. Ditto the back bumper: rest a box before loading the trunk and the 300’s posterior sags like the rack of a middle-aged supermodel.
The Chrysler 300’s interior continues the cheap and not-so-cheerful theme. Aside from tight panel gaps and soft polymers above the dashboard equator, the cabin is awash in the kind of flash cast plastics “enjoyed” by owners of Hyundai’s Excel. The 300’s cabin serves-up a farrago of bargain basement materials: from hard, nasty armrests to a vinyl-wrapped steering wheel. The 300’s thrones were designed by the folks at Slip n’ Slide, complete with leather inserts that are virtually indistinguishable from their vinyl surroundings. The optional Boston Acoustics’ boombox is as clear as it is loud– provided you remain in front.
Hop in the back and the sound quality flies out the window, right after the delightful gong resonance made by closing the rear portals. The 300’s backseat is best reserved for short trips with short people; everyone else leaves the 300’s lean rear cushions tired and stressed after a lengthy interstate odyssey. The trunk’s shallow, oddly-shaped cargo hole and the overly aggressive assist-struts on a zero-leverage deck lid do nothing to help the family car basics. There’s but one shining [three pointed] star in the 300’s cabin: a cruise control stalk with all the precise, perfectly weighted feel of a Mercedes’ part– donated to an otherwise lost cause.
Throw the 300 into some switchbacks and you can tell where the car’s manufacturer spent their money. The 300’s independent (front) and five-link (rear) suspension is a distant cousin to the old E-class. Tweaked by the Dark Lords of DCX and bolted onto to a stiff chassis, the greasy bits provide plenty of poise for one so portly (3800 pounds). Boot the package in a corner and 250lb-ft of torque sends the 300’s rear tires dancing in delight– moments before the ESP flashes a warning that this isn’t an E63 AMG and you aren’t Michael Schumacher (or Jay Shoemaker).
Even with the handling Nanny in attendance, the 300 is a wonderful mix of raucous handling and reassuring ride. The 300’s Chris-Craftian tiller has way too much rim for spirited maneuvers, but the power-assisted rack and pinion steering provides reasonable feel for a passenger sedan aimed squarely at the over-40 set. With 55-series tires on hand (ironically enough), the Chrysler’s ride is 401K-compliant, splitting the distance between BMW’s teeth chattering firmness and the roll and pitch of a Toyota Camry.
Even without the hemispherical hot tamale under the bonnet, the 300's no slouch. The sedan’s 3.5-liter high-output SOHC V6 may not stand a chance against the latest hi-po six-pots, but 250hp hooked-up to a reasonably responsive five-speed autobox ensures that the 300 gets out of its own way without unnecessary delay, thirst (19/27) or embarrassment. (Which is more than you can say for the base by name base by nature 2.7-liter V6.)
Taken as a whole, the 300 is proto-synergy. When first mooted, the Daimler Chrysler combo was touted as a ”merger of equals,” blending German engineering with American style. Instead of blowing away the competition with anal retentive engineering and unassailable build quality, the Chrysler 300 is a half-baked half-breed: a car with excellent bones, a flash exterior, a dreadful interior and dubious build quality.
Props to the 300 for reinvigorating American car design, finding tremendous popularity and more than paying its way. But it’s time for DCX to update this bad boy or build something that fulfills the merger’s original premise. Otherwise, the 300 is destined to become a textbook case of a synergistic failure to turn hype into reality.
Subscribe to Newsletter
More Reviews96 Responses to “ Chrysler 300 Review ”
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 » Show All Reverse Order
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 » Show All Reverse Order
Leave a Reply 
Back to Top
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Digg
del.icio.us
Blinklist
Furl
Netscape
Google
NewsVine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Windows Live
POWERED
November 10th, 2006 at 8:32 am
Mr. Metha, I own one of these things and yes there are no perfect cars. All rear wheel drive cars lose 20% of their space to front drive configuration. Look at the tight insides of BMW or mercedes compared to the space in say avalon, or buick. To get the size you ask for in the rear seat, chrysler is stretching the car 6 inches for livery ues. There is no other way to engineer the thing. Or you trade in the handling for space in the FWD. As for the interior at $33,500 the 300C lists for less than the best avalon (with a nicer interior). They would need an upscale model of the 300 at about 38K to do the proper interior. As for build quality, a new bentley (circ $190K) has a plastic front fascia as do countelss other cars. The day of building any of these things out of all steel is over. How any of the modern cars will look after say ten years is debateable. I remember when the old “iron jobs” cancered out before the payment book expired. So chrysler has only done what the rest have to stay current in build quality. I do know this I am 6′4″ and I fit in the front of the 300 and the back with the seats rearward, it is far tighter in my relative’s new E class Benz (circa 55K). Given the Benz rides and handles better than virtually any other car, I can’t buy it. I need the S class to approach the interior of the 300 (and thats circa85K). So yes the Chrysler has worts but what better driving thing to have at 33K.
November 10th, 2006 at 8:49 am
they are all over the place in philly - usually all blinged out with 20 ” chrome wheels, blacked out windows, bad lookin grills, they are cool lookin.
I would never buy one. The beltline is so high, it is claustrophobic inside. And it does not drive so well. And I don’t need a family sedan.
This is one of the cars that I like to look at from the outside, but are less enjoyable from the inside. Like the new Mustang, for instance.
November 10th, 2006 at 8:52 am
The thing is ugly. They should have just made it a fastback and named it the Hudson Hornet. The greenhouse (glass area) is way too small, just as the Hudson was in it’s day.
Actually, they would have done far better to have taken a look AT the 1948-1954 Hudsons. Tons of room, yet rear wheel drive.
They could have taken the interior dimensions, fitted a version of the current Mercedes S-class chassis (why not take advantage of reducing the costs by increasing production of the same parts?) and given it a little more class, and a lot more glass….. and a quality interior.
November 10th, 2006 at 9:16 am
Another competent, honest review from TTAC. I guess what depresses me reading it is that it would take DCX so little to put this car to the head of the class. Improve the quality of interior materials and consistency of their build. That’s it. The resources that were spent on developing the Aspen would have been sufficient.
November 10th, 2006 at 9:33 am
I still think DCX really hit the mark with this one. While it may not be best-in-class, I think the combo of bold styling (to get you in the door) and reasonably good handling (to seal the deal) are enough for most people to consider it, especially since it can stroke certain buyers’ “Buy Amerikaner, Build Amerika” sensibilities at the same time.
But IMHO the styling has not aged well over the past few years. Maybe it’s just the effect of mass acceptance, but they just don’t turn my head anymore. Not even the ones–as about 50% of them are here in Birmingham, land of donks, bubble, and boxes–black on black on black on 20″ chrome (stock suspension, mind you).
One last note about rear suspension sag: This is very common these day. It appear that manufacturers are attempting to make the car sit level with only the driver inside (10 years ago, butt-in-the-air was more common). In turn, load up the rear and watch the sidewalls tuck under the rear fender lip. With no steering in the rear, suspension travel can be relatively unlimited, so with a full load, butt-drag is common (worst offenders: Altima and Maxima)
November 10th, 2006 at 9:49 am
A couple of years ago I got to test drive the 300C at Amelia Island Concours (Missed the chance to hammer the Maybach), and your review is right on.
The interior has that “cheap stuff that tries to look expensive” all over. The “tortoise shell” on the steering wheel and armrests is horrific. They would have done better with plastic “wood” over this crap.
The steering wheel controls look OK, but they’re also plastic, not the brushed metal they are imitating. And it shows in the feel. Junk.
But, oh man, that Hemi is Sweeet. Drop the hammer and it does a passable imitation of a 440 Super Commando. I’ll forgive lots of faults for that motor.
November 10th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Agreed SherbornSean, The 300 is about a 90% effort.
Good news is that the next makeover should fix some of the cost-cutting bits since it actually made some money for DCX.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Sajeev, please remember in what league the 300 plays. They start at 23k list with okay equipment - knock 2k off that for negotiation. They go into the 30s but that is loaded out, again drop 2 to 3k. So basically we are playing in Camry/Accord/Altima territory for comparison purposes. Not 3 series or Lexus, but basic transportation. So lets see … the Camry and Accord are what?…… boring as all hell! My refrigerator looks good in comparison to these.
I went down to check out the new 07 Altima. It was fairly decked out. Hard plastics, inferior radio, dysfunctional nonintuitive tilt/telescope lever, hit & miss exterior (rear hits, front misses), not comfortable, crude leather workmanship, boring dash. Unimpressed.
There was a Toyota dealer next door, so I popped into an 07 Camry SE V6 and found hard rental car grade plastics, misfitting dash parts, better leather than the Altima but not as nice as my brother’s 300, another boring as hell dash, soccer-mamma styling, it pulled right when I punched it. Again, unimpressed.
Current Accord? Ugly and vanilla as sin, boring as hell, again nothing special inside (although better than the Camry), but unimpressive. I think it was the Accord, Whirlpool edition.
I have sat in, rode in, and driven the 300M. Against the CamCords out there, it is a hoot to drive. The dash is tight and makes a great impression compared to others in its class, and the car is roomy enough for most. The seats are great.
Outside, at least you’ll get noticed and I dare you to lay across and jump on the hood of a Camry or Accord and see if the hood is umblemished. Heck, for that matter go jump on the hood of a 7 series or Bentley and take a sledgehammer to it and see if the owner laughs at how undentable the rattrap is.
Holding cars up to such standards is not The Truth About Cars, it is simply listing anything and everything there possibly is to complain about cars. My ex-wife was like that, too.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:05 am
ash78, are you AL or MI? If it’s AL most of those pimped 300s probably left the dealer that way. Stop by Drennan sometime and check out their selection of 300s with the “Bentley” and “Rolls” grilles and 20’s or 22’s. And of course the chrome door handles, and the additional $5K sticker attached. I think they had more pimped than unpimped there. But I wasn’t really counting since I was looking at the Jeeps. Don’t get me started on the pimped Jeeps.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:17 am
I was looking closely at a Dodge Magnum (a more bread and butter version of the 300) when I was on the market for a utility focused vehicle. I drove all 3 models, the R/T with the v8, the middle version with the 3.5 liter v6, and the 2.7 liter v6. Driving impressions was it handled better than I expected but the 2.7 and even the 3.5 could not really motivate such a heavy car. The R/T was a blast to drive with a nice little rumble reminding you that a nice powerplant sits ahead of you.
Then I tried to change lanes and couldn’t see worth a damn. In fact it was so hard to wretch my head around to see anything I would switch the side view mirrors to give me the blind spot but of course that stopped me from seeing properly from the side rear so I’d have to switch back and forth. In fact on busy roads with me changing lanes I was let down by the fact that driving this thing remotely aggressively without any good vision was too difficult and that pretty much sealed my consideration for this car / platform. I’ve been a function > form follower for years. If only the car was more driver friendly (seems they spend most of their time making it look cool). After returning I did note that they had these stickers on the cars with red ones noting which cars have sat there for over 4 months (only the R/T models sell on average of 3 months). Not too good of a turnaround for a supposed hot model. (This was 2 years ago when these were fairly new).