Chrysler 300/300C

Replying to: rmorse83 (Mar 10, 2005 9:23 pm)

Replying to: rmorse83 (Mar 10, 2005 9:23 pm)

Replies to this message:
• markcincinnati (Mar 11, 2005 11:34 am)

Replying to: kevm14 (Mar 11, 2005 6:05 am)

Regarding the 300M
Plus, styling wise, it's like comparing a Ford Taurus to a Jaguar XJ-8 (at least it is for me).
 
Nice comparison considering that it is totally flawed. 300M and 300C were targeted towards the same income levels. Also, just to note the XJ-8 is further putting Jaguar in the red, they are actually restructuring and Ford doesn't know what to do now. Jaguars are junky, especially since the introduction of the X-type, now everybody can afford the cars, it has lost it's prestige. But I'm not going to touch that one any further.
 
The 300M spoke through sales numbers, as did all the other models when they were in their hay day. Like I stated, Chrysler sales were unbelievable in '99 and the 300M in particular, was selling like mad. The 8-cylinder is overkill, as is the opting for rear wheel drive. I live in Michigan, and rear wheel drive is a joke, the all wheel drive model will be coming soon, but seriously, performance doesn't help on a base model when you go spinning off into oncoming traffic in cold, wet, snowy conditions.
 
The 300 looks to me like a rehashed Mercedes, very square, very boring. The 300M, was classy and smooth
 
Also funny. Ever see a black 300C in person (not at a dealer)? I have, and it stands out in a classy way that a 300M never did, imo. The 300M, imo, blends in while the 300C says "premium luxury car." Maybe that's because I was always biased, knowing the 300M was just an LH-car.
 
I have actually see the 300C in person and it is just as boring in person. I even test drove it and felt the interior was clean, but also overly plain. Furthermore, if you really look at the 300 it's a Bentley wannabe, a vehicle trying to be something it's not. It's not classy, just blah, but I guess that's what people are looking for now. Premium luxury car, please. Chrysler is Chrysler, and a Mercedes is a Mercedes. 'Nuf said.
 
Their redesign of the RX300 to the RX330 was flawless, and undeniably better.
 
I thought the clear tail lights of the RX330 were undeniably ugly personally. Different strokes.....
 
One aspect of an overall well executed design.
 
I guess it all comes down to personal preference, and all the people in this forum will be biased towards saying the new 300 is better because they will most likely, or have bought one. So cheers to everybody, and like everybody keeps saying, "Different strokes, for different folks."

Replies to this message:
• shipo (Mar 11, 2005 2:02 pm)
  • bmwdoug (Mar 12, 2005 8:41 pm)
    • shipo (Mar 12, 2005 9:51 pm) and 5 more...

Replying to: rmorse83 (Mar 11, 2005 1:55 pm)

Hmmm, I grew up in Michigan, driving RWD Chrysler products no less. I now live in New Hampshire (in fact, my town is getting its 100th inch of snow this season as we speak) and still drive a RWD car. What I don't understand is why do folks automatically think that if they switch from FWD to RWD that they will "go spinning off into oncoming traffic in cold, wet, snowy conditions."
 
I've probably driven 100,000 miles in said conditions in RWD cars, and I have yet to "go spinning off into oncoming traffic."
 
AWD? Who needs it. Just give me a set of nice winter tires and I'll get from point A to point B just as fast and just as safely as an AWD equipped car shod with All-Season tires. I'll do it for less money too.
 
Best Regards,
Shipo

Replies to this message:
• bmwdoug (Mar 12, 2005 8:41 pm)
  • shipo (Mar 12, 2005 9:51 pm)
    • bmwdoug (Mar 13, 2005 9:17 am) and 4 more...

I don't know if I'm the only one that feels this way, but I'm really disappointed in Chrysler's designs over the last few years. I think '99 was possibly the best design year for Chrysler and if you look at their sales figures, it was also their biggest year for profits.
 
The introduction of the 300M, the Jeep Grand Cherokee redesign, the Dodge Durango, which was just introduced in '98 and was still selling like mad, were just all great designs. Not to mention the fact that Chrysler had the Sebring convertible design from '96 that still looked beautiful.
 
I've owned three Chrysler vehicles now and I used to be so impassioned about their designs, and actually would even defend Chrysler's nagging quality problems, that I, myself experienced, in one of my Sebrings, when the electrical system just failed with under 40K miles on it.
 
It used to be that I could defend the quality problems by stating how Chrysler has such awesome style, that because the designs are so cool, you can look past that. Recently, I've felt that I've just lost interest in everything Chrysler has to offer.
 
Chrysler was the last American automobile company that actually caught your eye on the road. Their designs were, for a time, the best on the road. Now, however, things have changed.
 
Chrysler first redesigned the Sebring convertible which was ok, but definitely not as fluid as the previous model. Then they redesigned the Dodge Ram, notably, the only redesign that actually looks better. Then came the redesign for the Dodge Durango, which has to be the worst follow up for a vehicle I've ever seen, repellent! The redesign of the Jeep Grand Cherokee is dismal, and a definite step backward compared to what they brought to the public offering in '99.
 
After, much anticipation, and crossing my fingers that maybe Chrysler would come out with something that would exemplify Chrysler style, their flagship sedan, the 300 series, they do the redesign and we're left with this, the 300. I'm not saying that the redesign of the 300 is bad, because honestly it's not, but seriously it's like everything else on the road, another box. It's such a letdown when compared with the jaw dropping design of the 300M.
 
Chrysler, yet again has missed the mark, and now we're left with a design that is distinct, which is why most people are buying it I assume, but on the same token, not very "pretty" and overly bland. The 300 looks to me like a rehashed Mercedes, very square, very boring. The 300M, was classy and smooth. It was a beautiful vehicle, with wonderful interior elements such as an electroluminescent instrument cluster that set the industry standard for "cool" factor, that other car companies, have since then imitated, and an exterior that made one stare and just think to themselves, "I want that."
 
 Now all the redesigns are just painful to look at, and I'm forced to conclude that the last great American automotive company has died, and in place of it we have MB with its boxy designs and people actually thinking they are cool. If you already didn't know, the 300 has a suspension built of the MB E-class and after looking at it, one can finally conclude that Chrysler is going down a very Mercedes influenced path with its styling, yet trying to stand out, even if that means having loud designs that don't necessarily look better than the models they're replacing.
 
The redesigns at Chrysler have been sacrilege, and this final nail in the coffin 300 is just a testament as to why I won't be expecting anything worthwhile from Chrysler anytime soon. Maybe Chrysler could take note from companies like Lexus when doing redesigns. When you have something that works, why try to "fix" it? Lexus has made their hot cars evolutionary, more so than revolutionary and people have responded positively. Their redesign of the RX300 to the RX330 was flawless, and undeniably better. Although, its design is not that much different, it still is Lexus's #1 seller.
 
Designs don't have to be drastically different in order to gain market share. Maybe Chrysler should start concentrating more on reliability and less on design because they seemed to have had 1 of the 2 in recent years and now, as it seems, both evade them. Chrysler has thrown everything away and is starting from scratch with almost every new vehicle launch, when in my opinion they really don't, nor should have to. Just my thoughts, and for all of the 300 owners who are enthusiasts, I don't think the 300 is a bad looking vehicle, I just feel the 300M had "something" deep under it's sheetmetal, almost a soul, that just isn't there with the 300.
 
I decided to say add one more thing to this. When I think of the design of the 300, I immediately am reminded of the PT Cruiser, and how much I hated that design when it came out. People liked/bought it because it was different, almost mob style, just like the new 300. Sales have since dried up, and it is no surprise. The design wow factor of it being so different, discipated quickly, and people realized that it is a pretty ugly looking vehicle. This is what I have a good feeling is going to happen with the new 300 series.
 
Finally, time and time again, I've heard that these new Chrysler designs have to "grow on you". Any design that has to grow on me, is a design I don't like and one I surely will not make myself like because of brand loyalty. Chrysler designs, at the moment, are a joke when compared to what they once were, but this is my opinion. Vehicle opinions, at least, aesthetically, are subjective to each and every individual, and each and every individual is entitled to their opinion. Later everybody.
 
***The '99 Jeep Grand Cherokee had record breaking sales records, and the old style Dodge Durango was hailed as a designing triumph. The 300M received the Motor Trend:Car of the Year Award as well. Do the new designs, that are so boxy, and so similar to the 300 in a blunt cut metal style design, look better than the latter. Definitely not, and they all can be grouped together, ugly, possibly distinct with the 300, but a step backward in design prowess, not a step forward. I tried to make myself like the new 300, but I just couldn't.***

Replies to this message:
• bdyment (Mar 12, 2005 5:22 am)

Replying to: rmorse83 (Mar 11, 2005 10:29 pm)

Replying to: shipo (Mar 10, 2005 9:55 pm)

Replies to this message:
• nifty6 (Mar 13, 2005 3:06 pm)
• carnut5 (Mar 16, 2005 6:28 pm)

Replying to: rmorse83 (Mar 10, 2005 9:23 pm)

Replies to this message:
• ddworries (Mar 13, 2005 8:27 pm)
  • pat (Mar 14, 2005 6:06 am)