RE: Chrysler 300C
Wednesday 9th June 2004

Chrysler 300C

The big, bold barge - Robert Farago thinks Chrysler's onto something here...


Every now and then a car comes along that turns convention on its head.  Cadillac’s CTS-V is a perfect example.  Who would have thought that the foremost proponent of the floaty-drifty school of handling would produce a sports sedan with sharper reflexes than a BMW 5-Series?  The Chrysler 300C is another case in point.  The last thing you’d expect from Daimler Chrysler, a traditional Detroit automaker with German masters, is a bad-ass gangsta-mobile. 

The 300C was built for a drive-by shooter.  Its narrow, high-set windows look more like gun slits than casements.  Its gigantic “egg crate” prow projects a distinct air of physical menace.  Slab sides, sharp creases and sheer bulk complete the “urban assault vehicle” design theme.  Not to put too fine a point on it, what player wouldn’t want to roll up in a car with such stylish malevolence? 

The C’s gang-banger demeanor may shock delicate sensibilities, but its appearance shouldn’t come as a surprise.  African-Americans have long been the engine of US culture; the extension of their influence into the automotive arena is both logical and welcome.  Drawing on hot rod and street culture, Haitian-born designer Ralph Gilles has introduced vitality to a sector stultified by the inexorable rise of the SUV.  Older buyers won’t get it, but Gen Y will tell you straight up: the 300C is all that. 

It Works

Props to Gilles.  Props to Chrysler for letting the man do his thing.  But what’s really amazing is that the 300C isn’t an empty style statement like the ridiculously under-engined Prowler or the minivan-in-drag PT Cruiser.  It’s a complete package, with all the space, power and price it needs to win a wider audience.  Let’s start with the final frontier… 

While tree huggers continue their holy quest to yank drivers from their gas-guzzling SUVs and shoehorn them into smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, Americans aren’t buying it.  Literally.  The vast majority of US consumers (who are vast in and of themselves) equate interior volume with safety, luxury, class and comfort.  They’re not wrong and they’re not afraid to buy vehicles that reflect their aspirations. 

The 300C’s massive crib will delight the masses.  Super-sized drivers have a new place to call home.  Backseat passengers get 40.2” of legroom, 38” of head space and 57.7” shoulder sprawl.  For the math-aversive, that’s more lebensraum than a BMW 7-Series. 

Better yet, the C’s cavernous cabin continues the glorious Audification of US car interiors.  Gilles’ crew has blended chrome, mock tortoise shell and leather to create an understated yet elegant chill-out room.  The dash’s four central dials - complete with polished metal bezels, tapered needles and classic typography - are Breitling bling.  The switchgear is tactile, functional and discreet.  Taken as a whole, the 300C is a deeply funky neo-retro masterpiece.

Heavyweight

This particular piece of automotive art weighs in at 4046lbs.  That’s a lot of art.  Good thing the C’s got a lot of power.  More specifically, there’s a 5.7-liter HEMI V8 lurking in the engine bay.  With 340hp and 390ft.-lbs. of torque on tap, and a Mercedes E-Class autobox swapping cogs, the C is an effortless cruiser.  Better yet, the HEMI’s trick MDS (Multi-Displacement System) helps the fab four-door realize over 20 mpg-- provided you baby the go pedal.  If you don’t… 

Chrysler claims the C blasts from zero to sixty in 6.3 seconds.  That would be sufficiently rapid to keep pace with a Porsche Boxster.  Wrong.  My stopwatch clocked the C doing the sprint in 5.6.  That’s faster than a Boxster S.  The company reckons the C can crack the ¼ mile in 14.1 seconds.  If so, the 300C is quicker than a 350Z (14.3 secs.).  Word!

Needless to say, the S and Z would crucify the C in a corner.  Any corner.  But hey, Chrysler’s HEMI-powered beast is a luxury leviathan, not a sports car.  Nor could you call it a sports sedan.  Truth be told, the C is a squealing pig around bends.  Although its rear multi-link suspension was lifted from its German cousin, the 4150lbs. C has none of the E’s poise or flair through the twisties. 

Even worse, Chrysler’s engineers have de-tuned the system to produce the same sloppy, bouncy, squishy ride as a Lincoln Town car.  It’s sick - and not in a good way.  Strangely, the C’s remote control ride fails to smooth-away lumps and bumps; making it the worst of both worlds.  

Potential customers won’t notice a thing.  They’ll be seduced by the big Chrysler’s style, speed and space.  Anyway, the 300C costs $33k.  At that price, you can take the car to a tuner and get the ride tweaked to your liking.  Of course, 300C buyers are far more likely to spring for low profile tires, killer dubs, TV, refrigerator-sized sub-woofers and a custom paint job.  And you know what?  It’s the right thing to do.

Robert Farago
www.thetruthaboutcars.com

Author
Discussion

fto2tuscan

Original Poster:

704 posts

264 months

Wednesday 9th June 2004
quotequote all
vgery cool front end. not sure about the back though.

what's that car from the matrix?

darren

94 posts

306 months

Wednesday 9th June 2004
quotequote all
11.4sec 1/4 mile! Don't think so, and especially not with 4 home boys spinning some dope beatz
More like 14.1sec, if that.
Word up.

danmangt40

296 posts

306 months

Wednesday 9th June 2004
quotequote all
^yeah, was just about to say that. You must have meant 14.1! you guys better fix that quick, or just expect an overload of posts simply on that.

It's funny, farago, that you say the 300C wallows and rolls like a town car. This is the first medium I've seen that suggests such behavior. all the mags seem to say more along the lines of, "it won't worry a 5-series, but isn't bad at all."

There's one I walk by every day, it isn't the C, I think it's just the 3.5L v6, but it's still sweet. I want one bad. It was parked next to an E55 the other day, and I was still ogling the chrysler.

FestivAli

1,144 posts

260 months

Wednesday 9th June 2004
quotequote all
Saw the car at the Melbourne Motor Show last year. PHAT. It had so much presence, like a Bentley Arnage except cheaper. Our free trade deal with the US should liken the prospects of having these in Australia, and I hope it comes. Not that I could afford it, but hey, it's got something that the Ford Falcon and Holden Commodore do not, and I said it before. Presence. Don't mind the Mercedes influence either. Actung baby!

v8thunder

27,647 posts

280 months

Wednesday 9th June 2004
quotequote all
Love it. Will it come over here with a UK-Friendly engine range though?

lockup

383 posts

264 months

Wednesday 9th June 2004
quotequote all
20mpg? Trust me home boy, that's sick.

andytk

1,558 posts

288 months

Wednesday 9th June 2004
quotequote all
Our gallons are a different size to American ones.

20mpg (USA) = 24 mpg (UK)

Which is the same a lot of TVR's that weigh half as much....

Andy

smele

1,284 posts

306 months

Wednesday 9th June 2004
quotequote all
It was a Caddy CTS inteh Matrix.

Interior is a bit plasticy, back is not so hot looking, but sides and front and great. Has lots of road 'Oi, Get out of my way' statement. And you can't beat a 5.7 litre engine...

phase90

85 posts

296 months

Wednesday 9th June 2004
quotequote all
So which is it: 3711 lbs. or 4150 lbs?

John Nowak

108 posts

266 months

Wednesday 9th June 2004
quotequote all
It's was about 4100, last time I checked. Oi.

TIME

62 posts

289 months

Wednesday 9th June 2004
quotequote all
We are getting it in the UK, but not until 2005, engine remains the same, no derv burner on the cards that I know of, also Dodge is coming as a franchise to the UK early next year. I hope Clarkson likes this one...

>> Edited by TIME on Wednesday 9th June 20:58

>> Edited by TIME on Wednesday 9th June 21:07

robert farago

108 posts

292 months

Wednesday 9th June 2004
quotequote all
Thanks for the factual corrections. Noted, logged and (soon) amended.

FYI The 300C is coming to the UK, albeit at a LOT more money. 35k pounds to 32k dollars. At that price, I'd pass.

And you do NOT want this car without the Hemi. The lower-engined variants are piggishly slow.

RF

>> Edited by robert farago on Thursday 10th June 12:46

LuS1fer

43,127 posts

267 months

Thursday 10th June 2004
quotequote all
So would I. It needs to be less than 30k if the Monaro is 27k/37k and you can get an MG 260 for 26k according to one PHer. Good looking car and different but it needs to handle better for the money. I think Auto Express said it's a car that doesn't shrink around you and which always feels big. Perverse that MG seem to be able to do a muscle car that handles rather better notwithstanding the might of Mercedes. Perhaps what we want is a MacLaren 300C.

dinkel

27,589 posts

280 months

Thursday 10th June 2004
quotequote all
andytk said:
Our gallons are a different size to American ones.

20mpg (USA) = 24 mpg (UK)

Which is the same a lot of TVR's that weigh half as much....

Andy


Different drive, a TVR . . .

Guess this car will find its way to tuningshops: work on the wheels to make it corner fast. A gangstar will need that to escape properly after his drive by shoot.

Nice presence, better than a Bangled Beemer . . .

johnywiz

23 posts

289 months

Thursday 10th June 2004
quotequote all
Looks? Everybody here says it looks like a small Bentley as well. BUT....don't you think this a retro Rover 3 liter???? Look at the "C" pillar. I believe the designer {English dude} does acknowledge the resemblance. Same goes for the front! If you put the 3.5. liter Rostyle wheels on it than I think it would be a dead ringer.

Perhaps Chrysler will bring back Humber !

Shame the interior cannot come up to the quality of that lovely old car.

Johnny
Chicago

nickw

85 posts

305 months

Thursday 10th June 2004
quotequote all
fto2tuscan said:
vgery cool front end. not sure about the back though.

what's that car from the matrix?


no - that was a cadillac CTS

Thirsty

726 posts

286 months

Friday 11th June 2004
quotequote all
Despite your references to this being a ghetto cruiser, I seem to see mostly white faces behind the wheel of these cars.

American car makers just can not seem to get away from those damn soft suspensions. You would think they would offer the 300C without the pillow ride on this one. With Merc DNA, you would think they would.... but then again.. I never really did like Mercs that much.

dinkel

27,589 posts

280 months

Friday 11th June 2004
quotequote all
Thirsty said:
Despite your references to this being a ghetto cruiser, I seem to see mostly white faces behind the wheel of these cars.

American car makers just can not seem to get away from those damn soft suspensions. ( . . . )


dinkel said:

Guess this car will find its way to tuningshops: work on the wheels to make it corner fast. ( . . . ) .


Gangsta rappers have white chauffeurs?

Thirsty

726 posts

286 months

Friday 11th June 2004
quotequote all
dinkel said:



Gangsta rappers have white chauffeurs?


YO MAN. LIKE UH... WHO AXED YOU?

LuS1fer

43,127 posts

267 months

Friday 11th June 2004
quotequote all
The most significant part of this car is the styling.

Frankly, it doesn't matter to Americans that the suspension is soft because they don't actually want hard suspension and if they don't want it, you can't make them buy it. The game plan is to get back the sales that Detroit had in it's heyday and they were all firmly based on the way the car looked, how damn big it was and who gives a damn about European taste anyway.

The defection away from US cars was based on the fuel crisis forcing a move to smaller voitures with Japanese nameplates. Suddenly there is a recognition that they're missing the old muscle cars and V8's are where it's at. Especially cheap V8's. Why settle for less?

It's hard to blame the Americans for not giving a monkey's about a small volume of European car sales. They're never going to be volume sellers and they're never going to build them to compete with premium brands because they sell for so much less in the US and so the cars remain as an eclectic choice for individuals who want to be different, who don't want to swoop through every bend at a million miles an hour and who derive pleasure from a car more in the mould of an old Rover or Jag which, to the present generation, seem almost unfit to exist. I'm sure these cars can be made to handle but why should Chrysler spend all that money if the sales are going to be the same. If they can't make a success of the Corvette or bargain-priced Camaro, it's hard to see where they're suddenly going to succeed big-time with this car, especially in a sector which has, to a large degree been abandoned, the Granada/Omega sector and where MG and Vauxhall are now pitching their tents at low prices.

People who buy this car will buy it for the glorious waffle of the Hemi, the unique styling, the family-sized accommodation and the sheer presence of a car that isn't boringly European. It's not like MPV's handle either is it and they seem to sell OK.