If you have them, I hope you love your partner/kids more. DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...]
While I'm glad Chrysler sales are up, I too will probably go to the competition when I replace my 97 Concorde LXi. I love FWD (see no reason to pay extra for AWD) and I hate the lack of visibility in the 300/Charger/Magnum.
What might you consider? "I love FWD" No Mercedes then? DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...]
Mercedes fucked up Chrysler with the merger. The LX-based cars from Chrysler (which sadly contain some merc parts) are ulgy garrish vehicles that were designed to have a sufficient degree of "in-your-face" styling that attracted enough buyers (like rap-singers) to be a relative success in a market dominated by un-inspiring junk from everyone else. I will not buy a Chrysler vehicle to replace my 6-year-old 300m (which doesn't need replacing yet). Maybe I will seek out a high-quality '72 Dodge Challenger for $30k at some point. Or maybe Daimler will divest itself of Chrysler and it will once again be free do design cars without oversight and direction from a foreign corporate head office.
One drive in a 300C will tell you that Chrysler - and it's customers - benefited from the Daimler merger.
If I want to drive a 4-thousand-pound sedan, I'll take a 1967 Chrysler Newport with a 440. At least it doesn't have a front-end borrowed from a Durango.
How does that pass any "So What?" test? Having trouble with the concept that the rest of us have got used to? Vauxhall (GM), Rolls-Royce (BMW), Nissan (Renault), Mazda (Ford)... DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
Nope, I keep track of all my fuel and my '95 LH still gets quite a bit more. In town driving I get almost what the 300C gets on the highway. On regular 87 octane fuel as well.
I just rented a 2005 Impalla for 10 days. Very good mileage, and lots of space plus very good visibility. However a pain to drive as it just didn't want to down shift on hills without a big push on the accelerator. The transmission was from the 80s, didn't even downshift going down hills when in cruise. Also the steering and handling was just OK. Nicer than the Magnum I rented last year, but steering, handling and responsiveness not up to the level of my 10 yr old Concord. IMO GM does have some very outdated technology out there. The Impala I rented would be good for cruising down straight level roads, but little steering corrections are needed. The Altima 3.5 smokes the Impalla and the Magnum and 300.
There are two colors I would never buy where I live; black and white. If I lived in a dry hot sunny climate white would be my choice.
You and I think alike and as you say there are many other choices. I also hate the 300 styling, as does my neighbor who has a 300m. I was thinking 300M as well, but it is no more. Now I know why I didn't buy an American 50s car. I totally missed that era, couldn't stand the styling, heavy weight and large engines. My friend has a '56 Buick, which the 300 looks so much like it in profile. I saw an Nissan Altima 3.5 last week, looks very well put together and well thought out. I'll be giving it a test drive. If only Chrysler had something like it. We've bought Chrysler cars since '79, but it loots like that association is ending.
My two week rental of a Magnum told me I didn't like it. Returning to my '95 Concord was a breath of fresh air. The Concord is such a crisp handling car with such great visibility. I could see the road ahead at a reasonable distance again, with my nicely sloping hood. I've never previously returned to my car that was more than a few years older that a rental car and preferred my own car. We'll that isn't totally true, I didn't prefer a Ford Falcon RWD and a Corolla each rented for two weeks in 2002 in Australia.
Daimler chased away the good management and designers at Chrysler. Well at least many of them left, now we are seeing why. My wife has a 2001 Sebring, I hear it is headed for RWD. She also prefers FWD and will have to look elsewhere. What's this, Mercedes has come out with a FWD 3 model. Then there's that Dumb car they call Smart. Not very smart when you can't get two people and their golf bags in it. The Toyota small car is killing it in our market. Something is really screwed up at Daimler.
Peter A. Stavrakoglou wrote: Only in that a rear-drive V8 is back. But that would probably have happened anyway, the 4.7 was already in production and the 5.7 in planning when the "merger" happened. From an ergonomic (and most definitely STYLISTIC) point of view, the previous generation LH cars are ahead of the 300C. The Magnum is the only one of the 3 LX cars that looks right with the high beltline and minimal greenhouse, and even it has to get by with poorer visibility and a somewhat claustrophobic interior. I've considered a Magnum, but will probably grit my teeth and invest enough maintenance to get a few more years in my wife's 240,000+ mile LH car.
Gee, I called the Impala "small" in another thread on rec.autos.tech and got rocks thrown at me. Well, not "rocks" but the meaningless government interior volume specs that only matter if your goal is to fill the car with water, not passengers and cargo. Glad to know someone else feels like I do. The whole CAR is built on the platform that originally carried Olds Cutlasses and Pontiac Grand Prixs, circa 1989/90. So yeah, its from the 80s. That's both good and bad- its a very reliable and well-shaken-down platform, but is feeling a little long in the tooth now. Ugh. Can't agree with you there. The Altima is both fugly and slow, especially compared to a V8 Impala, or hemi Magnum or 300.
That's where I am, only it's my LH with only about 90,000 miles. Maintenance so far has been low. This will be the first time I've ever driven a car beyond 10 yrs. and I can more easily afford new than ever. Oh well I can put my savings into gasoline. >
Ugh. Can't agree with you there. The Altima is both As for and slow, especially compared to a V8 Impala, or hemi Magnum or 300.[/QUOTE] Slow? Try the 3.5L version, but be sure no one is in front of you before you push your foot down. However driven reasonably the fuel mileage is very good. As for the Altima being "Freakin' Ugly" not in my book. IMO it's styling is quite acceptable. Just different, something Toyota stylists(?) need to learn. I haven't seen it on "Click & Clacks" top 10 ugly list, as were two Chrysler products last year.
I agree with you there as well. The car is small but I'm 6:2 and it felt a little tight. What is worse is the back seats. It was hard for my sons to get in and out without kicking the front seats and they're only eight years old. What made me laugh was the salesman there who got in the back seat to show me there was room; he was my height. When he tried to get out of the car, he just proved my point. I looked at the Altima and Max. and when I shut the doors and hood of both vehicles, it made that noise where it felt like it was made of tin. As far as performance is concerned, the Altima and Max have nice looks to it but there's no way they would out perform the Hemi. My wish is that they built that Charger they were thinking of several years ago instead of what they built now. Don't get me wrong, the new Charger is a nice looking car, but the other was a real head-turner. Is the Challenger going to look like the 300? I wish they built the M with the Hemi -- "Now Phoebe Snow direct can go from thirty-third to Buffalo. From Broadway bright the tubes run right Into the Road of Anthracite" Erie - Lackawanna
I've owned my 300C over 18 months now, it's light years ahead in styling of the older 300 models, IMO. It's all subjective and a matter of taste. To each his own. The older 300s certainly never elicited the "wow" response that the new ones do nor was anyone willing to wait six months to buy one. The merger with Daimler is evident in the components used and certainly in the ride quality of the new 300, you couldn't get that in the older 300s. I never get a claustrophobic feeling in the 300C, all six feet of me fit very comfortably in it and the ergonomics are just fine.
