I take it all back

Everything derogatory I may have ever said about the 300-C, that is.

Just my opinions, take 'em or leave 'em.

I finally saw one in the flesh, and it bears NO resemblance to the way
it looks in pictures. Most beautiful car ever? No, that would be the '58
300-D. But beautiful? YES. Well-proportioned? YES. Does the big grille
"work?" YES!! Does the high-beltline ruin it? NO. The interior?
Absolutely fantastic! Does it resemble a Bentley? NO, it resembles (if
anything) a mid-60s Imperial. This is the kind of car that SHOULD have
brought back the 300 nameplate originally, not the sawed-off
stub-of-an-LHS 300M (with the wrong wheels driving it and a v6 to boot).

It also gives me very high hopes that they can pull off a sportier
version for Dodge.

 

I finally saw one in the flesh, and it bears NO resemblance to the way

I hoped so. But it looks exactly as on pictures; a kit car inspired from a
Rolls from the eighties for senile folks. Just ugly.

 

To some, yes - to others, no. The 300 is already starting to get praises from
some of the auto mags......... and a Rolls from the 80's - no way. there is a
history to the design but I am not going to go into that again.

RP

 

The auto mags are already starting to get advertising dollars for the 300.

DS

 

See? I told ya so!

Re: Charger. The pic I saw in this month's Automobile shows the Magnum
front end grafted onto a 300C's body. It was only a front-3/4 view,
however, and who knows if it's really what's going into production. We'll
find out in due time. But knowing how they tend to do things (Scheisse! The
Dodge dealers wünschen dieses sedan LX --schnell!)..

I may, however, back away from my official "waiting for the Magnum", and
revise it to "waiting for the Charger." I suspect a lot of other people
might do the same, which would make the Magnum's future somewhat ominous.

--Geoff

 

Oh give it a f*ckin' rest, Dan!

 

Do you dispute that the auto mags are running ads for the Chrysler 300C,
and that DaimlerChrysler is paying the magazines for that advertising?

DS

 

:

Definitely not - but I take BIG issue with your implication that because of
this the reviews are going to be slanted. If that wasn't your implication then
why was your response worded the way it was?

RP

 

But there isn't a lot of space for the ads / reviews because the pages are
being used up for "reviews" on Echo Hatchback and Honda Element. Two of the
most wretchedly ugly cars in existence.

 

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, RPhillips47 wrote:

5> The 300 is already starting to get praises from some of the auto mags.

4> The auto mags are already starting to get advertising dollars for the
4> 300.

3> Oh give it a f*ckin' rest, Dan!

2> Do you dispute that the auto mags are running ads for the Chrysler
2> 300C, and that DaimlerChrysler is paying the magazines for that
2> advertising?

Manish tanah halailah hazeh? (Why is this night different to all other
nights?)

It's an effort, but I'm going to assume for discussion that you're really,
actually as naive as you're making yourself out to be, and that you're not
just playing silly Usenet games.

Commercially published magazines exist for one reason only: To sell
advertising. The articles and pretty pictures are there to attract
you to the ads.

Think about it for a moment or two: You're in charge of North American
advertising and promotion for Nippon Kogaku, Japan Optics, the
manufacturer of Nikon cameras. You place very expensive multiple-page,
fold-out, full-color ads for your cameras in "Popular Photography",
"Petersen's Photographic", "Modern Imaging" and "Graphic Design".

Now, let's say Popular Photography one month has a 4-page in-depth
long-term-test report on one of your cameras. It's not a hack-and-slash
rip job, but they do conclude that your camera isn't as good as Canon's
competing camera. Two months later, they test another one of your cameras,
and report that it worked OK but had an annoying habit of freezing or
"locking up" randomly, which could only be solved by removing the battery,
waiting 45 seconds and reinstalling the battery, which would have been
dismissed as a fluke but the warranty replacement camera did it, too.

Meanwhile, the other three magazines are giving your cameras glowing
reviews. Not a thing wrong with 'em. Great products, much better than
their predecessors, and with lots of neat features. Definitely worth
buying.

Now think hard, Randy: One of these mags is not like the others, one of
these mags does not quite belong. With which of these four magazines do
you NOT spend further advertising dollars?

I have difficulty believing you really think auto magazines are guardian
bastions of truth and objectivity, that they'll gladly bite the hand that
feeds them if it means bringing Truth to their readers. It's not quite as
bad nowtimes as it was in the '80s and earlier, when the mags were overt
mouthpieces for the makers -- Motor Trend's "Car of the Year" was widely
known to be for sale to the highest bidder, and if you don't believe me go
take a tour of COTY issues from '91ish and earlier and explain to me the
Plymouth Volare and the Peugeot 404 -- but even in these "enlightened"
modern times, the auto rags print what will get them a steady diet of
crunchy, delicious ad dollars.

DS (in the late '80s, Nikons really did freeze up that way, one of the
magazines really did squawk about it, and that same magazine was promptly
driven to bankruptcy and absorbed by its competitor when Nikon pulled all
their ads. QED.)

 

I agree with you, but they're selling a shit-ton of the Elements. Not to
the twentysomethings they thought would buy them, either, but to 40 and 50
year olds who want a big box on wheels that doesn't guzzle gas and can be
hosed out when dirty.

GM, on the other hand, had to resort to silly crapola like giving their
employees Azteks to drive around in to create the illusion of market
acceptance.

And the new Prius, while it still has a stupid name, is a heck of an
interesting-looking car.

DS

 

Around here they are selling a lot of Echo Hatchbacks, but I don't see a lot
of Elements. Although the fact that there are 3 universities in town
probably helps. I don't get the hatchback. You practically pay the same
price as the sedan, and get something without a trunk.

The thing the car manufactures don't understand is that Element and Aztek
are way too expensive for people just getting into the market. Echo
Hatchback and Daewoo Aveo have the advantage here.

Although I'd rather stick with an SX 2.0 / Neon.

 

Oh come now, Dan, everybody knows you can believe EVERYTHING you read
printed by the media, in every format.

Uh, well, um, OK, maybe only idiots believe that.

 

Well, I also saw one "up close and personal" last week at the open house
our local Chrysler dealer had (I think this may have been a nationwide
event, but I'm not sure). Had some nice munchies and looked over
several of the new vehicles. The wife and I really like the new van
with the fold into the floor seats. I was amazed that the floor line
appears to not be all that much higher than our 03 and the ground
clearance not all that much less. I really wonder how the spare tire
works though. It is between the front seats and the salesman said
something about dropping it to the ground and then backing up to get at
it. I didn't think at the time to ask him how you get it back up under
there! I'm guessing you'd need to put the van on a lift, but maybe they
thought of some clever way to stow the flat tire and wheel back up under
there.

I thought the 300 was as ugly in person as in the pictures. I don't
care for the truck-like grill and the high belt-line is butt ugly and
makes one feel claustrophobic when sitting inside ... and I'm 6' tall.
I can't imagine a 5' woman driving that thing, unless the seat raises up
REAL high. I think Chrysler birthed a toad with this one, but time will
tell. I thought the Crossfire was also ugly up close and you'd need to
be a gymnast to get into and out of that thing on a regular basis.

The convertible PT Cruiser was cool. That and the minivan are the only
two vehicles in the showroom that I'd be seen in.


Matt

 

And was yours worded the way it was because you lack sufficient
vocabulary to express yourself any other way?

Of course reviews are slanted with advertising dollars are at stake.
Only someone very naive would think otherwise.

Matt

 

I'm ambivalent about it. It's not the ugliest car I've ever seen, but it
sure doesn't make my top-40 list of nice looking cars. Grill doesn't
bother me as much as that high beltline, which just doesn't work for me.

Oh, I can, believe me. My grandmother was a little under 5' tall and drove
ENORMOUS cars her whole life. A '70 Cadillac DeVille or Calais, an '86
Stinkoln Town Car, a '95 DeVille Concours. Glancing into her car, one saw
a whisp of white hair. She looked through the top 1/4 of the steering
wheel. Scary as hell.

Grandpa, who was about 5'9", drove a '72 Dart.

DS

 

No, Daniel, I actually think YOU are the guardian and bastion of truth and
objectivity. I mean that's what you have tried to make all of us think for all
these years. Okay everyone, bow down to the illustrious lighting expert who
knows all there is to know about everything and, oh great one, forgive this
mortal being for ever disputing your sacred word.

 

Have you ever seen Car and driver's parody of MT's COTY? circa 1989 or
so? I've got it around here somewhere. Funniest thing from a car magazine
I've seen.

 

Thanks for the reply, Daniel Stern, Jr. ......... and, as long as you wish to
be critical about expressing oneself correctly, go back and read what YOU wrote
in that last sentence..................."with advertising dollars are at
stake". Oh, I AM sorry - I am too naive to question you on your use of the word
"with" when the word "when" is what you meant............. or did I read your
post improperly as I am so naive and that really isn't what you posted?????

 

Pregnant pause...

8^)

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")