Why is the 300 so heavy?

What did they do to the 300 to make it so heavy? I'm driving a 10 year old
Concorde with a first generation 3.5L engine in it and it gets 22-23MPG
around town and about 29 if I do a long highway trip (MA to NY for
example). The 300 is no bigger than the Concorde and yet with a newer
version of the same engine it only gets 17 and the Hemi, which it needs
just to pull it's two tons of metal around, get's less than 15. I don't
understand why the 300 isn't lighter than the Concorde. My Concord has an
iron block engine, the current 3.5 is aluminum, (don't know about the
Hemi but I expect that it's aluminum also). There are a lot more plastic
parts available also. It shouldn't have been very hard to at least keep
the 300 at the same weight as the Concorde. Imagine how fast the 300 would
be if it weighed 600lbs less and it could still get reasonable gas mileage.

 

Probably a lot of why the 300 is heavier than the LH is that it is rear
drive. The more "compact" drive train of front drive cars tends to make
them lighter. Also, the 300 platform is loosely derived from the MB
E-class which is kind of heavy, partly (or mostly?) to enhance
crashworthiness. Still, the 300 is not terribly heavy for its size.

 

The Hemi gets 17 MPG city and 22 MPG highway.

 

|
| The Hemi gets 17 MPG city and 22 MPG highway.
|
|

We're going in the wrong direction folks. We'll leave our kids and grand kids
with a mess if we don't stop buying "things" that are unnecessarily wasteful.
Huge houses with a dozen rooms we will never use that consume tons of energy,
huge cars that will reach 60MPH in under 6 seconds that consume tons of energy.
For what? I understand the thrill of horsepower (I used to own a 1967 GTO),
but I was a teenager at the time. Surely we've "grown up"! Haven't we?!

 

No.

 

I agree. I can't understand this stupid business of saying cars (like the
300 touring maybe) are "too slow" because they have "only" 250 horsepower.

 

I don't think 17 city and 23 highway is a lot of energy now! Actually the
MDS hemi engine is a huge step in the right direction!

What do you drive right now and what does it get in efficiency?
Also, what does it take to produce those lighter flexible fuel vehicles?
And how much of their parts are recyclable once spent? Especially the
batteries?

How much of the pollution comes from deforestation and factories?

The answer is not so simple! the wisdom from this complexity is what really
defines maturity, not the loss of reflex that pushes one to drive a slug
mobile!!

--
_______________________________________
"The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is
like an eggs-and-ham breakfast:
The chicken was 'involved' - the pig was 'committed'."

http://community.webshots.com/user/godwino

 

we?!

It's United States of America - I've earned my money and I have every
right to spend it the way I want. BTW, my 300C does not consume tons
of energy. It's pretty efficient for a car of it's class.

 

The car it replaced got 22/29, how is 17/23 a step in the right direction?
The 300 doesn't have anymore passenger room than the Concorde, there might
even be less. It handles better on dry pavement but chances are it's rear
wheel drive is going to be worse on snow, and snow handling is a 1000
times more important than dry pavement handling. Who worries about a skid
on a bright summer day? it's driving in a blizzard that's nerve racking. I
don't see why with 10 years of technical advances they weren't able to
come up with a car that got better gas mileage and better acceleration
than the Concorde.

Also one more beef, why the tiny windows? The 300 has no rear visability.
How do you park that thing?

 

Absolutely right. When the OP parks his car and rides the bus everywhere,
and carpools when he cannot ride the bus, and selects nothing larger than a
Neon for his and his family's use for the rest of the time, and chooses to
live in a home of 1000 square feet or less, and turns all the lights off
when he leaves the room....

....he'll still be an unhappy tree-hugging anxiety-ridden guilt-feeling
net-nanny! And *I'll* still be lusting for a 340HP/390lb-ft *station wagon*
(ferchrissakes!) and driving my GC and/or Intrepid with the A/C set to 'MAX'
streaking toward the north country at 80MPH!!!!



God, I love America! (Yes, sir, I'll have another gallon of gas. Mmmm, gas!
Better make it a double!! Here's my Visa card!!!)
--Geoff

 

Unfortunately Chrysler believes the only way it can sell cars is with
attention getting style and they are willing to sacrifice almost everything
else to get it. At the other extreme is steady as you go Toyota who is the
ugly turtle winning the longterm sales race.

 

You missed the point. Your concorde did not have V8. Let's give credit
when it's earned. A 340 hp 390 ibs of torque V8 getting that kind of
mileage is a step in the right direction.

All those little 4 banger Toyotas and Nissans, and Mitsubishis get lower gas
mileage when they make power in that range.

As to the styling, to each his own. I think the styling is awesome, so much
that I plop Thirtysomething thousands down.. If you really think about it,
some people did find the Aztek appealing, heck someone bought the Isuzu
cross....?

--
_______________________________________
"The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is
like an eggs-and-ham breakfast:
The chicken was 'involved' - the pig was 'committed'."

http://community.webshots.com/user/godwino

 

That's because body style is a hugely important factor in the new car
purchase decision for the majority of people.

Bushwah. Sacrifice everything for styling? Hardly. Why put the most
powerful engine available in the class into your vehicle (Magnum) if their
styling dictates you sacrifice everything else? Why build minivans? Why
build pickup trucks?

....and whose customer demographics are steadily trending older and older,
which is why they've been forced to come up with that Scion junk.

Yes, Toyota sales are outstanding. But there are a lot of people out there
who attach no more significance to their transportation than they do their
refrigerator. Toyota markets their stuff to those folks.

You can win the sales game using any number of different strategies. You
are certainly correct at pointing out the difference between Chrysler and
Toyota's approaches; I think that you're assigning a bit too much importance
to "quantity of sale"s vs. the other factors you could use to 'measure' the
'performance' of an automaker. But then again, I don't personally approach
this from the perspective of somebody who's only interest in a car company
is the appreciation of its shareholder value.

Cars are about passion and art, Art. Cars are an emotional thing that we
don't buy for 100% rational reasons. The best of all worlds is that you buy
a car because a.) you love it, b.) you can afford it, and c.) it meets most
of your transportation needs. Sometimes we have to behave more
pragmatically than that; 'tis the reason why people buy minivans and pickup
trucks. But given the opportunity (finances, time, etc.) to do so, most
folks would probably keep a sports car in the garage for the days when they
don't need the familymobile or pickup truck.

If you want to argue that vehicles should be 100% about efficiency in
transportation, economy, sound financial decisions, and environmental
responsibility, you might want to see about starting a newsgroup called
rec.autos.takethebus. I don't think many people would join you there,
however.

--Geoff

 

The 3.5L engine in the 300 gets 1 MPG more than the HEMI and 4 MPG less
than the old 3.5L in the 94 Concorde. The new 3.5 is lighter than the old
one and it has the advantage of 10 years of improvements in engine design.
The difference is that the 300 is significantly heavier than the Concorde
and probably less aerodynamic (it certainly looks less aerodynamic). There
aren't any benefits that the extra weight brings, the passenger room is
the same or less and the trunk is the same or less. The 0-60 time on the
Concorde was more than quick enough even with 214HP, with 250 (which is
what the current 3.5 has) it would fly. If the 300 were 800lbs lighter
than it is the HEMI would deliver as good or better mileage than the
Concorde and it would be close to 5 seconds on the 0-60 time (not that
that matters).

 

Perhaps they removed some aluminum parts that were used and gave vibration
problems in the LH cars. That would explain some weight gain.

 

Well a lot of people I know actually like to see out their cars when they
drive. They won't consider the 300 or Magnum or Pacifica.

 

There aren't any benefits that the extra weight brings, the passenger room
is

Hmm, a smoother ride and better crash protection aren't benefits?

The 0-60 time on the

The 2004 Concorde is still (somewhat) available with a choice of three
engines: 2.7L, 3.5L (232HP) and 3.5L (250HP).

If the 300 were 800lbs lighter

You're a closet anti-performance guy. Whatever.

--Geoff

 

The 2004 Concorde doesn't have GPS so it's absolutely uninteresting. GPS
is the single most important feature on a new car.

 

A lot of people I know actually like driving a vehicle that has four wheels
instead of two. They won't consider a motorcycle.

A lot of people I know actually like driving a vehicle that they can park.
They won't consider a Mack truck, a city bus, or a John Deere combine.

A lot of people I know actually like driving a vehicle that can tow a boat.
They won't consider a baby stroller, a Segway, or a rickshaw.
***
So you couldn't see out of the Hemi Magnum you claim to have driven a few
weeks ago, eh? I guess that means you either a.) crashed or b.) never left
the parking lot. Which was it?
***
Face it, Art. By your own admission, the LX vehicles are selling extremely
well. I really don't see the point behind your anecdotal "well a lot of
people I know..." statement. You're reaching.

--Geoff

 

Spend $100, get a Garmin. Spend $300 more, get a 1987 Omni. You've still
got change from $500 to pay a year's worth of PL/PD insurance. Done.


--Geoff