 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / November 2005300C's as beautiful as in the ads
A silver Hemi pulled up next to me on Shelburne Rd in South Burlington Vt. just about 2 hours ago... Needless to say I followed it back to the dealer. WOW. It really does look as good in person as in the ads..Beautifully appointed and that engine! They had 4. 2 Hemi's, a Touring and a base model. I was skeptical that the 300C would look as rich as it does based on past experiences with pictures of the Crossfire.... and then in person... Ugh. As for the fatboy Pacifica I expect that comes with a years supply of Snickers to make it even fatter.. Will having such a broad range of models cheapen the 300 line, or as a year goes by see the slimming down of the trim levels to keep it an exciting car? _Fred > Will having such a broad range of models cheapen the 300 line, or > as a year goes by see the slimming down of the trim levels to keep > it an exciting car? Welcome to the "Mercedies-ification" of Chrysler. One car (300) coming in a half-dozen different sub-models. All look the same from the outside. Different engines and interiors on the inside. Yawn. All of them looking like Bentleys. It's the big-box car. It's got to be. It's doing double-duty as a station-wagonish suv-ish thing for Dodge (Magnum). These industrial-looking cars are the new thing, we're told. People are into the high-beltline thing, we're told. Something about a certain feeling of security. Course you have to raise the body some to put in the AWD. I like my car-line with more visual differentiation. But I guess we can't have it with the "volume brand" that is Chrysler. Of course I like to have more "car" in my car. If I want fisher price or tonka I know where to get that. Remember - these cars only look good in the limited, toned-down color set they have. They better have a hemi with the freeking huge flat front wall-of-a-grill they're pushing down the highway. I hear that there's a dealer accessory (front ground-effects kit) that turns it into a hemi-powered snow plow. >>Will having such a broad range of models cheapen the 300 line, or >>as a year goes by see the slimming down of the trim levels to keep [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the same from the outside. Different engines and interiors on the > inside. Yawn. You mean like: Belvedere -Satellite -Sport Satellite -GTX -Roadrunner? Or: Coronet -Coronet 440 -Coronet 500 -Coronet R/T -Superbee Or maybe: Chrysler -Windsor -Saratoga -New Yorker -300 Sport Series -300 Letter Series I'm certainly no fan of the Daimler takeover, but give it a REST already. The 300 is looking better and better the more I learn about it, and now it looks like Dodge is going to get a sedan after all. About the only downside is that last I heard they're planning to use a German transmission, but at least the Hemi is an Auburn Hills design. > You mean like: I mean like when has the car line-up from Dodge/Chrysler ever been as limited as it is now? Plymouth: - gonzo Dodge: - Neon - SRT-4 - Stratus (2 versions) Chrysler: - Sebring (3 versions) - 300 (4 visually-identical versions) >>You mean like: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Plymouth: > - gonzo Like I said, I'm not a fan of the Daimler takeover, but I just don't see the 4 visually identical versions of the 300 as anything new. There are plenty of legit criticisms of Daimler decisions (like axing Plymouth, making the Pacifica front/AWD v6 only instead of rear/AWD with a v8 option, and gutting the former Chrysler corporation of all its cash it came into the "merger" with). > > I mean like when has the car line-up from Dodge/Chrysler ever > > been as limited as it is now? > > I just don't see the 4 visually identical versions of the 300 as > anything new. No, it's not new. That's not the point. A few years ago (and certainly 3+ decades ago) we had more car-lines that each had their externally-identical sub-models. Over the past few years there are fewer and fewer basic car models from Chrysler. The 300 now replaces the LHS, Concord, Intrepid, etc. Just wait. If Chrysler is still a division of Daimler in 10 years then the only vehicles that Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep will be making will be minivans, trucks and SUV's. You want a car? Go to Merc. (That's assuming that Dodge will still be around in 10 years). I predicted a few years ago that Dodge seemed to be on track to eliminate passenger cars from their line-up. If it wasn't for the Dodge dealers screaming for a replacement for the Intrepid we wouldn't be hearing talk about the Charger coming back. We'll see if it does. What makes no sense is that the lower-end of the new 300 line wasn't badged as a Dodge. Someone want to explain that one? Or is Dodge not worthy of getting any new cars - only wagons like the Magnum? >As for the fatboy Pacifica I expect that comes with a years supply of >Snickers to make it even fatter.. No, they don't, but for 2005 it will be available in three trim levels - Pacifica, Pacifica Touring and Pacifica Limited. As for our 2004 AWD - best vehicle we have ever owned (except for the mileage). RP When I test drove a Pacifica the seat controls on the door seemed loosely installed. Have they given you any problems? > >As for the fatboy Pacifica I expect that comes with a years supply of > >Snickers to make it even fatter.. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > RP >When I test drove a Pacifica the seat controls on the door seemed loosely >installed. Have they given you any problems? No problems with the seat controls except for the fact that the passenger seat doesn't have all of the capabilities of the drivers seat. That being said, there were a few minor problems that had to be corrected under warranty: 1. The alignment of the hood was off and had to be corrected. When it was it showed that the edge wasn't painted so that now has to be done. 2. The beltline chrome molding was loose and had to be replaced. When it was the body shop damaged the new one so it has to be done again! 3. The dashboard clock was not aligned properly so instead of straightening it they replaced it. 4. The drivers floormat had a bad grommet that would not allow the floormat to be removed. 5. The passenger seatback would occasionally stop working. They found a faulty motor and replaced the seatback frame. 6. The winged-badge logo in the steering wheel was cracked so the replaced the airbag unit. Except for the seatback nothing on this list is a major issue, just annoyances that I figured should be corrected. Some of the parts had to be ordered so they had the car for five days. That was no problem because we get a free loaner whenever the Pacifica goes in for service. RP That is a lot of problems for a new car these days. Hope they get their act together. > >When I test drove a Pacifica the seat controls on the door seemed loosely > >installed. Have they given you any problems? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > RP >That is a lot of problems for a new car these days. Hope they get their >act together. Not really. Had the vehicle been purchased by someone not as "nit-picky" as me items 1, 2, 3 and 6 would not have been noticed. As a matter of fact, the vehicle is driven daily by my wife. She only noticed items 3 and 5 and item 5 remains questionable because it has more to do with the way the clock is mouted at a slight angle toward the driver. The average person wouldn't care that the back of the hood sat about 1/8" lower than it should or that the beltline molding sat 1/8" higher at the rear than it should. Overall these are very insignificant for a vehicle that was built last July in the first initial days of production. RP | A silver Hemi pulled up next to me on Shelburne Rd in South Burlington | Vt. just about 2 hours ago... Needless to say I followed it back to the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | car? | _Fred It's a friggin square box! > It's a friggin square box! Nothin' wrong with square boxes. A great many beautiful cars over the years have been square boxes. The '64-'65 Imperial is a square box. The '70 Dart is a square box. The '62 Continental is a square box. The '64 and '78 Chevrolet full-size cars are square boxes. The problem with the 300C isn't that it's a square box, the problem is that way-too-high beltline and too-short window glass, the raised-rump effect of the trunk, and the "We didn't study so we had to cheat off Cadillac during the test" greenhouse styling. This is not an attractive car to any degree greater than the ad hype has made people think it is. DS >This is not an attractive car to any degree greater than the ad hype has >made people think it is. As many people who have read this newsgroup over the last few months know, I have been a strong proponent of this vehicle. I finally said I would reserve final judgement until I saw it in person. Well I have seen it in person and I have to agree with your statement above. I do like the front styling but the high beltline/low greenhouse is not pleasing. I do, however, like the styling on the Dodge Magnum as it lends itself better to the wagon, but I prefer the front styling of the 300 over the Magnum. Unfortunately if I want to buy a vehicle like that I will have to move to Europe. RP Or wait for next year. I expect the 300 Touring will come this way when it no longer completely undercuts Dodge, i.e., when the new Charger is at Dodge dealers. >>This is not an attractive car to any degree greater than the ad hype has >>made people think it is. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >RP >Or wait for next year. > >I expect the 300 Touring will come this way when it no longer >completely undercuts Dodge, i.e., when the new Charger is at Dodge >dealers. I doubt Chrysler would do that because of the Pacifica. RP >>Or wait for next year. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > RP I doubt the bloated Pacifica will remain in production once the Magnum undercuts it completely. And I actually kinda LIKE the Pacifica and find it far better looking than the Nissan Murano or other competitors, but SHEESH its a pig! It weighs almost as much as a '65 Imperial, for heaven's sake. >I doubt the bloated Pacifica will remain in production once the Magnum >undercuts it completely. And I actually kinda LIKE the Pacifica and find >it far better looking than the Nissan Murano or other competitors, but >SHEESH its a pig! It weighs almost as much as a '65 Imperial, for >heaven's sake. Do you own a Pacifica? Have you driven one over an extended period of time? We bought ours last August 29 (we went to buy a Grand Cherokee and drove home in the Pacifica AWD). I was not that keen on it but we were buying it for my wife for her daily driver (I really didn't care for the styling and really didn't see why the vehicle was necessary). We are now approaching 13,000 miles and I can honestly say this is the best vehicle we have ever purchased. Quiet, smooth, good pick-up for the So. Calif. freeways (only once have I felt it to be underpowered, and that wasn't on the freeway) and the styling has grown on me to the point that I do like it. We do wish it gave better gas mileage and rearward vision could be better. I doubt that the Pacifica will go out of production when the Magnum hits the streets (which, by the way, is one of two choices in my mind to replace our '96 T&C LXi next year - the other choice being the new 2005 Grand Cherokee) as the two vehicles are not comparable. The Pacifica may become more appealing now that it will be available in three different trim levels, but time will only tell. >>I doubt the bloated Pacifica will remain in production once the Magnum >>undercuts it completely. And I actually kinda LIKE the Pacifica and find [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Do you own a Pacifica? Have you driven one over an extended period of time? Nope, and Nope. We > bought ours last August 29 (we went to buy a Grand Cherokee and drove home in > the Pacifica AWD). I'm not criticizing your choice, I'm criticising the vehicle for being nearly 2000 pounds heavier than its size would seem to warrant, and for not offering a bigger engine selection. Cadillac offers the 330 HP Northstar in their equivalent vehicle, AND its rear or all-wheel drive, not FWD/AWD. Theirs is so monkey-butt-ugly that I wouldn't consider it, however :-p So that's two strikeouts for American carmakers and the noveau station-wagon, as much as I basically like that class of car. If the Pacifica were available with a drivetrain in the same class as the Cadillac, I'd be ALL OVER it. I was not that keen on it but we were buying it for my wife > for her daily driver (I really didn't care for the styling and really didn't > see why the vehicle was necessary). We are now approaching 13,000 miles and I > can honestly say this is the best vehicle we have ever purchased. Time will tell- I doubt that the 3.5 will live the 211,000 miles that my '93 3.5 has lived (and still runs like new) lugging all that weight around. I hope it does, but I have doubts that are sufficient to prevent me from considering a Pacifica. I would consider a Magnum for the same tasks, though. Both are just station wagons in a slightly different shape. >Time will tell- I doubt that the 3.5 will live the 211,000 miles that my >'93 3.5 has lived (and still runs like new) lugging all that weight >around. I hope it does, but I have doubts that are sufficient to prevent >me from considering a Pacifica. I have heard rumors of the V-8 being available this year for the Pacifica but they ARE only rumors. Time will tell on that but I would think that DC will seriously have to consider doing that, especially when the Magnum AWD becomes available, to keep the Pacifca a viable alternative from Chrysler. Time will tell. >I would consider a Magnum for the same >tasks, though. Both are just station wagons in a slightly different shape. One seats six in three rows with the center row seats being adjustable and one seats five in two rows. One has straight-across entry and the other has step-down. It all depends upon what one wants. As I stated, the Magnum is in serious consideration to replace our '96 T&C next year. I know you weren't criticizing our choice, just the vehicle. I was merely trying to point out that the vehicle does handle well for it's heavier-than-necessary size. > I know you weren't criticizing our choice, just the vehicle. I was merely > trying to point out that the vehicle does handle well for it's > heavier-than-necessary size. Granted. And it looks best-in-class by FAR. The Murano and its Infiniti equivalent are cartoonish, and the Cadillac is just plain hideous, and the Lexus offering is almost as cartoonish as the Murano. The only thing the Pacifica somewhat missed on was the drivetrain, and Chrysler just did NOT used to mess up THAT aspect of cars in the old days! >I'm not criticizing your choice, I'm criticising the vehicle for being >nearly 2000 pounds heavier than its size would seem to warrant, and for >not offering a bigger engine selection. ..............and I also have to respond to this one again, Steve. By what you are posting above, that the Pacifica is nearly 2000 pounds heavier that its size would seem to warrant, you feel the Pacifica should only weigh 2675 pounds?????? RP hmmm a guy here who has a 4 wheel drive car that lives in a city that never sees snow then bitches about the gas consumtion sorry couldn't resist > >I doubt the bloated Pacifica will remain in production once the Magnum > >undercuts it completely. And I actually kinda LIKE the Pacifica and find [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > that it will be available in three different trim levels, but time will only > tell. "mic canic dbrider@cac.net" wrote: >hmmm a guy here who has a 4 wheel drive car that lives in a city that never >sees >snow then bitches about the gas consumtion >sorry couldn't resist You ALWAYS want to put words in my mouth and interpret what I say considerably different than how I say it. You never stop being a clueless jerk, do you? Wishing it gave better gas mileage is NOT bitching about it. When the window sticker says 17 city and it gives 14.9 to 15.1 I CAN say I wish it was better. I suggest you go to your dictionary (if you know what that is) and look up the meanings for both "wishing" and "bitching". I doubt they will be the same (but I am sure you will find a way to make them synonymous). And just because I mention the So. Calif. freeways doesn't SAY I live in the city but, of course, you ASSume I do. I actually live north of L.A. in Pine Valley. Guess what???? We GET snow in the wintertime. We also go to Mammoth and Tahoe in the winter and guess what???? Those areas ALSO get snow in the winter. Why don't you do us ALL a favor and stick to posting responses to things you actually know about (if there are any) and stop taking a shot in the dark with what you post. I couldn't resist either, but I am NOT sorry. >>> Or wait for next year. >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > SHEESH its a pig! It weighs almost as much as a '65 Imperial, for > heaven's sake. And it isn't nearly as ugly as the new Magnum. That is one butt ugly "car." Matt "Steve no@spam.thanks" wrote: >I doubt the bloated Pacifica will remain in production once the Magnum >undercuts it completely. And I actually kinda LIKE the Pacifica and find >it far better looking than the Nissan Murano or other competitors, but >SHEESH its a pig! It weighs almost as much as a '65 Imperial, for >heaven's sake. Sorry to go back to this post, Steve, but I kept thinking about what you said regarding the weight of the Pacifica so I did a bit of research. Our Pacifica AWD weighs 4675 lbs. and our '96 T&C LXi weighs 4163 lbs. making the Pacifica 512 lbs. heavier. To me that is not that much more significant given the extra AWD mechanics. Additionally, the added weight of the Pacifica makes the vehicle feel safer and more secure in driving, but that is only our opinion. To be fair I also looked up the weight of a 2004 T&C Limited AWD as a comparison. It weighs 4604 lbs. which is only 71 lbs. lighter than the Pacifica. RP > "Steve no@spam.thanks" wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > RP Of course, I would counter that the "mini" vans are no longer "mini" and are bloated themselves. :-) >Of course, I would counter that the "mini" vans are no longer "mini" and >are bloated themselves. :-) Then, of course, I would have to counter, using this statement, that the only vehicle you feel would qualify as a "mini" van is the ungodly Scion box????? ;-) RP >>Of course, I would counter that the "mini" vans are no longer "mini" and >>are bloated themselves. :-) > > Then, of course, I would have to counter, using this statement, that the only > vehicle you feel would qualify as a "mini" van is the ungodly Scion box????? > ;-) That thing doesn't even qualify as a vehicle I want to share the roadways with, let alone own :-p I really don't understand why there are not any true minivans or mini trucks on the market anymore. They always seemed like perfect niche vehicles to me. But mini trucks are now as big as the Dakota was when it started out as a midsize, and minivans are as heavy as the old B-series vans used to be. | > It's a friggin square box! | [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] | | DS I guess I don't like boxy-looking cars...at least the ones with the newer style queues. It doesn't seem at all stylish to me. Looks plain-Jane to me. But it appears many do like it. I wonder how the wind drag rating is on that puppy? > I wonder how the wind drag rating is on that puppy? Remember, it's only square on the outside. If they have designed and wind-tunnel-tested the ductwork properly behind that huge grill, they can do wonders with airflow inside the body. <http://scoop.daimlerchrysler.com/pdf/product/30005specifications.pdf> says the drag coefficient is between 0.331 and 0.350, depending on trim. That's pretty darned slippery for a car with as much frontal area as the 300C. By comparison, a 94 LHS, a 92 Taurus or a 95 Saab 900 has a cd of 0.320, and a 93 Saab 9000 or an 82 Delorean has a cd of 0.340.  Signature"I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they charitably dispose of anything when blood is their argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the King that led them to it; who to disobey were against all proportion of subjection." - W.S. > > I wonder how the wind drag rating is on that puppy? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 300C. By comparison, a 94 LHS, a 92 Taurus or a 95 Saab 900 has a cd of > 0.320, and a 93 Saab 9000 or an 82 Delorean has a cd of 0.340. Frontal area is only half the battle, rearward is the rest. The best a.s-ends are ones that gently taper in. You can get away with a fat front if the a.s isn't fat. The wedge shape isn't actually as aerodynamic as people think. You want a more teardrop shaped vehicle if you can get it. Ted >>>I wonder how the wind drag rating is on that puppy? >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > a.s isn't fat. The wedge shape isn't actually as aerodynamic as people > think. You want a more teardrop shaped vehicle if you can get it. I think this applies only for subsonic speeds. :-) Matt > > Frontal area is only half the battle, rearward is the rest. The best > > a.s-ends [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I think this applies only for subsonic speeds. :-) Hmm, I wonder if this guy knew that? http://www.jetped-boarders.co.uk/ Ted funny thing i saw the other day a new pt parked on side of the main drag and someone parked a 48 fiat behind it amazing how much they were alike and the aero dynamics were very similar it seems to me the ebodys are still as slippery as say a new malibu > > I wonder how the wind drag rating is on that puppy? > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the King that led them > to it; who to disobey were against all proportion of subjection." - W.S. > drag coefficient is between 0.331 and 0.350, depending on trim. What is the drag coef. for the 300M ? > > It's a friggin square box! > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > DS You are in the minority in your beliefs. I am sorry. > > This is not an attractive car to any degree greater than the > > ad hype has made people think it is. > > You are in the minority in your beliefs. Can you site any studies that support your "minority" statement? The 300C does not have a classic (or refined) look. It has a novelty look. The same way the PT cruser has a novelty look. The exterior styling of the 300C was designed to have in-your-face impact. If Chrysler can't give a sedan a classy, refined, respectible look (because that's reserved for Mercedes cars) then we'll give it a bold, heavy-handed novelty look. Worked for the PT. Is it working for the C? Not around where I live (SW Ontario). Around here, you can't swing a Pacifica without hitting a 300M. The new 300's are few and far between. However, drive east on the 401 between Toronto and Windsor and every 10 minutes you'll pass a car trailer going west loaded with new 300's and Magnums. I don't know where they're going... | > > This is not an attractive car to any degree greater than the | > > ad hype has made people think it is. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] | trailer going west loaded with new 300's and Magnums. I don't know | where they're going... The 300C seems to be selling very well here in the DC area. > Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 09:09:39 -0400 > From: MoPar Man <MoPar@Man.com> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > trailer going west loaded with new 300's and Magnums. I don't know > where they're going... To the Detroit area, where they're selling extremely well. --Geoff > > The problem with the 300C isn't that it's a square box, the problem is > > that way-too-high beltline and too-short window glass, the raised-rump > > effect of the trunk, and the "We didn't study so we had to cheat off > > Cadillac during the test" greenhouse styling. This is not an > > attractive car to any degree greater than the ad hype has made people > > think it is. > You are in the minority in your beliefs. I am sorry. Percy, you poor, brainwashed, ignorant slut. You believe my beliefs place me in the minority, and for this you are "sorry"? What on earth could you *possibly* believe yourself to be apologizing for? You think I need your pity because my tastes do not conform to what you perceive as the norm? Pshaw! I own a 1962 Dodge Lancer ( http://www.torque.net/~u225/cars/62Lancer/62Lancer.html ), a 1971 Volvo 164 ( http://danstern.vrx.net/164/ ), a 1989 Dodge Ram ( http://www.torque.net/~u225/cars/89Ram/89Ram.html ) and a 1992 Dodge Spirit "R/T". I own six bicycles with Sturmey-Archer epicyclic gearhubs. I just bought a brand-new GE T93 Toaster Oven ( http://www.torque.net/~u225/LJ/0528/T93hum.jpg and http://www.torque.net/~u225/LJ/0528/T93pop.jpg ). You'll notice my kitchen walls are bright red -- my bathroom is school bus yellow, my office is bright blue, my bedroom is burnt orange, and my living room is leaf green. I do not have cable or satellite, for I do not watch television. If my beliefs were in the majority, I'd own a Toyota Corolla or a Honda Civic or a Ford Explorer, an overpriced and non-serviceable Taiwanese 28-speed mountain bike upon which 21 of the speeds are redundant, a Chinese-made toaster from Wal-Mart that needs constant supervision, and my kitchen would be painted "desert sand" or "beige blond" or "toasty mauve" or one of these other "tasteful" noncolors people spew upon their walls, a $3000 5-foot television set piping 800 channels of crapola directly into my living room, and I wouldn't be around to see, use, ride, watch or drive any of it because I would have long since slashed my wrists to escape the crushing boredom of life. No, Percy...if anyone deserves pity here, it ain't me. It's the likes of you. DS > I own six bicycles with Sturmey-Archer epicyclic gearhubs. interesting... I would have thought you wouldn't dare own a bicycle of any kind. > I just bought a brand-new GE T93 Toaster Oven Speaking of old kitchen items.... I've got a 1956 stove I will likely restore. Although I would prefer to resto-mod it somewhat since I dislike having pilot lights. If that would spoil it, then I'll just live with turning the gas off and lighting it each time. Also have a toaster of roughly the same vintage. Haven't seen if it works yet. It may. Needs a cleaning a the very least. Now the ~1939 blender seems to work just fine. The rubber of cap has seen better days however. > No, Percy...if anyone deserves pity here, it ain't me. It's the likes of > you. I doubt that I will make myself much more popular with this posting but last time I looked the question whether a car looks good or doesn't was a question of personal taste. There is no such thing as 'wrong' or 'right' styling. Styling can help sell cars and it can make people not want to buy them. I personally like the Chrysler in question for the same reason you drive 'nconformist' cars and have an orange bedroom. It may look odd if the eye is used to soaplike Hondas and Toyotas, but if no manufacturer was willing to break out of the soap cycle and design cars that look unique the world would be a darn boring place. Chris > There is no such thing as 'wrong' or 'right' styling. Aztek. Signature~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." (pgp@v6stang.com for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) >> There is no such thing as 'wrong' or 'right' styling. > > Aztek. And everything else from GM's 'total recall' styling phase. >> There is no such thing as 'wrong' or 'right' styling. > > Aztek. I stand corrected. Chris Actually in person I don't think the Aztek is that bad. It photographs very poorly though. > >> There is no such thing as 'wrong' or 'right' styling. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Chris > Actually in person I don't think the Aztek is that bad. It photographs very > poorly though. My bro and I saw a few Aztecs at a photo shoot at Lake Tahoe before they were introduced. We both thought they were some heavily camouflaged prototypes, but they turned out not to be ... Chris > It may look odd if the eye is used to soaplike Hondas and Toyotas, but > if no manufacturer was willing to break out of the soap cycle and design > cars that look unique the world would be a darn boring place. I agree with you. That's what makes the PT Cruiser such a neat car. But that's not what Chrysler did with the 300C, as I see it. Look at a 300C from the rear. Now look at a last-generation Mazda Protege from the rear. Taillamps almost look like they were lifted intact from the Protege onto the 300C, and the trunk lid and rear bumper are almost identical except for the overall size/scale. Side profile is that of a mid-'90s/late-'90s Cadillac. Nothing original here. Front view is equal parts generic Bentley and '80s Lincoln. Ptewph. >> It may look odd if the eye is used to soaplike Hondas and Toyotas, but >> if no manufacturer was willing to break out of the soap cycle and design >> cars that look unique the world would be a darn boring place. > > I agree with you. That's what makes the PT Cruiser such a neat car. But > that's not what Chrysler did with the 300C, as I see it. That's yoour right, just as it is my right to see the 300C as another example of a true nonconformist car. > Look at a 300C from the rear. Now look at a last-generation Mazda Protege > from the rear. Taillamps almost look like they were lifted intact from the > Protege onto the 300C, and the trunk lid and rear bumper are almost > identical except for the overall size/scale. > Side profile is that of a mid-'90s/late-'90s Cadillac. Nothing original > here. > Front view is equal parts generic Bentley and '80s Lincoln. Ptewph. It is very hard for me to explain why I like a specific car and dislike another one. I have always been interested in automotive design and I also freely admit to not having a mainstream taste at all. Even though your taste in cars doesn't seem to be mainstream either that doesn't mean we have to have the same likes and dislikes. In the 300C I like the proportions and the front. The side view reminds me of the early 60s Lincoln Continental, which I think is one of the best looking big sedans ever. Chrysler should try to make a four-door Convertible out of the 300C. About the rear you are right, they should have been more courageous and created something unique there. Chris > It is very hard for me to explain why I like a specific car and dislike > another one. Oh, are we talking about likes and dislikes? I thought we were discussing the notion of whether the 300C is unique and original or not. > Chrysler should try to make a four-door Convertible out of the 300C. Yes. Absolutely yes. > About the rear you are right, they should have been more courageous and > created something unique there. They really should've. >> It is very hard for me to explain why I like a specific car and dislike >> another one. > > Oh, are we talking about likes and dislikes? I thought we were discussing > the notion of whether the 300C is unique and original or not. Maybe I came into the thread too late, but I saw an argument about whether it is ugly or not. About being unique, you will find very few cars nowadays that look completely different from anything else on the road. In its class IMO the Chrysler does look different, specifically from the soaplike asian styling, and (also IMO) it looks more expensive than it actually is. I would really love to see a 300C done by Chip Foose or Trepanier, just to see what could have been if they had had the courage to pull the design throug all the way to the end. Chris > I would really love to see a 300C done by Chip Foose or Trepanier, just > to see what could have been if they had had the courage to pull the > design throug all the way to the end. I have some pictures of *very* interesting '60s Dodges styled by Italians. >> I would really love to see a 300C done by Chip Foose or Trepanier, just >> to see what could have been if they had had the courage to pull the >> design throug all the way to the end. > > I have some pictures of *very* interesting '60s Dodges styled by Italians. Dodge Firearrow? Chris > > I have some pictures of *very* interesting '60s Dodges styled by > > Italians. > > Dodge Firearrow? Nothing so commonly known. I'll try to scan some pics when I get time. >> > I have some pictures of *very* interesting '60s Dodges styled by >> > Italians. >> >> Dodge Firearrow? > > Nothing so commonly known. I'll try to scan some pics when I get time. If you get around to scan them, could you send them to me (email is in the header)? I am always interested in rare gems :-) Chris Yes, they should have. The rear needs fins, fake rocket engines, or something. One of my main gripes about the 300C is the aesthetic difference between the front and rear. The front has this retro thing going on. The rear is too modern. It's like there was a team designing the front end, a team designing the back end, and the two teams did not speak to each other. It looks like 2 separate cars, depending on which end it is viewed from. The 300M has the same problem, except in that case the front end is just plain butt-ugly. > > About the rear you are right, they should have been more courageous and > > created something unique there. > > They really should've. >Front view is equal parts generic Bentley and '80s Lincoln. Actually, no! It was a Chrysler design long before Bentley or Lincoln took the look. > > It may look odd if the eye is used to soaplike Hondas and Toyotas, but > > if no manufacturer was willing to break out of the soap cycle and design [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Protege onto the 300C, and the trunk lid and rear bumper are almost > identical except for the overall size/scale. The rear view of the 300C has styling cues from the old Imperials. <snip> > > Look at a 300C from the rear. Now look at a last-generation Mazda Protege > > from the rear. Taillamps almost look like they were lifted intact from the > > Protege onto the 300C, and the trunk lid and rear bumper are almost > > identical except for the overall size/scale. > > The rear view of the 300C has styling cues from the old Imperials. Pfft. I'm reasonably-to-closely familiar with Imperials from '58 through '83, and I don't see any of 'em in the 300C. > > This is not an attractive car to any degree greater than the ad hype has > > made people think it is. > > > > DS > > You are in the minority in your beliefs. I am sorry. It is way too soon to tell if the 300C styling is ugly or not. Give it 10 years. If in 10 years the things are considered classics then you can say the 300C styling was revolutionary and bold. If in 10 years the things are worthless junk heaps, then Dan can say the styling was ugly as sin. I personally think the things are butt-ugly. Ted | > > This is not an attractive car to any degree greater than the ad hype has | > > made people think it is. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] | | Ted Me too. But they're selling well here. > | > > This is not an attractive car to any degree greater than the ad hype has > | > > made people think it is. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Me too. But they're selling well here. I've had people follow me in parking lots trying to get close to see my 300C. When they do they all say how great they think it is. They are selling very well here on Long Island, some delaers getting far above sticker price for them. > > | > > This is not an attractive car to any degree greater than the ad hype > has [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > 300C. When they do they all say how great they think it is. They are > selling very well here on Long Island, s Where in Long Island are you referring to? > some delaers getting far above > sticker price for them. Just wait a few years when everyone else comes out with RWD cars and we will see if that interest is maintained. The powertrain specs are very nice for this car, we won't know how many people who are buying it are just putting up with the styling to get the powertrain. Ted > > > | > > This is not an attractive car to any degree greater than the ad > hype [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Where in Long Island are you referring to? Mid to eastern. > > some delaers getting far above > > sticker price for them. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for this car, we won't know how many people who are buying it are just > putting up with the styling to get the powertrain. Next fall the horsepower of the V8 will be up to 405. How many other cars in this price class will offer that? Personally, I like both the styling and the powertrain. It's the styling that catches people's eyes first, then they become interested in the powertrain. > Ted >> > | > > This is not an attractive car to any degree greater than the ad > hype [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Ted I work at a large medical facility. The doctor's parking lot that used to be filled with Land Rovers, Mercedes 500 classes, Porsches, and H2s is starting to sport quite a few 300Cs. I mentioned to one of the surgeons that the torsion bar rear suspension on his Mercedes 500G was pretty cool (a new take on an old idea), and he asked, "What's a torsion bar?". And if you talk to any of them about their 300Cs you'll immediately be told they're, "Mercedes with Chrysler badges". Now try and find a doctor with dirt under his/her nails or a lot of points on their licenses (gross generalization I know). Ask one about powertrains and they'll wonder what Amtrack has to do with cars. They buy for style, prestige, and the Jones's approval. Obviously they think the C fits that bill. 50's: Had to have at least one part from an airplane ('57 Caddy) 60's: Looked fast standing still (Take your pick) 70's: Early, whales (Olds 98) - Late, small for small's sake (Chevette) 80's: Boxes (Caprice) 90's: Eggs (Caprice) 00's: Best features of boxes and eggs (300C, Nissan Frontier, Cadillac cars, '04 F150, etc.) Again, it's all so subjective and many people are influenced by the magazines and the Jones'. Since a lot of car folks are also motorcycle folks, some examples: Mid 80's Suzuki Madura 1200; walked away from a V-Max and got lots of favorable looks from pedestrians but every bike mag complained about the looks/styling so it died after only 2 years. Another Suzuki example; current DL1000 V Strom. Bike of the year and/or in the top three for the last three years by all the mags, but not without mentioning how ugly they look. BTW, I like the Cs. I still have the '89 New Yorker Landau I bought new because it still works really well at getting me down the road. Also a DL1000 V Strom because it does everything and I'm the only kid on my block with one. Jay >The problem with the > 300C isn't that it's a square box, the problem is that way-too-high > beltline Didn't car customizers call that a "chopped top" when they did '51 Mercs? Car designers all the way back to the the late '30s have been trying novelty approaches to car styling, just for the sake of styling and the public continues to fall for it. Just look at the new Jags. Hood ornaments! Useless, dangerous appendages that can only add wind noise (and drag, even if its infintessimal compared to other wasteful losses). Big Bertha Thing sumation Cosmic Ray Series Possible Real World System Constructs http://web.onetel.com/~tonylance/sumation.html Access Page for 78K Zip File Astrophysics net ring access site Newsgroup Reviews including alt.politics Count the number of polka-dots on an equilatteral triangle. Ready to run Fortran 77 program software, using double precision and extended precision versions. Complete with source code in listing format and the original extended precision subroutine source code. Sumation N = N*N + N all over 2, where N=1,2,3,..N (C) Copyright Tony Lance 2000 To comply with my copyright, please distribute complete and free of charge. Big Bertha Thing postings Depleted uranium shells were once used at great cost, in terms of Gulf War Syndrome. At Agincourt the English long bow took a large toll, due to the arrows being armour-piercing and re-useable. The above shells were armour-piercing, but can hardly be called re-useable and should not have been used once. Big Bertha Thing posting features;- 1. Ornate Engraving and Scrollwork. 2. Re-useable. 3. Armour-piercing. 4. Zero casualties. 5. Re-configurable. 6. Accurate. 7. Tactical. 8. Strategic. 9. Scientific. 10. Weighty. 11. Start of Thread. 12. Brand Name. 13. Banned on moderators conference. 14. Whole moderators thread deleted, with the exception of tenure posting. 15. Tenure read only request withdrawn. 16. 2K Anecdote (Assault Rifle Bullet and detonator.) Day 23 17. 4K Preface (Anecdote and Attachment description.) Day 24 18. 50K Attachment (Powder charge for shell with detonator.) Days 1 - 20 19. 600K Attachment (powder charge for bomb with detonator.) Days 21, 22 20. 50K postings pair, with 12 on-topic and 6 off-topic. Hydrogen bomb (2 shells with jacket of water; H2O) Days 25, 26 21. Odd configurations. (Landmine, boobytrap and armistice terms.) 22. Zip disc spanning. (Manual operation encryption technique.) Day 21, 22 23. Potential CD-Rom triology. 24. Astrophysics web-ring web site. 25. PI web-ring web site with software. 26. Web publisher for unpublished scientific works, including fringe. 27. Particle periodic table research project with results and software. 28. First Aid Tent for Spam Attack Victim Support Group. 29. Sesame Street beat Darth Vader twice. (1st and 2nd Battles of Cyberspace.) 30. To the victor the spoils; a web site built on them. (level 2 HTML) 31. Politics makes poor science. Tony Lance tonylance@big-bertha-thing.com Big Bertha Thing Christmas The Twelve Days of Christmas (see below) From a Charles Dickens Birthday Book The Langham Birthday Books Leopold B Hill, Langham Place, W. London. Compiled by B.W.Matz Printed in Great Britain by The Woodbridge Press Ltd., Guildford. Purchased for Christmas in 1921 Merry Christmas and a Blessed New Year to Mods and CP Conf. (C) Copyright Tony Lance 1997 To comply with my copyright please distribute complete and free of charge. The Twelve Days of Christmas December 18th May the green holly-tree flourish, striking its roots deep into our English ground, and having its germinating qualities carried by the birds of Heaven all over the world! The Holly Tree December 19th Seasonable tokens are about.... Lavish profusion in the shops; particularly in the articles of currants, raisins, spices, candied peel, and miost sugar. Edwin Drood December 20th Christmas was close at hand, in all his bluff and hearty honesty; it was the season of hospitality, merriment, and open heartedness. The Pickwick Papers December 21st And numerous indeed are the hearts to which Christmas brings a brief season of happiness and enjoyment.... How many old recollections, and how many dormant sympathies, does Christmas time awaken. The Pickwick Papers December 22nd It is good to be children sometimes, and never better than at Christmas, when its mighty Founder was a child Himself. A Christmas Carol December 23rd Christmas time! That man must be a misanthrope indeed in whose breast something like a jovial feeling is not roused-, in whose mind some pleasant associations are not awakened- by the reccurence of Christmas. Sketches by Boz December 24th I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year. I will live in the Past, the Present and the Future. The Spirits of all Three shall strive within me. I will not shut out the lessons that they teach. A Christmas Carol December 25th A Christmas family party! We know nothing in nature more delightful! There seems a magic in the very name of Christmas.... Would that Christmas lasted the whole year through! Sketches by Boz December 26th Let the benignant figure of my childhood stand unchanged! In every cheerful image and suggestion that the season brings, may the bright star that rested above the poor roof, be the star of all the Christian world. A Christmas Tree December 27th Another Christmas come, another year gone!... More figures in the lengthening sum of recollection that we work and work at to our torment, till death idly jumbles all together, and rules all out. The Haunted Man December 28th The windows of the house of Memory and the windows of the house of Mercy are not so easily closed as windows of glass and wood. They fly open unexpectedly; they rattle in the night. Somebody's Luggage December 29th Who seeks to turn him (Time) back, or stay him on his course, arrests a mighty engine, which will strike the meddler dead, and be the fiercer and the wilder, ever, for its momentary check! The Chimes |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.