Cadillac Owners Forum banner
7K views 34 replies 13 participants last post by  ktills45 
#1 ·
I wonder who would win a stick 3.6L CTS or a 3.5L Chrysler 300

The 300 has 250HP at 6400 rpm
The 3.6L CTS has 255HP at 6200 rpm

It should be a good race.
 
#2 ·
I would have to say the 3.6 only because, in my mind, Chrysler has never recovered from their crappy image of the past. You couldn't give me a Chrysler!!!:tisk: I was looking at a 300 today and it is a nice looking ride, really nice, but I am thinking the wheels will fall off or the thing will stall out only because it has the Chrysler name on it.
 
#6 ·
RobertCTS said:
The 3.6 beats everything in it's class. I think the engine is under rated and puts out more than advertized. I really dislike the huge grill on the 300. I'd buy a Dodge Magnum first..w/Hemi.
Unfortunately, I think the G35's 3.5L is faster, it makes 298hp :(
The Acura TL makes 270hp, it may be faster too, but it's wrong wheel drive.
 
#12 ·
The 300 with the 3.5L really is not a slow car, but one problem that has plagued it since its use in the last FWD 300M was the transmission. Not exactly a problematic piece, but known for sapping a TON of the power from the engine and not being the most efficient. I should know, since we used to have one--the engine really was great, but you could just tell it was being strangled by the old 4-spd. Back in '99 or '00, I remember even reading an article about how Chrysler engineers had gotten a ZF 5-spd auto and installed it in a 300M for testing and were amazed at how much it time it knocked off of acceleration tests and how much quicker the car felt altogether.

With some modification, they were able to carry that same transmission over to the new RWD cars with the 3.5L and the power robbing issue remains. It's about to be remedied, as Chrysler will soon be dropping this 4-spd in the next few months and replacing it across the board with the MB-designed 5-spd currently only in Hemi and AWD cars.

I was looking at a 300 today and it is a nice looking ride, really nice, but I am thinking the wheels will fall off or the thing will stall out only because it has the Chrysler name on it.
That's a REALLY dumb comment and while Chrysler did have issues before, it was quite long ago--the 300, for example, is built like a tank and has had virtually no issues at all in its first model year. Furthermore, at least it doesn't eat a rear differential 2 or 3 times a year like a CTS does..... :rolleyes2
 
#14 ·
joeyblaze said:
are cars really eat them that fast, or when u start to mod them?
My statement was based purely on the large amounts of owners in this own thread, most all with completely un-modded cars, who are on their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th rear differential. Not exactly a sign of high quality components, an argument I thought would be good to bring up when someone questioned the quality of a new Chrysler.... :thumbsup:
 
#15 ·
caddycruiser said:
My statement was based purely on the large amounts of owners in this own thread, most all with completely un-modded cars, who are on their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th rear differential. Not exactly a sign of high quality components, an argument I thought would be good to bring up when someone questioned the quality of a new Chrysler.... :thumbsup:
I don't think this Forum is a fair representation or test of CTS differential failures. You only hear about individuals who have had problems. How many have experienced no problems? Seldom do inviduals post things that are working well. That would be like me starting a thread about the excellent performance of my alternator. I would get zero comments.

I own a Dodge Magnum Hemi and 3.6 CTS and I think they are both well built cars and I have experienced not a single problem. Why are you in a CTS Forum when you don't own one and waving a Chrysler banner:hmm:
 
#16 · (Edited)
"the 300, for example, is built like a tank"

It looks like panzer too (let's hope it's built better, panzers, especially Panthers and Tigers, were notoriously unreliable), or a bunker on the Atlantic Wall. Every 300 owner should be given a Nazi helmet to wear while driving the thing and peering out the pillbox gunport slits that pass for windows.

I think the performence of the 300C is overstated by the car mags. Maybe they get ringers. Perhaps they simply lie.

Before I bought my CTS a couple of months ago I owned an 03 Crown Vic Sport with the 239 hp V-8, a nice motor. I raced another 55 year-old fart in a 300C and running up to 90 he only pulled me by a length. I expected him to walk away. And I know he was goosing it, my window was down I could plainly hear the strangled gasping of his chrome-tipped duals.

Now the Vic was a strong runner but not so strong as to make up a supposed 100hp difference. I suspect the Ford 4.6 is somewhat underrated and the Hemi somewhat overrated.
 
#17 ·
I don't think this Forum is a fair representation or test of CTS differential failures. You only hear about individuals who have had problems. How many have experienced no problems? Seldom do inviduals post things that are working well. That would be like me starting a thread about the excellent performance of my alternator. I would get zero comments.
very good point
 
#18 ·
Jon said:
lol it's not even close. The CTS with the 3.6L matted to the 5 speed auto runs 14.9 in the 1/4. The 6 speed will do a bit better.

the 300 with the 3.5L does 16.1 in the 1/4
exactly.. but what really seems like a close match would be 3.6L CTS vs 3.5L new Maxima (265 hp) or 3.2L Acura new TL (270 hp).. Anyone have any ideas on how the CTS will hold out against these cars? There both FWD so there's already an advantage for the CTS.
 
#19 ·
Irishtom said:
"the 300, for example, is built like a tank"

Before I bought my CTS a couple of months ago I owned an 03 Crown Vic Sport with the 239 hp V-8, a nice motor. I raced another 55 year-old fart in a 300C and running up to 90 he only pulled me by a length. I expected him to walk away. And I know he was goosing it, my window was down I could plainly hear the strangled gasping of his chrome-tipped duals.


Uh, sure... You must have the proverbial one in a million Crown Vic.:bonkers:

I can pull one of these with my PT Cruiser (Lite Turbo) without breaking a sweat. Our CTS is a nice little car &, imho a much prettier car, but our 300C cruises away from it at little more than half throttle (we're also on our third rear end assembly with the CTS) :(
 
#21 ·
"Uh, sure... You must have the proverbial one in a million Crown Vic.:bonkers:

I can pull one of these with my PT Cruiser (Lite Turbo) without breaking a sweat. Our CTS is a nice little car &, imho a much prettier car, but our 300C cruises away from it at little more than half throttle (we're also on our third rear end assembly with the CTS) :("

I'm more inclined to think you're the liar.
 
#22 ·
Irishtom said:
"Uh, sure... You must have the proverbial one in a million Crown Vic.:bonkers:

I can pull one of these with my PT Cruiser (Lite Turbo) without breaking a sweat. Our CTS is a nice little car &, imho a much prettier car, but our 300C cruises away from it at little more than half throttle (we're also on our third rear end assembly with the CTS) :("
:lies: First you say you have a crown vic that you raced against a 300, then you have a pt that could "pull on one of these without breaking a sweat" (i really don't know what car you are talking about).. then you say your 300c could pull on the CTS with only half throttle.

Sure a hemi could pull away from a 3.6L, but try doing that against a V. But if you think your PT could beat a CTS, I'll just roll it off a cliff and buy something else.
 
#23 ·
Irishtom said:
"Uh, sure... You must have the proverbial one in a million Crown Vic.:bonkers:

I can pull one of these with my PT Cruiser (Lite Turbo) without breaking a sweat. Our CTS is a nice little car &, imho a much prettier car, but our 300C cruises away from it at little more than half throttle (we're also on our third rear end assembly with the CTS) :("

I'm more inclined to think you're the liar.

Ah, believe what u will, my friend... :D But look out for the "real" 300C :confused:

I think ur most likely opponent was a 300 with the 2.7 v6...maybe the 3.5...

Whatever :) They're all good cars, but I sure wish GM would come up with a fix for the rear end... :(
 
#24 ·
Smokin' 04 CTS said:
:lies: First you say you have a crown vic that you raced against a 300, then you have a pt that could "pull on one of these without breaking a sweat" (i really don't know what car you are talking about).. then you say your 300c could pull on the CTS with only half throttle.

Sure a hemi could pull away from a 3.6L, but try doing that against a V. But if you think your PT could beat a CTS, I'll just roll it off a cliff and buy something else.

No, no - I'm saying the Cruiser'll pull the Crown Vic (the turbos are quick!)... Not the CTS - it's a leg up on my Crusier... And the 300C'll easily pull the CTS.

Granted, the CTSV is faster, but now Chrysler has come out with the SRT8 which hangs with the V...

Ah, life is good :coolgleam
 
#25 ·
"I think ur most likely opponent was a 300 with the 2.7 v6...maybe the 3.5..."

Nope, it was the Hemi, I know how to tell. The sixes my Vic would have beat, like it beat a FWD 300, to my surprise actually.

You know lots of guys know what should be or what's supposed to be. Less people can tell you what actually happened.
 
#26 ·
"No, no - I'm saying the Cruiser'll pull the Crown Vic (the turbos are quick!)..."

As rare as Vics with Sport or H&P packages are I kind'a doubt you ever raced one. A pal has a turbo Cruiser and it failed to impress.

Maybe the Chrysler was just a poor runner. It happens.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top