This comparison keeps coming up around here, so here are the numbers to fuel the debate (all numbers taken from Motor Trend when possible):


First the V8 offerings from the two:

Chrysler 300C (5.7L Hemi V8)
5 speed auto-stick
340 hp @ 5000 rpm
390 ft. lbs. of torque @ 4000 rpm
0-60 in 5.8 seconds (6.3 man. est.)
1/4 mile: 14.27 @ 102mph
130 mph top speed
EPA: 17/25

4,018 lbs.
60-0 Braking: 122 ft.
70-0 braking: 184ft.
700' slalom 63.2 mph
300ft. skidpad: 0.77g
Base MSRP: $33,495

Cadillac CTS-V (5.7L LS6 V8)
6 spd Manual w/o FG2 sport package
400 hp @ 6000 rpm
395 ft. lbs. of torque @ 4800 rpm
0-60 in 5.1 seconds (4.7 man. est.)
1/4 mile: 13.48 @ 105.33 mph
163 mph top speed
EPA: 16/25

3,949 lbs.
60-0 Braking: 115 ft.
70-0 Braking: 165 ft.
700’ Slalom: 65 mph
300 ft. skidpad: 0.90g
Base MSRP: $50,690

Do you think a 300C should be compared to a DTS? Aren't they more similar than a CTS to the 300C because of the full-size class? I still think the 300C is a great bargain, and I wouldn't say "NO" to one. Sure the V kicks a$$, but that may not be a fair comparison?

The CTS isn't as small as you think. That's a common misconception.
I do agree that the 300 is more of the STS size though, but I keep hearing people compare it to the CTS. I'll pull out some STS numbers for the next thread.

300 Exterior
Length.............................196.8 in.
Width...............................74.1 in.
Height..............................58.4 in.
Wheel Base.........................120 in.

CTS Exterior
Length.............................190.1 in.
Width................................70.6 in.
Height................................56.7 in.
Wheel Base........................113.4 in.

300 Interior
Front Headroom..................38.7 in.
Rear Headroom....................38 in.
Front Shoulder Room.............59.4 in.
Rear Shoulder Room..............57.7 in.
Front Hip Room....................57.1 in.
Rear Hip Room......................55.9 in.
Front Leg Room....................41.8 in.
Rear Leg Room.....................40.2 in.

CTS Interior
Front Headroom.....................38.9 in.
Rear Headroom......................36.9 in.
Front Shoulder Room...............56.6 in.
Rear Shoulder Room................56.2 in.
Front Hip Room......................53.4 in.
Rear Hip Room........................53.8 in.
Front Leg Room......................42.4 in.
Rear Leg Room........................36.2 in.

True, I guess it has become a stereotype that the CTS is Corolla'ish in size when it isn't. I expected the CTS to have more headroom than the hunkered down 300. I sat in a black Touring 300 on Thursday and was impressed with the roominess inside, as well as the seating position. The thing that blows me away on the 300 is the wheelbase. Those are 1970's numbers!

15.6 cu. ft of luggage capacity for the 300, how does the CTS fair in this department?

Do you think a 300C should be compared to a DTS? Aren't they more similar than a CTS to the 300C because of the full-size class? I still think the 300C is a great bargain, and I wouldn't say "NO" to one. Sure the V kicks a$$, but that may not be a fair comparison?
Maybe a comparison to the STS-v when it comes out would work better..

Yeah, that's a long wheel base! Wow...

...
Base MSRP: $33,495
...
Base MSRP: $50,690

K.O.

Although I'd probably wait and pick up a SRT-8 300 when they come along.

Yeah, that's a long wheel base! Wow...

I suppose it helps with it's ride quality. The 300C that I drove was admittedly smoother in a straight line than anything else I had ever driven from that company. Of course, that extra long wheelbase does make it harder to slide into a parking space gracefully... (although on second thought, you guys with DeVilles and Fleetwoods aren't likely to complain)

Turning Circle
Chrysler 300..............38.9 ft.
Cadillac CTS..............35.5 ft.

I'll take the Chrysler! Unless I am going out to drag race stop light to stop light every schmendrick on the highway, I think overall the 300C would be an easier car to live with. It's was said above that someone found it to be the smoothest riding Chrysler product in a long time, however, I doubt very very much that it would be as smooth as my friend's 2004 Chrysler Concorde Limited !

the cadillac is better in all models than the 300. period!
com'on its the cadillac of cars!! lol

As for the 300's looks, if I'd wanted a Checker Marathon, I would have bought one in the '50s,'60's,'70's, or '80's. They all lookked the same, UGLY! Just like the 300! :annoyed:

My fathers friends 300C drove great........definently the best driving car I have driven in ever.......power wise....and refinment wise......Its interior quality was way higher then I could have imagined and im not one for Chrysler products (besides viper)....(Randy should know this:)) Overall the Chrylser has to be one of the easiest High Power cars to live with......its like a C5 corvette.......luxury when you want and muscle car when you slam it.

Id have to admit though........While I really like the 300, I dont feel that it will age that well compared to the caddy's..........like the PTcruiser.

My fathers friends 300C drove great........definently the best driving car I have driven in ever.......power wise....and refinment wise....

The best? Ever?
You live a deprived life. That's all I have to say.








:p

While I really like the 300, I dont feel that it will age that well compared to the caddy's..........like the PTcruiser.

Next person to compare the 300C to the PT Cruiser will get backhanded.

The last time that I heard people this interested in a Chrysler, it was when the PT Cruiser came out... and we all know how well that has been doing lately...



<ducks and runs>

The last time that I heard people this interested in a Chrysler, it was when the PT Cruiser came out

Looks like Chrysler has a winner on their hands, as hard as that is for some to swallow. ;) PTs are junk IMO, and any car that get 1 star for frontal impact, well, they can keep it. However the 300 is different, and I think large, powerful cars like these will not just be a flash in the pan fad, they will keep interest for a long while. I think what you get for the price (300) is what impresses many people. Perhaps Cadillac should offer a bargain Caddy to compete, unless they lower the price of the CTS?

Really I do not understand 300C to CTS,
A Bonneville GXP with the North Star engine is the same size and cost
From an early post

In Canada the Bonneville SE bases at $34,500 and the GXP base with the Northstar is $46,200
The 300 base $31,500 and the 300C base $44,220
This would be a fair between car of the same price and size


300c GXP
Engine displacement 5.7L 4.6L

Engine horsepower 340hp @ 5,000RPM 275hp @ 5,600RPM

Engine torque 390ft.lbs. @ 4,000RPM 300ft.lbs. @ 4,000RPM

Engine bore x stroke 99.6mm x 90.9mm (3.92" x 3.58") 93.0mm x 84.0mm (3.66" x 3.31")

Compression ratio 9.60 to 1 1 0.00 to 1

Max. towing capacity when properly equipped 907kg (2,000lbs) 454kg (1,001lbs)

Exterior length 4,999mm (196.8") 5,146mm (202.6")

Exterior body width 1,882mm (74.1") b1,885mm (74.2")

Exterior height 1,483mm (58.4") 1,438mm (56.6")

Wheelbase 3,048mm (120.0") 2,850mm (112.2")

Front legroom 1,061mm (41.8") 1,082mm (42.6")

Rear legroom 1,021mm (40.2") 965mm (38.0")

Front headroom 983mm (38.7") 983mm (38.7")

Rear headroom 965mm (38.0") 947mm (37.3")

Front hiproom 1,450mm (57.1") 1,415mm (55.7")

Rear hiproom 1,419mm (55.9") 1,433mm (56.4")

Front shoulder room 1,508mm (59.4") 1,499mm (59.0")

Rear shoulder room 1,465mm (57.7") 1,483mm (58.4")

Passenger volume 3,018L (106.6 cu.ft.) b2,939L (103.8 cu.ft.)


Campare the # from Autodata and you can see from price point and size the 300 should be compared to the Bonneville andnot CTS and STS.


Why do people compare an 300 to CTS please tel me WHY?

I agree with the above post, Cadillac doesnt really have a direct 300C competitor, and at 50 large for the only way to get a V8, the 300C looks better on paper at least.

The best? Ever?
You live a deprived life. That's all I have to say.



Dont take it wrong.....lol.....Ive driven Benzes, we have a Bimmer......and Ive driven Q45's........and when I say the best Ive driven Im really saying it in a comparative manner....meaning price....amenities....way it drives for its price all gets into the equation......its alot of car for the money....and its the best example of that...ive ever driven......remember im only 16 too.....so i dont get to drive expensive cars everday.

Next person to compare the 300C to the PT Cruiser will get backhanded.


Do you like it that much???? HAHAHA..............im just sayin that people could car less about the PTCruiser now.......and it was the hit back then........I think the 300 will age just like it.......it'll have a following but the majority of the public will quit noticing it after a couple.

Have you guys gotten the new car & driver?????? It compares the Crown Vic (of all cars) against the bonny V8......and the 300C...........it ends by claiming the 300 the victor by far.......and they really beat down on the bonny because of its highest as tested price and crappy interior.

Out of those three, I agree that the 300C is the hands down winner. The Crown Victoria has to be one of the most archaic cars on the road today, and the Bonneville suffers from being FWD (and a Pontiac :p ) which even the fabled Northstar isn't going to fix (and is 10 year old Northstar technology really that impressive anymore?). To compete with the 300C in my opinion, it would need RWD and the 320hp VVT N* at the very least.

As for the comparison, I completely agree that the 300 shouldn't be compared to the CTS. But it keeps happening.

Anyone have the numbers from the last Road&Track (I seem to have misplaced mine) where they compare the V6 versions of the CTS and the 300?

The 3.6L VVT V6 CTS comes out way ahead of the 300 V6.

The 3.2L V6 (base engine) CTS could probably outrun the base V6 300 in reverse. That one does 0-60 in over 10 seconds. There are full size farm trucks that would give it problems.

The only 300 worth buying in my opinion is the Hemi C version. Without that engine, it loses much of it's charm. In premium mode, the 300 is the best bang you can get for the buck, the rest of the lineup is just 'more of the same' from Chrysler.

Agree totally......as the CTS to 300.....well alot of buyers look at looks and price only....those are the ones that compare them.....

Agree also on the 300C......the base model should be droped.....with the concorde taking its place.....Chrysler is a tad more upscale then other american companies such as Chevy/Ford/Mercury............and by having that crappy 2.7 in the engine bay it takes away from the guy who has a 5.7.

*backhands gothicaleigh*

Do you like it that much???? HAHAHA..............im just sayin that people could car less about the PTCruiser now.......and it was the hit back then........I think the 300 will age just like it.......it'll have a following but the majority of the public will quit noticing it after a couple.

I like the 300, I violently despise the PT cruiser. There are few cars that make me wince when I see them on the road, but the PT Cruiser is the worst. The ONLY thing PT had going for it was styling (and not everyone liked it), other than that it was an expensive, cramped neon with a differant ass. The 300 has less extreme styling and alot more than just styling going for it.

the only thing that makes the 300C better is RWD. the base price for the 300C w/o the hemi is 23k. thats less than half of what the CTS costs. and not everybody races their cars and need big engines. and the 300C has a lot more interior room. of course chrysler will always be the wanna be Cadillac. but i would much rather have the chrysler (until Cadillac goes back the rear wheel drive, thats what in 08?)

the only thing that makes the 300C better is RWD. the base price for the 300C w/o the hemi is 23k. thats less than half of what the CTS costs. and not everybody races their cars and need big engines. and the 300C has a lot more interior room. of course chrysler will always be the wanna be Cadillac. but i would much rather have the chrysler (until Cadillac goes back the rear wheel drive, thats what in 08?)

I don't know how to break the news to you, but the CTS is REAR WHEEL DRIVE!!!!!!!!!! :bighead:

I would like everyone to take a second and look at weight. Somethin tells me that 300C is much heavier than the CTS.

Chrysler 300 - 3721 lbs.
Chrysler 300C - 4046 lbs.

Cadillac CTS 3.6L - 3694 lbs.
Cadillac CTS-V - 3847 lbs.

As for the difference in performance?
Remember that the CTS has 5 gears to the 300's 4, and puts out a decent amount of more horse when compared V8 to V8 and V6 to V6.
Also, the Sigma chassis is one of the most advanced in the world. No surprise on the handling difference.

the only thing that makes the 300C better is RWD.

As mentioned above, the CTS is RWD.

The base price for the 300C w/o the hemi is 23k. Thats less than half of what the CTS costs.

The base V6 300 doesn't have enough power to get out of it's own way. The CTS starts at about $30k for a base model and goes to around $43k. Hardly 'less than half'.
The only way you can get less than half is if you consider the CTS-V price, but for it's $50k, you're getting 3 times the car of the base 300.

But i would much rather have the chrysler (until Cadillac goes back the rear wheel drive, thats what in 08?)

:suspect:
How about 1997. That's when the Catera came out in RWD.
2003 - CTS in RWD
2004 - XLR and SRX in RWD
2005 - STS in RWD
2008 - DTS in RWD

the new caddies are to small for me. i only drive big body rwd cars. thats just how i like em. i guess i didnt pay attention to the CTS being rwd. and Cateras are too small.

My next car will probably be either a CTS-V or a 300C SRT-8. I think this is a fair comparison because they are both V8 RWD high performance 4 door sedans that are likely to be similarly priced.

I currently drive an '03 CTS with the lux/sport package. I like the car very much. The looks have grown on me, but the ride and handling are really great for what the car is.

I rented a 300C for 3 days two weeks ago and was very impressed. The car accelerated well, though did not feel as quick as I had hoped. It also drove very well for such a big car. It felt tied to the road, but again not as much as I had hoped. In one of the recent car mags, the author of the article complained that the car was a bit too harsh or stiff. I don't see that at all and wish that it were more so. It did not feel at all as athletic as my CTS. I could not feel what it was doing as easily. Also, there was a kind of rubbery feel to the car as it went over uneven pavement. Going over similar pavement, the CTS transmits more harshness, but to me in a good way. I feel like I know exactly what the CTS is doing and where the limit is. I am hoping that the SRT-8 version of the car feels much better.

The 300C felt much much larger inside and much more high end. To me, the interior is a lot classier looking than my CTS. I say that based on visual impact and on the feel of the surfaces. Also, the 300C had a lot more electronic toys such as bluetooth. I think also just the size and space of the interior gave it a more expensive feel.

I also like the exterior styling of the 300C SRT-8 better than the CTS-V. I like them both a lot, but there is just something about the SRT-8 that just grabs me.

I test drove a CTS-V a few days ago too. It really impressed me too. The ride and handling compromise I think is perfect for the type of car that it is. It does a superb job of making me feel in control of the car. At the same time it rides much smoother than a BMW M3 (which I have also test driven). Add to that the punch of the engine and wow! Acceleration wise, it felt very strong, to the point of being explosive or scary if you don't watch it.

My toy is a '99 Viper. I enjoy that car very much and drive it strictly for fun. The CTS handling and acceleration are no comparison to it, but if I HAD to drive the Viper every day...... it would get old in a hurry.

My daily commute is through a major city. It is nearly all freeway. In the morning it is 30 to 80+ mph. On the way home however, you never know what you will get. I can generally plan on at least 2 to 3 days per week of stop and go sub 10 mph traffic for at least 30 minutes one way. Driving a stick in this type of traffic gets to be a real pain after a few weeks. Is there any talk of an automatic CTS-V coming out?

So.... CTS-V or 300C SRT-8?

In summary:

300C SRT-8 plusses over CTS-V (for me):
More room inside
More luxury
Higher quality feel
Auto trans option
Exterior looks
425 hp 6.1L Hemi (I have a soft spot for Mopars)

CTS-V plusses over 300C SRT-8 (for me):
Superior ride and handling balance (making an assuption here)
Superior handling
Manual trans fun factor for times other than stop and go traffic
Lighter weight
More manuverable car (I have to parallel park a lot)
More of a young man's car image
Superior chassis
Superior fit and finish
It is a Cadillac (the name now has value to me again)
400 hp LS6 (which to me is more attractive than an LS2)

About three years after purchase the 300C will be a lot less attractive, as the squeaks and rattles show up! ;)

I am cross-shopping the STS V8 and the 300C. The STS has a higher quality interior. The 300, because it starts at $25K with a V6, is much plainer inside. However, the 300C has more room and it seems to ride a little bit better that the STS. For $35,000, you get a roomier car that performs quite well. The 300C is currently in vogue, so re-sale should be OK. I don't see how I can go wrong with the 300C.

Can you talk me out of it? :o

The 300 looks cooler than the CTS on the outside(it almost looks like it could be a replacement for the Deville) but so does the Ford 500. The point is, its still a Chrysler (which falls into the category of Dodge, Jeep, etc, crappy cars...)

So buy it now, but when it falls apart in a couple of years, you will have wished you had the CTS ;)

Can you talk me out of it? :o

I like the 300, but not over a new STS! You will become bored with the 300 interior and limited options IMO. With Cadillac you are getting 102 years of proven tradition, prestige, image that no Chrysler can touch. With Cadillac you are getting state of the art technology and design that is years ahead of its time. Cadillac offers options like heated and ventilated seats, keyless entry and go, air ride shocks, one of the quietest cars thanks to double laminated windshield to reduce wind noise, a closed cell accoustic blanket moulded into the instrument panal wall to reduce engine noise, an extremely rigid steel and magnesium platform that allows better ride and handling and vibration free driving, use of aluminum in certain suspension components for better handling, proven Northstar technology! Sometimes it's the little touches that go a long way for quality.

With the 300C in the end all you are getting is a big RWD car with an unproven hemi. Now you have to ask youself, do you want to be like everbody else or do you want to drive a Cadillac.

EDIT: I now realize it is the CTS you are comparing, not STS, but most of what I said can still apply. My mistake. Oh well, food for thought. :shhh:

Look at the beautiful woman in my avatar, do you really think she would want to be seen in a Dodge when she could be riding in Cadillac style? ;)

Does that justify an extra 20+ grand? Is it worth more than 1/2 the cost of the car?

That's what you have to ask if you're thinking of buying one or the other.

Does that justify an extra 20+ grand? Is it worth more than 1/2 the cost of the car?

That's what you have to ask if you're thinking of buying one or the other.

Don't get me wrong Dave, I like the 300 just fine and it seems like a good bargain, but it isn't a Cadillac. Advanced technology costs money, and that's what you are getting with our cars. Cadillac has always been at the forefront with new offerings and tech gadgets IMO. Plus, the 300 doesn't have a wreath and crest on the grille. ;) If no one cared for true luxury, then Lincoln buyers would settle for the Grand Marquis, etc. Same goes for Cadillac. We could all live happily with an Impala, or Buick, but it's really not the same thing.

I didn't buy the 300 today. I might drive the STS again tomorrow. The CTS is too small for me. I enjoy car shopping, but it can be a pain, especially when it comes time to writing the check. :drinker

Since you're considering "inferior" luxary cars :p might i suggest looking at the new Ford 500???

I don't know if the Ford 500 is out yet in my area. I would like to see it, but I don't think it has much power or offers true luxury. Hopefully, there will be a Lincoln version with a V8.

LOVE my new car and never had a problem with the CTS. I was just Horsepower hungry :chill: took a long look at the CTSV and 300C Hemi. That 300C with a 340HP HEMI was too good of a deal to pass up, lots of CAR for the MONEY. :sneaky:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a23/HEMIBYU/DSC01316.jpg

Whatever model is chosen to compare the cars I always vote for Cadillac .