: Here's the 2012 Chrysler 300C



Lord Cadillac
11-04-10, 01:53 PM
I don't like the front at all. The sides are fine - not much of a change to me. I like the rear a lot... What do you think?

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2010/11/chrysler300c.b01.kgp.ed.jpg
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2010/11/chrysler300c.b07.kgp.ed.jpg
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2010/11/chrysler300c.b08.kgp.ed.jpg
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2010/11/chrysler300c.b12.kgp.ed.jpg

Jesda
11-04-10, 01:56 PM
Well, its an interesting way of making something nicer out of what you've got. The rear, however, looks like someone slapped some ebay tail lights on there.

The Tony Show
11-04-10, 01:59 PM
Considering nearly every 300 I see has been slathered with the entire JC Whitney catalog of stick-on chrome, I suspect most buyers will appreciate Chrysler saving them trouble of doing it themselves.

gary88
11-04-10, 02:10 PM
:ack:

ga_etc
11-04-10, 02:19 PM
Don't really care for it.

orconn
11-04-10, 02:37 PM
I have to say that the front view is an improvement over Jaguars latest XJ efforts, but the rest of the car is scarily (almost Identical) to the latest renditions of the Cadillac Fleetwood pictures in another thread in this Forum. And who says there isn't any original thinking (much less design) going on in the car world!

Let's see the tail lights are very reminiscent of late seventies, eigthies senior Oldsmobile tail lights. The Chrysler emblem on both the front and rear looks like a ripoff of the fifties Jaguar sedan mark emblem, wihich was a ripoff off the Lagonda emblem of the thirties! In the picture the the chrome window surrounds and door handles seem to counteract the hyper bottom heavy, Brinks armored car look of its' predecessor.

When I had lunch yesterday there was a Chrysler 300 parked next to my wife's '02 Seville, the contrast was extreme with the Seville lokking very good and the Chrysler looking like an amateurish interpretation of a cartoon car. I know it sold well for Chrysler, but the 300's design has not aged well.

Lord Cadillac
11-04-10, 02:38 PM
Minus the chrome in the taillights, I think the back looks very agressive.. The front just looks boring...

Jesda
11-04-10, 03:24 PM
Man, I agree with you on the emblem. It manages to be both loud and bland, like a parody of a parody, something you might see on a high-end Korean car. I didn't mind the previous winged ribbon:
http://www.cartype.com/pics/298/full/chrysler_wing.jpg

gdwriter
11-04-10, 04:47 PM
Considering nearly every 300 I see has been slathered with the entire JC Whitney catalog of stick-on chrome, I suspect most buyers will appreciate Chrysler saving them trouble of doing it themselves.:histeric: :histeric: :histeric:

Me no likey. The new emblem what another one? is lame as well. Not that I would ever consider buying a Chrysler product. Ever.

Stingroo
11-04-10, 04:52 PM
Emblem looks like a blatant ripoff of Aston Martin.

And does anyone else see obvious Audi knockoff of those headlights (minus where the LEDs are)?

They took an ugly, dated car... and somehow made it uglier. :ack:

ben.gators
11-04-10, 04:56 PM
Well, it is a Chrysler.... and no more comment is required!

ga_etc
11-04-10, 05:17 PM
Emblem looks like a blatant ripoff of Aston Martin.

And does anyone else see obvious Audi knockoff of those headlights (minus where the LEDs are)?

They took an ugly, dated car... and somehow made it uglier. :ack:

Yeah, I noticed a little Audi in the headlights too.
That last line I don't entirely agree with. The new one is ugly, yes. This:
http://s2.desktopmachine.com/pics/Chrysler_300C_82-1024.jpg
IS NOT. At least to me.

Stingroo
11-04-10, 05:20 PM
It gets old seeing them every day in V6 flavor, so to me they're an eyesore.

CIWS
11-04-10, 05:24 PM
Considering nearly every 300 I see has been slathered with the entire JC Whitney catalog of stick-on chrome, I suspect most buyers will appreciate Chrysler saving them trouble of doing it themselves.

:yeah: The front end looks Fiat vs Daimler

Jesda
11-04-10, 05:25 PM
SRT8 is a pretty impressive car, but yeah, all the 2.7L base model ex-rentals with cloth seats and 28" wheels dilute it.

orconn
11-04-10, 05:25 PM
Do the V-8s look different? I haven't noticed.

Jesda
11-04-10, 05:31 PM
300C gets a nicer grille, nicer wheels, different badging. There's an upgraded interior for the 300C and SRT as well. It visually takes the car from rental grade to imposing.

greencadillacmatt
11-04-10, 07:09 PM
I like the sides and rear of the new one, but I HATE the front end. It looks like someone squished it all down. The old front end looks imposing and powerful, not like this thing.

Playdrv4me
11-04-10, 07:15 PM
Great, yet another car with HUGE ass end syndrome. That rear is absolutely horrible. The front looks very Audi-ish and manages to tame that silly toilet bowl grille a bit. The original 300C was very imposing, but unfortunately when you come on THAT strong, you really can't go anywhere but backwards, much like the tamed down current Escalade versus the very aggressive original.

billc83
11-04-10, 07:43 PM
A $6 billion dollar bailout and all we get is this derivative blandness?

Have to love the new emblem, though. Associating Aston Martin with Chrysler is like associating Carmen Electra with a gorilla.

Lord Cadillac
11-04-10, 07:48 PM
This was my 2007 300C. I loved it.. I hated Chrysler service...

Bro-Ham
11-04-10, 08:44 PM
I like the new 2011 300, I'd buy one in a minute if I were in the market for a big car.

I really like the current series 300C as well, it's a particularly impressive car with such unique masculine styling, all-American big V8 performance, plus it doesn't cost an arm, leg, and major organ. I also find attractive on the current 2010 300C model the new Bentley-style mesh grille, and the car looks superb in the gentlemanly cordovan color. :)

V-Eight
11-04-10, 09:06 PM
Emblem looks like a blatant ripoff of Aston Martin.

And does anyone else see obvious Audi knockoff of those headlights (minus where the LEDs are)?



Yep I noticed that too. The back reminds me of that new Jag.

Stingroo
11-04-10, 09:15 PM
So wait.. Sal you loved your 300C, but you talk about interiors and such all the time. Even I realize the 300 is terrible for its price.

Does not compute.

Jesda
11-04-10, 09:27 PM
It drives nice though. I drove a 3.5 Touring years ago and enjoyed it. The carpeting was made of rat fur and the leather was basically used bubble gum stretched over some foam... but the mechanicals felt good. There's a rash of 4-5 year old 300s now with broken door handles. :/

I~LUV~Caddys8792
11-04-10, 09:32 PM
I myself think that overall it looks better than the original. I like the fact that it's lower, leaner looking than before. However, in details, it's all "mucked up". I think there's too many chrome strips, and it makes it look tacky and aftermarket. Chrysler definitely needs to take a few lessons from the team at Ingolstadt when it comes to limiting chrome trim on their cars and still emphasizing their size.

Bro-Ham
11-04-10, 10:04 PM
I think for an American car it is really good. :)

ThumperPup
11-04-10, 10:19 PM
looks like they keep tryign to nock of bently with that 300 lol

Bro-Ham
11-04-10, 11:53 PM
Forget Bentley, this new Chrysler 300C is the closest thing we have to the all-American luxury cars that we could only hope GM could make.

See some similarities? http://www.lov2xlr8.no/brochures/olds/77ol/bilder/5.jpg

Yes, Chad, lots of chrome - I love it! :)

EChas3
11-05-10, 12:09 AM
I'm not a fan. We rented one once. OK - B-?

I even think the STS is too high-waisted, but not so much.

Bro-Ham
11-05-10, 12:17 AM
If you ask me the 2011 300C looks 10,000 million times better than a 2011 DTS. Plus, it's rear drive. Why can't Cadillac make their big car exciting?! :)

orconn
11-05-10, 12:22 AM
I don't get the supposedly "agressive" look of the Chrysler 300. I admit when it first came out I thought it was "interesting" but having seen it around for awhile I just think it looks "dorky." It looks like a cartoon car that should be armor plated with little underworld figures riding around in it!

I also agree with EChas that the STS is too high waisted, but I'd live with it!

Bro-Ham
11-05-10, 12:37 AM
Is the sts even still made? :)

I~LUV~Caddys8792
11-05-10, 12:40 AM
The 300 would look a lot better if it wasn't so high waisted, and if it had a longer hood and trunk.

Bro-Ham
11-05-10, 12:51 AM
I think it looks wayyyyy better than a Hyunday V8 car. Or even a Merceces E-class. Plus it is a car that lots of people can attain without putting off retirement for 5 more years. Give Chrysler a pat on the back for continuing rear drive and BIG V8. Where are the cocktails!?! :)

orconn
11-05-10, 12:52 AM
Yeah, otherwise that little Russian guy from the "Bullwinkle" cartoon series should be the cars spokes person!

Bro-Ham
11-05-10, 12:56 AM
Orr, sometimes I think you're speaking Russian, especially with your broken non-spell checked posts. I'm getting older, you're old, what the hell are you talking about? :)

gdwriter
11-05-10, 01:54 AM
Yeah, otherwise that little Russian guy from the "Bullwinkle" cartoon series should be the cars spokes person!


Orr, sometimes I think you're speaking Russian, especially with your broken non-spell checked posts. I'm getting older, you're old, what the hell are you talking about? :)It's Boris and Natasha plotting big trouble for moose and squirrel:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKqc76dRT48

Playdrv4me
11-05-10, 01:58 AM
I think it looks wayyyyy better than a Hyunday V8 car. Or even a Merceces E-class. Plus it is a car that lots of people can attain without putting off retirement for 5 more years. Give Chrysler a pat on the back for continuing rear drive and BIG V8. Where are the cocktails!?! :)

Hmm. No, the Equus puts this to shame still.

Bro-Ham
11-05-10, 02:08 AM
I've never been to Korea. Can't say I want to road trip there either. I don't have any Korean neighbors...yet. :)

Jailtime
11-05-10, 02:13 AM
Hmmm, they took the old 300C and added an ugly front end. The rear looks a bit like a Bentley, I guess to reinforce the 300Cs rep as the reigning baller-mobile. And those chrome mirrors - gawd awful.

77CDV
11-05-10, 03:45 AM
Front end of a Hyundai, side treatment of a Benz, and a rear that screams "I wanna be a Bentley!!!!". What a schizo car! Design by committee if ever I saw it.

ThumperPup
11-05-10, 11:52 AM
When the 300 first came out in the big body style after the 300m when we first saw the c i loved it i saw one at avis just driving buy and i said you know what i have free points i can rent it for a weekend
so i did rented it for a weekend it was a 2004 or 2005 i think
took it out to TN and back for the weekend loved it

but the only thing that kept me from buying a chrysler was the fact that every single chrysler i have ever owned has needed a tranmision at around 80k to a 100k and even if i made it past the power train warranty right after i past it i was betting on it going

thats why i stoped with lincolns also
the ones i owned always left town at about 115k

so when the seville tranny lasted to 163k i was preaty damm happy

drewsdeville
11-05-10, 12:05 PM
Of the big three, I'd have to agree that GM by far makes the best feeling and most durable transmissions.

In fact, don't other high end manufacturers use GM designs? I believe the BMW 1, 3, 5 series as well as their SUV's use GM transmissions (or, at least, in the past). I'm pretty sure even Ferrari borrowed from GM from time to time, but not 100% positive about that.

mhamilton
11-05-10, 01:08 PM
The previous 300 front end looked vaguely like a copy of the old Mercedes front end. This new one looks like a copy of a Hyundai... which was a bad copy of the Mercedes E class from a few years ago. Yuck.

Jesda
11-05-10, 01:35 PM
Of the big three, I'd have to agree that GM by far makes the best feeling and most durable transmissions.

In fact, don't other high end manufacturers use GM designs? I believe the BMW 1, 3, 5 series as well as their SUV's use GM transmissions (or, at least, in the past). I'm pretty sure even Ferrari borrowed from GM from time to time, but not 100% positive about that.

Damn right. Nothing shifts like a Hydramatic.

orconn
11-05-10, 01:44 PM
The Hydramatic transmisssion is one of the reasons that when I bought American ... I bought GM!

drewsdeville
11-05-10, 01:45 PM
Damn right. Nothing shifts like a Hydramatic.

Yet another innovation that Oldsmobile was largely responsible for, far superior to everything else, even within GM's own lineup.

Between the Hydramatic and the OHV V8, both of which the auto industry has been in debt to for over half of a century, where would the auto industry be today if it Oldsmobile never existed?

Lord Cadillac
11-05-10, 04:47 PM
I LOVED the exterior and LOVED the power. I was OKAY with the interior because it was roomy and comfortable.. Otherwise, it was kinda cheap inside and the service was absolutely terrible.. I didn't think it was expensive at all.


So wait.. Sal you loved your 300C, but you talk about interiors and such all the time. Even I realize the 300 is terrible for its price.

Does not compute.

Playdrv4me
11-05-10, 11:38 PM
Of the big three, I'd have to agree that GM by far makes the best feeling and most durable transmissions.

In fact, don't other high end manufacturers use GM designs? I believe the BMW 1, 3, 5 series as well as their SUV's use GM transmissions (or, at least, in the past). I'm pretty sure even Ferrari borrowed from GM from time to time, but not 100% positive about that.

Those BMW-ized GM transmission are amongst the absolute BEST shifting automatics on the PLANET. In fact, in most reviews, the E46 3 series is one of the few cars where the auto is PREFERRED to the stick-shift. They come from some GM transmission plant in France. They also concurrently used ZF automatics in the E46 and those are not nearly as durable.

SDCaddyLacky
11-06-10, 09:06 AM
GM has always built great reliable transmissions over the years. The TH400 is obviously the best one ever. All the Cadillacs, Buick, Chev's, and Olds all had bullet proof drive trains, the 472 and TH400 was a solid combo in the 70's for Cad. Those things never broke down.

Back to the 300. I'm sorry, but Chrysler has completely ruined the 300 with this redesign. It's totally obvious that the front end is a rip off of an Audi, (Come ON!) the grill is nowhere near as bold as last years, it looks soft now. The rear end is over done in plastic chrome, too much if you ask me. It does look like the tail lights came from a cheesy aftermarket supplier. I guess this is where the auto industry is going, which is SOFT, and feminine.

Art Tidesco
11-06-10, 09:54 AM
Looks like it's slipping the way of the Lancia Thema/Thesis vehicles, complete obscurity here in the UK :-)

drewsdeville
11-06-10, 10:10 AM
The rear end is over done in plastic chrome, too much if you ask me. It does look like the tail lights came from a cheesy aftermarket supplier. I guess this is where the auto industry is going, which is SOFT, and feminine.

But that's the "in" thing. Like someone stated earlier, a pretty high percentage of 300's on the road got the aftermarket treatment anyway. Chrysler just made things more convenient by adding it from the factory.

Another way in which the public has spoken. Apparently, Chrysler is listening.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
11-06-10, 10:13 AM
Chrysler has always been good about giving the public the designs and models they want. They have the best reputation for making a really sweet looking show car, and then not watering it down at all before it gets to the public.

The Viper, PT Cruiser, Prowler, Challenger, Charger, 300C, etc etc. They all follow this trend.

Stingroo
11-06-10, 10:16 AM
Well, except the Viper isn't slow.

And the Charger is an abomination - whoever "asked" for that in the public should be shot. Multiple times. The rest of those though, I'd agree. I still think the Prowler would have benefited from a V8. It was limited production anyway - why not stuff a 360 under the hood and tune it to be a little less truck-y?



(Oh, sorry - this is 2010, nobody knows what a cubic inch is anymore... I meant 5.9)

Actually, the 6.1 would have been interesting too... too bad I don't think it was around at that time.

ThumperPup
11-06-10, 10:20 AM
Damn right. Nothing shifts like a Hydramatic.

hydramatic ok maybe im nto understand never hear that word before is it what our trannys our ?

Playdrv4me
11-06-10, 11:06 AM
Well, except the Viper isn't slow.

And the Charger is an abomination - whoever "asked" for that in the public should be shot. Multiple times. The rest of those though, I'd agree. I still think the Prowler would have benefited from a V8. It was limited production anyway - why not stuff a 360 under the hood and tune it to be a little less truck-y?



(Oh, sorry - this is 2010, nobody knows what a cubic inch is anymore... I meant 5.9)

Actually, the 6.1 would have been interesting too... too bad I don't think it was around at that time.

LOL, I hope the majority on this forum can still distinguish between displacement in cubes and liters.

That said, I still have yet to get myself a 5.9 Limited Grand Cherokee. I need to mark that off the list at some point.

Stingroo
11-06-10, 11:10 AM
Those are really nice. Seems like something you'd have owned already, actually....

gdwriter
11-06-10, 04:56 PM
hydramatic ok maybe im nto understand never hear that word before is it what our trannys our ?When automatics were first introduced, they all had their own brand names. I don't know them all, but here are most of them:

Hydra-Matic: Oldsmobile, Cadillac, Pontiac
Dynaflow: Buick
Powerglide: Chevrolet
Jetaway: Oldsmobile
Rotoway: Pontiac
Turbo-Hydra-Matic: GM

Ford-O-Matic: Ford (duh)
Merc-O-Matic: Mercury (duh again)
Cruise-O-Matic: FoMoCo

TorqueFlight: Mopar

Flash-O-Matic: AMC

Toyoglide: Toyota (another duh)
Hondamatic: Honda (one more duh)

I~LUV~Caddys8792
11-06-10, 06:23 PM
LOL, I hope the majority on this forum can still distinguish between displacement in cubes and liters.

That said, I still have yet to get myself a 5.9 Limited Grand Cherokee. I need to mark that off the list at some point.

I'm honestly surprised you haven't bought one of those yet. You always talked about how great they were, and they are. I'll admit that's really the only Jeep I've ever wanted. I was seriously considering one too, before I bought the Mercedes, but then I read about how unreliable they are and how they eat through transmissions, transfer cases and differentials and then decided against it. Still though, in 1998, they were the fastest SUV's on the market, and aside from the GMC Typhoon, one of the fastest SUV's of all time, atleast in '98.

skippydts
11-06-10, 07:07 PM
Well, I like the 2011 and 2012... They made some nice interior changes starting in 2011. I must say the base models are not that exciting on the inside. I would need the higher end one

TulsaVic
11-06-10, 09:12 PM
The Hydramatic transmisssion is one of the reasons that when I bought American ... I bought GM!

About the only thing I dislike about my Caddy's powertrain is the transmission. 1 -2 shifts are neck jerking (apparently a peculiarity of the Performance model). And there's like zero engine braking even when you downshift. My '05 300C's transmission was superior in both respects.

RightTurn
11-06-10, 09:19 PM
Considering nearly every 300 I see has been slathered with the entire JC Whitney catalog of stick-on chrome, I suspect most buyers will appreciate Chrysler saving them trouble of doing it themselves.

:golfclap: IMO, it looks like ass. Pretty much no change.

77CDV
11-06-10, 11:46 PM
You forgot Packard's Ultramatic. Then again, few people under 60 remember Packard at all.


When automatics were first introduced, they all had their own brand names. I don't know them all, but here are most of them:

Hydra-Matic: Oldsmobile, Cadillac, Pontiac
Dynaflow: Buick
Powerglide: Chevrolet
Jetaway: Oldsmobile
Rotoway: Pontiac
Turbo-Hydra-Matic: GM

Ford-O-Matic: Ford (duh)
Merc-O-Matic: Mercury (duh again)
Cruise-O-Matic: FoMoCo

TorqueFlight: Mopar

Flash-O-Matic: AMC

Toyoglide: Toyota (another duh)
Hondamatic: Honda (one more duh)

orconn
11-07-10, 12:38 AM
I'd venture a quess you'd have to 65 to remember Packard at all. I was 12 when the last "real" Packard was produced. The only reason I have clear memories of Packards was because my Dad had a '40 Touring sedan and a 1950 Custom Eight, and one of my best friend's dad had a 1955 Patrician sedan. I do remember hearing about owners being unhappt with the "Ultramatic" automatice transmission, But I also remember the Buick "Dynaflow" being even worse. The Olds and Cadillac Hydramatics were the best even in the early fifties.

Aron9000
11-07-10, 02:02 AM
Well the new 300c looks like a Hyundized version of the old model.:ack:

The one thing I really didn't like about the old car was the real slab sided doors, small windows thing. It looks cool, but feels kind of clausterphobic inside. I was hoping they'd give it a more upright look with a larger greenhouse this time, NOPE!!!

billc83
11-07-10, 07:03 AM
A quick aside regarding transmissions:

Cadillac transmissions were considered of such high quality back in the day (I forget if it was the 60s or 70s), that ROLLS-ROYCE used to put them in their cars. However, after getting the first batch, they opened up and inspected the transmission innards, finding all sorts of repulsive gunk. "This is not the quality Rolls-Royce expects" and they went through and painstakingly cleaned out the transmissions. Rolls-Royces afterwards shifted like crap, and they went to Cadillac claiming faulty transmissions. "Cadillac owners are satisfied, we are experiencing no problems. Are you doing anything with the transmissions after getting them?" Turns out the cleaning process was ruining the transmissions; RR stopped doing it and their cars stopped having the problems.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
11-07-10, 10:04 AM
Yeah, Rolls Royce used the THM-400 for quite a while. They also used the DELCO radios too during the '80s. It always cracked me up to see the same radio in your '84 Celebrity in an '84 Silver Spur.