: Chrysler 300 Vs Classic Modern Cadillacs



SDCaddyLacky
12-10-10, 06:16 AM
Have any of you driven any of the newer 300's? And if so, how would you compare it to your Classic 80-96 Fleetwood and Brougham's? Just curious to know, since earlier today I rolled up next to one, the dude had like 23's on it, all black, it was super clean, but the guy literally broke his neck checking out my Cad. I know the Fleetwoods are much bigger and more imposing than the 300's, but what about how they ride, the comfort level and overall nicety of the car. Because I was thinking about buying a used one. I want to know if it's better than the Fleetwood, since I kinda want something newer to drive, so I can save on gas and put less stress on Caddy as a daily driver since the miles are getting high on it. I also like how they look, and even willing to get the V6 to save on gas.

Whatcha guys think?

albymangled
12-10-10, 07:33 AM
I really liked the 300's when they first came out but the more I look at one now the more I think the styling is a little "unfinished" like they ran out of ideas three quarters of the way through the job, like the stylists were told "ok, pencils down, let's see what you've got" and that was it.

I've seen some rolling round Adelaide with big wheels, barking exhaust and man they go when the pedal is pressed hard....

I'm sure they're nice to drive (if perhaps a little too 'modern' ie: smooth and easy to drive but maybe just a little light on charisma, still the way they hold their price here in South Australia I'm unlikely to find out for a while yet.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-10-10, 08:18 AM
The design direction is right, but like the previous poster said, the cars look unfinished. I noticed this when they came out 4-5 years ago.....they're simply not long enough, and they're proportionally not as correct as the Broughams. If they went with that length, the car shouldn't be so tall. But if they wanted to keep it that tall, it should have been atleast a foot longer.

outsider
12-10-10, 08:34 AM
i do like the looks of them. never been in one, though...but I've considered buying them in the past too.

Stingroo
12-10-10, 08:42 AM
Meh. I'm not a huge fan of them really. All of the Chrysler products from that era are pretty much the same (well, because they're all on the same platform LOL. And I mean 300/Charger/Magnum, etc.) They looked great when they came out, but now to me they look so dated. Their image is clearly tarnished by the guys who just stick on whatever they can find at the parts store to a base V6 model, even the SRT-8 just isn't special to me anymore. At least, not the way a Brougham is. :noidea:

drewsdeville
12-10-10, 10:10 AM
Styling is subjective, so that's up to you and you alone.

If you are asking about the driving experience, the 300 walks all over the FWB, which should be expected 15 years later. The FWB feels rather numb through the wheel and the 300 gives the driver MUCH better response and feedback. Braking is astronomically better. Even the V6 powered 300 feels more peppy than the LT1 and L05, regardless of what the actual numbers on the cars are (anyone have a numbers comparison?). The SRT8 isn't even a comparison- it will blow the doors off any Fleetwood...or any factory LT1 powered car for that matter.

I'm basing this using my driving experience I got out of a rental V6 300, a buddies 300 SRT8, and my relatives '94 Caprice 9C1 and '92 Roadmaster. I'm assuming the Fleetwood feels quite similar.

Otherwise, I agree with most of the above, especially Roo's comment about the addons.

Stingroo
12-10-10, 10:20 AM
I know the LT1 FWB is 260hp 330 tq

No clue on the 300's numbers though. I think the V6 was the 250 horse Pentastar thing that the auto rags complained about? Chrysler isn't my best subject, :lol:

TWasArroundHere
12-10-10, 11:34 AM
I had a Chrysler 300 for 3 years. Awesome car, great to drive, I had the 6cyl Limited edition. Its a completely different car from my Caddie- but, ya know, years of difference in engineering. I just had it because it reminded me of an old Caddie with modern tech. Good car, I enjoyed it whale I had it.

YourMainParadox
12-10-10, 12:29 PM
Just wait till the transmission of that 300 goes on you ;) Those are the weak point of those cars

SDCaddyLacky
12-10-10, 02:02 PM
Some of you guys are correct on the styling, such as the shortness of the car, it should of been longer to make it less "Stubby" looking. The 300's have a lot of body, but no ass. One has to remember an LT1 FWB weighs a good 500lbs more than a 300C Hemi, and the 300C has more power than the LT1 in general, so of course it's going to blast through traffic like no problem, a V6 300 weighs less, and will easily be able to get up to speed, so the power to rate ratio goes against the Caddy which makes it slower. Horsepower is not really of my main concern, I care more about how quiet the car is, road noise, interior quality, ride smoothness, comfort, and how well the car handles potholes.

I might go drive on tomorrow and see what happens.

Lord Cadillac
12-10-10, 02:08 PM
I owned a 1995 Fleetwood Brougham and a 2007 300C. The Cadillac was MUCH bigger inside - and road much softer. It felt more luxurious to me. The 300C was smaller - but not small at all inside. It road firmer but was still soft - and it handled much better than the Fleetwood. The 300C was much faster. I liked both cars a great deal.

axe
12-10-10, 05:07 PM
We have a 300 in the family with the small 2.7L engine. First off, even if I haven't tried the 3.5L myself I would say go with the Hemi if you can. The difference in mileage will probably be very small, especially if you do a lot of highway cruising. My 1999 STS really does not use that much more gas than the 300 with the 2.7L V6.

I think it's a bit hard comparing a 300 to a Fleetwood since they are very different animals, at least as I see it. The 300 handles better for sure but at the expense of comfort. The Fleetwood is, IMHO a more pleasant ride and it's handling the road pretty well for what it is. Also if you consider the 2.7 I can say the LT1 powered FWD would blow it's doors off. The 2.7 is just plain slow.

Having said that I kind of like the 300 myself, not that fond of the feel of some of the interior parts but the seats are good and the cars feel overall is pretty solid.

HUF
12-10-10, 11:48 PM
The 300 is a good looking car, especially if you put a mesh grill.

sven914
12-11-10, 12:38 AM
When that body-style Charger/300 first came out, I thought they were a step in the right direct, as far as car design goes. They are very unique, but like every other new car, they are just missing something. Some people have mentioned they look unfinished, but it's more than that; the way they are presented makes you expect them to be more than they are. The rear wheel drive Cadillacs differ in that they exceed expectation and don't leave much (styling wise) to desire. Probably if Chrysler had designed the 300 to expectation, Chrysler would be the new Ford, which since 1996, has been the new Cadillac.

Aron9000
12-11-10, 01:56 AM
If you get a V6, get one with the 3.5 V6, the 2.7 is a horridly underpowered motor that won't get you any better mileage.

As for the 3.5 V6 being faster than a LT1 Fleetwood, yeah that isn't happening. The LT1 only has a slight horsepower advantage, but WAY WAY WAY more torque. A lot of people have commented that the 3.5 in the 300 doesn't really feel like 250hp, it will run a quarter mile in the low 16 second range. A LT1 Fleetwood gets it done in the low 15 second range. Now a 300c with the 5.7 hemi v8 will blow the doors off a stock LT1, it runs low 14's in the quarter. I've driven a 300c, and will say its a lot of fun, it has enough power to really throw you back in the seat.

As for the look, I really do like the 300, but those gunslit windows do make it feel a little clausterphobic inside, and the interior isn't the best assembled thing in the world either(of course the same can be said of the Fleetwood in terms of build quality).

SDCaddyLacky
12-11-10, 08:09 AM
Cool, good to know guys, I never even considered the 4 banger, nor the V8 since I got the Caddy for that. I have felt the inside of a 300 a few years ago, and they do have a really cheap feeling interior for a car that looks so nice on the outside. But that's Chrysler for you. I have never really liked Chrysler cars, but I do like the 300. Maybe the newer models are better assembled, but since I plan on purchasing a used one (depending if it's worth the money), I wont know for sure what area's of the car was improved upon.

csbuckn
12-11-10, 01:32 PM
You consider the magnum?

SDCaddyLacky
12-11-10, 04:25 PM
Nah, I used to like them, but the 300 fits me more. I realized the V8 Hemi in the 300 gets around the same gas mileage as the 3.5 V6. Prices for the Hemi's cost more though. I might go with a private seller in case dealer prices are out of my range.

axe
12-11-10, 04:51 PM
Yeah, go with the Hemi if you can. More fun to drive and it will probably also be easier selling it if you need to get rid of it later.

turbojimmy
12-13-10, 04:18 PM
The SRT8 isn't even a comparison- it will blow the doors off any stock Fleetwood...or any factory stock LT1 powered car for that matter.

Fixed that for you ;-)

2011 will be the year my big 'Wood gets quick.

YourMainParadox
12-13-10, 11:04 PM
the 300 will never last as long as your caddy :P

Aron9000
12-14-10, 02:07 AM
Fixed that for you ;-)

2011 will be the year my big 'Wood gets quick.

Are you turning the limo into a hotrod???? What sort of plans do you have, turbo, supercharged, nitrous, stroker motor??? Gonna need some serious horsepower to push around that big heavy limo.

turbojimmy
12-14-10, 10:52 AM
Are you turning the limo into a hotrod???? What sort of plans do you have, turbo, supercharged, nitrous, stroker motor??? Gonna need some serious horsepower to push around that big heavy limo.

I replaced the old, bad engine with an 88k mile stocker out of a Caprice. It runs great, which buys me some time to tweak the old engine over the winter and spring. The old one is definitely rebuildable. I'm thinking it has a bad piston in the #7 cylinder.

I'm thinking I can stroke it and do some head and cam work. I would really like to build it with low enough compression for forced induction - preferably a blower. Turbo(s) can get complicated and expensive with all of the plumbing, but they do look and sound nice.

There's a lot of room in front of the engine so an intercooled centrifugal blower setup would work.

I'd need about 600 HP at the flywheel to run mid-low 12s with it. Mid-low 12s isn't really "fast", but it would run with just about anything on the street and be a lot of fun to watch go down the track.

I don't know how much juice the trans can handle, but the rear in the limo is really beefy.

drewsdeville
12-14-10, 11:06 AM
Fixed that for you ;-)

2011 will be the year my big 'Wood gets quick.

You've got a long way to catching up to a SRT8, I hope your wallet is thick. A 300-srt8 will run 13 seconds right out of the factory, high 12's with some good tires, perfect track condition, a tail wind, and a touch of luck.

And that's only straight line acceleration, letting alone the LX platforms EXCELLENT handling characteristics (for it's size).

Either way, be sure to keep us updated with a build thread. Reading the same old maintenance and repair threads gets boring...it'll be nice to see some modification.

turbojimmy
12-14-10, 11:15 AM
You've got a long way to catching up to a SRT8, I hope your wallet is thick. A 300-srt8 will run 13 seconds right out of the factory, high 12's with some good tires, perfect track condition, a tail wind, and a touch of luck.

And that's only straight line acceleration, letting alone the LX platforms EXCELLENT handling characteristics (for it's size).

Either way, be sure to keep us updated with a build thread. Reading the same old maintenance and repair threads gets boring...it'll be nice to see some modification.

I'm just interested in straight-line. It will never stop or turn decently anyway. It would just be fun to surprise people with it. The Chevy V8 is a very versatile foundation - seems like a waste not to tweak it.

I invested in a mail-order PCM tune for it and it is noticably quicker. I actually just bought the tuning hardware and software so I can learn to tweak it myself.

drewsdeville
12-14-10, 11:17 AM
I actually just bought the tuning hardware and software so I can learn to tweak it myself.

:thumbsup:

robb257731
12-14-10, 01:35 PM
Test drive one...only you can decide if you'd enjoy driving it as much as your Fleet.

I drove one in the summer when I was looking for a new daily driver....I really really liked it, but I was looking for something a little more versatile. I looked at a Hemi, and it went like stink. Very comfortable.

Aron9000
12-16-10, 04:10 AM
I replaced the old, bad engine with an 88k mile stocker out of a Caprice. It runs great, which buys me some time to tweak the old engine over the winter and spring. The old one is definitely rebuildable. I'm thinking it has a bad piston in the #7 cylinder.

I'm thinking I can stroke it and do some head and cam work. I would really like to build it with low enough compression for forced induction - preferably a blower. Turbo(s) can get complicated and expensive with all of the plumbing, but they do look and sound nice.

There's a lot of room in front of the engine so an intercooled centrifugal blower setup would work.

I'd need about 600 HP at the flywheel to run mid-low 12s with it. Mid-low 12s isn't really "fast", but it would run with just about anything on the street and be a lot of fun to watch go down the track.

I don't know how much juice the trans can handle, but the rear in the limo is really beefy.

That sounds BADASS!!!! You'll definetly need some trans work running that type of power. I'm pretty sure you just have a regular old 4l60e in there, unless the limo package cars got a 4l80e(which was used in 3/4 and 1 ton trucks too). Personally I wouldn't waste my time rebuilding the 4l60e. I know a lot of guys claim they can build them with better parts to withstand that type of power, but guys still frequently bust their "built" 4l60e. I'd go with a 4l80e, which might require some modifications to the floor pan since its bigger. Of course a good old Turbo 400 will bolt in with a minimal amount of work and no floorpan mods.

jedhead
12-16-10, 06:30 AM
When I was shopping for a car summer 2009, a new 2008 300C SRT8 was one of the cars that I was considering. After looking over one and driving a 300C hemi for a rental, I still chose the 2006 STS-V over the 300. The V is quicker than the SRT8 and the interior is much nicer, looks richer and feels like much higher quality. The STS-V also rode a little better and at the same time handled as well, now better with summer tires. I also like that the STS-V is pretty rare, you see 300's on the road everywhere. I didn't even see another STS-V on the road here in Southern California for over a year of owning my car and I put on 34K mile on it since I bought it August 2009 and I work from home so no commute miles. Both the STS-V and SRT8 have a firmer, more controlled ride compared to the rear wheel drive Fleetwoods.

Bob

turbojimmy
12-16-10, 08:49 AM
That sounds BADASS!!!! You'll definetly need some trans work running that type of power. I'm pretty sure you just have a regular old 4l60e in there, unless the limo package cars got a 4l80e(which was used in 3/4 and 1 ton trucks too). Personally I wouldn't waste my time rebuilding the 4l60e. I know a lot of guys claim they can build them with better parts to withstand that type of power, but guys still frequently bust their "built" 4l60e. I'd go with a 4l80e, which might require some modifications to the floor pan since its bigger. Of course a good old Turbo 400 will bolt in with a minimal amount of work and no floorpan mods.

I've heard of people beefing up the 4L60E - that's what's in it now. I had a little 2004R behind the 500 HP engine in my GN. It would have been fine if the rebuilder was competent - couldn't figure out how to make 3rd gear stick. There's a handful of guys in the country that know how to bullet-proof them.

A turbo 400 is solid, but geared low and doesn't have OD. I don't want to sacrifice too much drivability.

I'm gonna start with the engine and see what breaks behind it :-)

SDCaddyLacky
12-16-10, 05:15 PM
Well I haven't test driven one yet. I might just go rent one for a couple of days and see how I like them. Because I don't want to have to go to a dealership and be hassled by a salesman. This will give me the best opportunity to test the car, and see for myself if it's worth the buy.

Thanks guys