Any thoughts from anyone? I think I'd go with the 300 :hide: , all the same features alot more power and for less money. And nothing to do with the fact the new STS looks like a big CTS, much the same way the new XJ8 looks like a big X-Type ;)
Darren
'97 STS
'86 IROC-Z
'02 Town&Country

the SRT-8 is the performance version (if you will) of the 300C rated @425. a standard v-8 STS is rated @320 hp. wait until the STS-V comes out and then see which one kicks ass...they will be rated somewhere in the neighborhood of 430 hp...supercharged.

I am probably going to sell my 2003 Town Car & get a SRT-8. Only thing I don't like is it's only going tocome in either Black OR Silver. (BLAH) I want a white one with chromed rims, and very slight tint on side windows.

If you're going to drop $40k+ on a new car you can have it painted.

I am probably going to sell my 2003 Town Car & get a SRT-8. Only thing I don't like is it's only going tocome in either Black OR Silver. (BLAH) I want a white one with chromed rims, and very slight tint on side windows.

I've noticed that. Time was when red was also considered one of the "performance colors" but times change I guess. Chrysler is just following in the footsteps of the CTS-V. ;)

The problem is, the SRT-8 and the STS V-6 are more closey priced, even the base STS V-8 is more, let alone the STS-V. So comparing the SRT-8 to the STS-V isn't exactly fair. That's why I was just going off the STS V-8
Darren

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23977


this is why caddy may be more expensive...quality counts folks!

Thought you might want to hear from someone who actually owns a 300C. Had it 9 weeks now. Love it. I originally went looking at the cadillacs. The price tag on the XLR made me gag, the manual tranny on the CTS-V made me pass. The price of the seville makes it an unfair contrast with the 300C and probably with the SRT-8 as well. I have not seen,driven or considered a seville so I am not responding to the narrow comparison of this thread but thought I would post anyway in case anyone could use the info and feedback I had to offer. I currently have a deposit down on the first black SRT-8 (would really prefer the "cool vanilla" of my current 300C but wont take a silver one) to arrive at my dealer, sight unseen. So needless to say I am pleased with my current 300C. Fit and finish are a notch above previous chrysler offerings. Style is subjective but this car has gotten me more attention than anything since my '87 Grand National. It is a hard car to get used to as sight lines stink and it just seems much bigger than it actually is, tho it is large. Power is respectable in the launch for a 4100 pound car, but its "passing gear", midrange power is excellent and top end never seems to peter out. If driving without looking at the speedometer, it seems to settle in most comfortably at 80, much like autobahn sedans from BMW and Mercedes. The road feel is somewhere between the traditional caddy/Lincoln sitting on a couch at home feel and the road feel of the mercedes/BMW. I like the ride and usually have not liked the ride of the german sedans. Comfort is top notch. Only other comment I would make is that the "quality" poll reflects a chrysler that is only starting to feel the effect of the Mercedes side of the company. Mercedes has a hard enough road keeping their rep and quality while introducing its own line of less expensive models but Chrysler has taken a huge step forward with the three Mercedes inspired models. Fit and finish improvements in the Pacifica, Crossfire and 300 are promising for a company I still remember more for the shoddy K cars than the old 426 hemi. Only time will tell if the long haul will prove the promise. Anyone who has any specific questions can email me and I will try and respond promptly.

Quality was mentioned. Have you seen all the problems mentioned on the CTS forum here? Seems like everyone who has one is having many problems with them.

I see YOU also WANT a "Cool Vanilla" {White} one, as do I. I'd also go for other colors as well, if they were available. (Repainting a brand new car is not an option) ~ That popular Silver-Green I'd get, or a bright red (Corvette Red) or even a Pearl White. Black is too hard to keep clean, for me. Always dusty. I'd have to go with the silver, or wait for the 2nd year & hope for more colors.

Maybe after a couple years they'll start giving people more colours to choose from. I like the cream coloured 300Cs too. I don't like the way silver or black look on them at all. :(

the SRT-8 is the performance version (if you will) of the 300C rated @425. a standard v-8 STS is rated @320 hp. wait until the STS-V comes out and then see which one kicks ass...they will be rated somewhere in the neighborhood of 430 hp...supercharged.


The 300c for just over $40,000 you get 320hp @5000rpm & 390pf of torque @4000rpm (for the standard Hemi). AND all wheel drive if you want it (with better gas mileage than my Eldorado). The STS is over $65,000 for a non supercharged version. The SRT-8 is 6.1 liter Hemi. I can put one hell of a big supercharger on a 300c for $25 or $30 k. My next automobile will probably be a 300c. :histeric:

"Have you seen all the problems mentioned on the CTS forum here?"

I will check that one out.

A lot of us agree that your going to find people posting about problems on the net then just simple 'my car is fine.' I have seen a couple or more posts in the CTS forum praising their cars.

It is kinda weird that a $40,000 has more power than a $60,000 one. The reasons are the 300c puts all its money into the drivetrain and not so much into the car itself. There is more expensive materials and engineering in the STS. Higher quality performance and handleing in the STS.

300c V8 Hemi ($30,000)
Horsepower @ RPM340@5000 Torque @ RPM390@4000
17/25 mpg or 17/24 for AWD

STS V8 Northstar (50,000)
Horsepower @ RPM320@6400 Torque @ RPM315@4400
17/26 no AWD mpg.

So it is evident that the 300c has more hp and equalish mpg to teh STS. They weigh very similar. So the 300 has a bit more power but it does not like I said earlier the overall quality of a 50,000 car like the STS. I think I best put it as the STS asses its competition very well and the 300 is not its competiton. If you put the STS up to a 5 series or A6 you have a close call. If you put any of those three against the 300c you will se the 300 has more power and blah blah blah and a better value. All the 300c to me is some decent car that got a good engine thrown into it. No Tuscany leather or milan carpet. If you just want a major entry level luxo car with power then there you have it. Stop comparing it to Cadillacs esp the STS they are not in the same market. If you want to compare compare to the CTS. Ever get inot a Cadillac and have fun playin with all the gadgets and hidden compartments. Thats not in a Chrysler.

The headrests in the 300c look bad to.

we need crash tests for this thing now.

You have to be :bonkers: to think one of these looks like the other entirely. All car manufacturers have their look. All BMWs share looks. All Chryslers share looks!

I went and looked at the 300 when it came out, sat inside, felt all the materials.

Compared to my 12 year old Infiniti Q45 with 192,000 miles, the Chrysler was like a giant tupperware bin. The grain on the dash looked like it came out of an old Dodge Dakota, the leather felt like someone stretched a chewed up piece of bubble gum over some foam, and the carpeting was identical in feel to my brother's 1983 Toyota Tercel. Everything inside felt cheap and insubstantial.

I wouldnt doubt its driving dynamics and looks, but inside it was crap. The cost cutting glaringly obvious.

The Kia dealer was nearby, and I took a look at the new Amanti. To my surprise, the Kia's body panels were tighter, interior materials were a big step up, and overall fit and finish was superb. Of course, the Amanti is hideous to look at and probably drives like an old Buick.

My next luxury car will be a CTS, G35, or M45.

-Jesda

One difference must be the handling. I test drove the 300C and the CTS before purchasing. What I was looking for was a "sport sedan". A stiff suspension was a requirement. Though, the 300C has the great engine, it's ride - though competent for a sedan that size - was not comparable to the CTS.

So, everyone talks about power to weight ratio, accelaration.... what about the other things that make driving fun or pedestrian..... body roll, slalom times, etc....

JoeKr

to those guys who want/like the white 300's, why dont you get them painted? ive seriously thought about this, and have strongly considered doin it in cadillac white diamond. i think this would look really nice, regardless of the brand name and the insult of it. i really dont care, ive owned 2 caddies now and am a part of a group of friends who have collectively owned 13 cadillacs and can honestly and confidently say i feel that i/we owe no allegiance to this brand. it has been a 50/50 of build quality and reliability gamble that we have poored our hard earned money into. i know there are alot of people here who are considering this switch between caddy to chrysler and that they are catchin hell for it, but i say screw it. for the price you cant pass up the 300 (unless you really dont like the way it looks/feels/drives). why would anybody buy a new caddy these days anyway? the resale on them is terrible! i challenge anybody to buy a new sts and see what its worth 1-2 years later; ill bet its slightly over half of what you originally bought it for. the only way to get the assurance of having a quality caddy is buying a new one, but that is totally impractical these days. now, to those who say 300 vs sts isnt fair comparison?....i say there must be something to it because ive talked to plenty of chrysler guys and they say that they've been getting plenty of trade ins on caddies for the new 300.

enough rambling. im still every bit a caddy fan but have recognized the 300 as a legitimate alternative, especially for my generation.

If youre switching from modern Cadillac to modern Chrysler for build quality reasons, youre in for a world of hurt. For style and value, the 300 is a tough act to follow.

The 300C is simply the best AMerican sedan in years. YEARS. Looks, power, handling and it has brash, American looks(though lames are trying hard to make them look like Bentleys, fools get real). Great interior, great price (24 to start to 46k for the SRT-8). Its like Caddy never even dropped the CTS, CTS-V or STS. Everyone is talking about the 300C and its everywhere. Magazines, T.V. neighbors love it. What a car.

Yes the STS is more refined. It should be for 68k loaded. But it is not 30k better than a 38k Hemi 300C. No way. Sorry.

I don't know how Chrysler made this car so cheap. Amazing.

If I bought a 300C, I'd immediately have a professional shop replace and upgrade the garbage interior and avoid any and all exposure to sunlight.

DaimlerBenz, a company that in the last 5-8 years has put mostly junk vehicles on the road, bought Chrysler, a company that has struggled to improve its dependability and build quality, achieving most of its quality improvement goals between 95-97 but plateauing after that.

Bottom-ranked luxury brand meets middle-ranked midrange brand... the end result is suspicious.

I do not know where you guys come off putting down Chrysler products as poor quailty, etc, etc. I was raised on a strict diet of Chrysler products. That is all my family & extened family bought. We never ever had a bad car, a "lemon" or car troubles. They were all terrific cars ! Now... I grant you we never had anything other than Imperials. No Aspens nor Volares nor Cordobas or K-Kars, just Imps. They were terrific! Okay, today, the 300SRT-8 will be the "Most Expensive" Chrysler car. So, in a way (far stretch here) it MIGHT take the place vacated by the Imperial in 1978. I may buy one, allthough my Town Car is flawless and I really love it. Lincoln???? My folks are spinning in their graves. I can hear the... "A Ford" ?? :tisk:
http://mark8.org/users/johnaec/greenKIN.jpg

Okay folks, even on the cheap end lets compare apples to apples here. I don't know about everwhere else in the country but in the metro Detroit area, if you were to pick a specific year, lets say 1986 or 1987, count when you are on the road how many k-cars or Omnis you see compared to Cavaliers or Escorts of the same year. Sorry but in this area all the escorts rotted the rear shock towers out and the cavaliers rotted themselves into nothing. You could drive a 2.2L with a wrist pin knocking to beat the band for 80k miles. I personally have been a Mopar fan since before I was able to drive and I think anyone digging on them are just lashing out because the 300C is in fact the breakaway sedan right now, much in the way the LH platform of 1993 was

Dont mean to but in but, Realm, I saw the Iroc. Is it real or a knock off? I had a 85 5.0 that was unbelievable. it would pull a g will soft compound tires. Plus a 87 Formula 350. What is the current state of the car? I want another one. Just like my Vortech I put intake gaskets on all of them. You?

I really liked the 300's when they first rolled out. Also, loved the rear drive part of the deal. When I actually saw one in person and sat inside, it went down a notch. The styling is bold, I think it was pulled off pretty well, but it is NOT a true beauty. The tiny window idea is interesting, but overall, the car looks like the top got "squished". I know, someone will say it looks "chopped", but I prefer squished. As far as the performance of the SRT-8, or the "regular" hemi, it is excellent. I just can't go too wild about the looks, or the fact that they sell the same car for $20,000, where it's strong competition is the base Taurus. It is great that automakers are really going crazy with the power. In fact, at D-C Inc., Mercedes is the real power car. When you have 500hp (allright 493!) and 500+ lb-ft torque (what really throws you into the seat!), supercharged V-8's available in several different bodystyles, or if that's not quite enough, grab a 600 series V-12 with the same 493hp, but with 590lb-ft torque, AT 1800 RPM!!!!!! A full-size S600 sedan runs 0-60mph in the LOW 4 seconds range! Car and Driver tested the SL600 luxury roadster, IT RAN 0-60 IN 3.6 SECONDS! Of course, the "regular" 600 series V-12 might be a little too tame, so you can opt for the AMG SL or CL65, where the V-12 gets bored and tuned, for 604hp and 738 lb-ft torque at 2,000 RPM-WOW! Oh yeah, there's also the 200+mph SLR, but I'm getting tired of typing. I love these horsepower wars!

If you're looking at a 300C/SRT8, a Mercedes is probably too expensive for your budget anyway. 'Specially one of those fast ones you mentioned.

Skides, don't worry about it! Yes, it is a '86 IROC-Z that was originally a 305 4BBL 5-speed car with t-tops, power windows, trunk, cruise, mirrors and antenna. Basically everything but power locks. The 305 is currently out of it and I was planning on going with a LT1 or LS1 with a T-56 6 speed. The car was originally a bright red and gold decal package car. I stuck with the bright red, but am going to use the silver sticker package. I'm going to use 2001 XJR rims with 255/45ZR18 Continental Contisports. I'm working on something else right now however, so the IROC will probably wait untill spring