ted tcb Posted May 12, 2005 Report Share Posted May 12, 2005 http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?se...9&page_number=3 The June edition of Car and Driver calls the 300c SRT8 a CTSV killer. For 42k, they call it a 173mph flying brick that can decelerate from 70mph to 0 in 162 ft. It may not be a Caddy, but it is nice to see the pundits lauding Detroit iron for a change (albeit Detroit via the Black Forest). 1989 FWD Fleetwood, Silver 1995 STS Crimson Pearl on Black leather 1997 STS Diamond White 1999 STS Crimson Pearl 2001 STS Silver 2003 STS, Crimson Pearl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadillac STS Posted May 12, 2005 Report Share Posted May 12, 2005 Sure it goes slightly faster in a straight line, but is the 300C faster around corners? Does it feel nimble when throwing it around a bend.... In fat did Chrysler spend billions of dollars engineering the SRT-8 as well as test and tune the suspension on the world famous nurburgring? Don’t even get me started on Chrysler quality! If you want a refined sport sedan that has major grunt as well as agility, the CTS-V is champion hands down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted May 12, 2005 Report Share Posted May 12, 2005 In fat did Chrysler spend billions of dollars engineering the SRT-8 as well as test and tune the suspension on the world famous nurburgring? Lol im sure GM didnt spend billions testing there either I dont like Chrysler but the exterior styling on the 300 win hands down -Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted tcb Posted May 12, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2005 See, here's the thing .... a co worker has an 02 Deville with 100k, and the Deville dealer wants his car plus 40k to upgrade to a new Deville. The Chrysler dealer wants 20k to upgrade to the hemi, which includes significant Mercedes drivetrain R&D. Rather than saying the 300 is crap because it doesn't have a wreath on the grille, I'm just voicing the opinon that its nice to have some domestic options for a change .... lets face it, Lincoln hasn't given Cadillac a run for the money since the MKVII LSC. I'd still rather have an STS or DTS in my drive .... but the Deville seems to depreciate just as heavily as the 300, it just falls from a higher $$$ level. 1989 FWD Fleetwood, Silver 1995 STS Crimson Pearl on Black leather 1997 STS Diamond White 1999 STS Crimson Pearl 2001 STS Silver 2003 STS, Crimson Pearl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDK Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 I happened to rent another vanilla 300 in San Diego a couple weeks ago. I had rented a similar one with about 6 miles on its last fall when they first came out. Last time, the driver's side rocker-panel ejected itself when going over a high driveway (hit the bottom just a taste). I fixed it myself with super glue, plastic rivets etc and hoped to not have another such experience. This time, "she who must be obeyed" and I both noticed how difficult it was to see streetlights, signs, multi-lane merging etc - in an urban environment. There appears to be a significant reduction in visibility with the "chopped look" which results in extremely high door-lines and relatively narrow window-slits. Sure we got some "thumbs up" like the last time, but I think another digit may have also been waved at us a time or two - due to the inability for me to see traffic around us like a normal car. At least this one stayed together this time. Even so, I'd probably drive a new, red 300c SRT8 - if for nothing more than to wring it out like I do the ol' Big Red Dog - and see if it would handle it. I have to agree with the Detroit (sorta) iron comment - as opposed to C & D's usual, finicky diet of anything but American. Add power to leave problems behind. Most braking is just - poor planning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadillac STS Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 In fat did Chrysler spend billions of dollars engineering the SRT-8 as well as test and tune the suspension on the world famous nurburgring? Lol im sure GM didnt spend billions testing there either I dont like Chrysler but the exterior styling on the 300 win hands down GM invested billions into the Cadillac division and a lot of that went into developing the Sigma platform...what i meant to say, because on an engineering standpoint the chrysler isn't anywhere near the Cadillac, and trust me it shows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cad1 Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Maybe I've seen to many 300c's because they don't do much for me anymore. It needs wider tires and it also looks like they we're trying too hard for that tuff look. I do like the looks of the Magnum, it's unique and I don't see to many of them. At the end of the day I don't like Chrysler since it sold out. I dig old mopars. btw - thats some stiff depreciation on that 02 deville. 92 Deville w/210k miles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted tcb Posted May 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Re depreciation on the Deville ... car cost 55k CDN, driven 3 years and 100k, trade value of aprroximately 17k. This individual isn't naieve, either... he owned this particular Caddilac dealership until 1980, and sold it with the knowledge that he buys his cars right ... he's driven nothing but Devilles for 30 years, and found that the 300c with chrome rims and pearl paint may sway him for the first time away from the marque. 1989 FWD Fleetwood, Silver 1995 STS Crimson Pearl on Black leather 1997 STS Diamond White 1999 STS Crimson Pearl 2001 STS Silver 2003 STS, Crimson Pearl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldgamer Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 By me 300C looks ugly. The front reminds me style of much more expensive cars and side windows look too small for huge body. It's too early to talk about reliability but I don't think 300C will be more relaible than caddy. Talking about power, I NEVER felt my STS needs more power. So, what a big deal around this 300c? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted tcb Posted May 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 By me 300C looks ugly. The front reminds me style of much more expensive cars and side windows look too small for huge body. It's too early to talk about reliability but I don't think 300C will be more relaible than caddy. Talking about power, I NEVER felt my STS needs more power. So, what a big deal around this 300c? I think the 300C big deal is that it offers an alternative for people who don't want to put 60 large into the folded origami style of the CTS/STS/new Deville ... true, Chrysler has a recent past history of head gasket, tranny, and AC problems, but they also have a strong Mopar based history on design and technical innovations ... here's a partial list. * Four-wheel hydraulic brakes (the system was nominally designed by Lockheed, but had to be completely redesigned by Chrysler engineers before it could be used. They assigned their patents to Lockheed afterwards.) * All-steel bodies - as standard across the line * Rubber engine mounts to stop vibration (part of Floating Power) * Electronic ignition in all cars * On-board computers / Computer control of ignition timing and carburetor (1976 Chrysler Lean Burn) * AC Alternator instead of a DC generator that kept electrical current flowing, even at idle. * Regular production engines that got a "supercharged" effect without having the mechanical components of an engine driven blower. * Mass produced unit bodies that were designed by use of computers. * Outside sheet metal didn't have to be part of the overall structure for strength of the unit body. * A seven step series of body structure rust proofing baths that employed the use of electrostatic charge to insure sealant bonding to the structure metal. * Replaceable cartridge oil filter (1924 Chrysler). Another note - oil filters were standard on Plymouths way back into the 1930s at least. I don't know when they became standard on Fords, but in 1961 they were still an option on 6 cyl Chevrolets. * Ignition key starting (1949) * Safety rim wheels (1940) (made blowouts much safer) * Electric windshield wipers (1949; they had been pneumatic) * Resistor spark plugs * Disc brakes ('51 Imperial--quite a different design than today's disc brakes, they were called "spot" disc brakes. But they were still a non-drum, disc-type brake) * Power steering (1951 Chrysler--GM didn't get until 1952; Chrysler's was "full time", GM's was "part time", i.e. there was no assist until 3 lbs or so of pressure was applied to the steering wheel. ) * Automatic choke (1940s) - interesting stories in Carl Breer's book * Unitized body (Airflow, 1934) * Auto Pilot. I'm not certain of the sequence of events here. Chrysler and Cadillac had some form of cruise control optional in 1958, but Chrysler came out with Auto Pilot in 1966 I think. It was the first modern cruise control, operating similarly to current types, although setting it was done via a dial with speed makings. * Steering wheel rim-blow horn * Superlight (1969 Dodge Monaco) and swivel seats (1959) - neither lasted * Electronic dimming rear-view mirror (Chrysler 1959) * Ram induction * Driver side airbags standard on all cars (1990) * Driver side sliding door on minivans (1996) * 4 wheel antilock brakes (1971 Imperial) * Padded dash (1949 Chrysler) * Independent front suspension (1934 Plymouth) - Chevy also brought out a version in 1934, calling it "knee action"; it was standard on the Master (deluxe) model, with an I-beam one piece axle standard on lesser models. Chevy used it for several model years, but Plymouth went back to the one piece axle in 1935. The design of the Plymouth suspension was much closer to that of independent suspensions of the 1940s and 1950s than was that of Chevy. [Webmaster: However, it does seem that Chevy developed theirs first, even if they didn't beat Plymouth to production.] * There's been a lot of arguing about who made the first 2 door hardtop. Generally, the honor is given to Buick in 1949. Chrysler apparently built a few in 1946, however. Anyone ever seen proof? * High compression engines. Chrysler, shortly after the company was formed, began pushing the envelope on high compression engines. Throughout the 30s, 40s, and 50s, Chrysler products typically had the highest compression ratios in the industry. During the 1930s, optional high compression aluminum heads were offered on some models. * Chrysler also introduced hardened valve seat inserts in their engines around 1935, I believe. Other manufacturers just let the valves close on a seat that was machined into the block or head. Up to that time, it was common for owners to have to have a valve job at 30,000 miles or earlier. The Chrysler engines, because of the inserts, were good for at least 80,000. * Chrysler also used a process called "Superfinish" on bearings starting in the early 1940s that decreased friction and increased the life of the engine. The Superfinish process reduced grinding marks to 1 millionth of an inch or less. For those who don't recall, the Chrysler engines outlasted their counterparts from Ford and GM. This was especially noticeable if you compared the Plymouth to the Ford or Chevy. Typical oil consumption for v-8 Fords of 1936 was listed in gallons, not quarts, in a 1936 Ford service manual. Chevy had only one technological advance in the old "stove-bolt 6", that being overhead valves. Otherwise, the engine was a throwback, using cast iron pistons, non-replaceable rod bearings, and splash lubrication. In contrast, Chrysler used aluminum pistons, bearing inserts, and full pressure lubrication. Details on this and hardened valve seats are in Carl Breet's book. * First widely available automotive air conditioner: 1951 Chrysler New Yorker (this system was also the first of the modern type) * First modern air filter: 1955 Chrysler C300 * First 1 horsepower per cubic inch engine: 1956 Chrysler 300B (355 hp, 354 cid Hemi engine) * First American full line passenger cars with unit-body construction: 1961 * First owner-selectable music system (YOU select what gets played): Highway Hi-Fi (turntable with special records and dampening) * First digital fuel injection: 1957 DeSoto Adventurer (Bendix aircraft system adapted for Chrysler use); again, 1981-1982 Imperial. It's worth noting that the DeSoto's system was very modern in design and had reliable capacitors and such been available, it would most likely have been very successful. * Four wheel brakes * Clutch and selective gear transmission * Battery/distributor ignition I'm sure some of these points are highly debatable, but Chrysler certainly deserves the chance to show their innovations .... I hope the 4-6-8 hemi proves to be reliable, as the concept is as important now as it was in 1980 for Cadillac. Styling is subjective, but I see more 300's in Toronto than any other near luxury brand ... on an albeit random drive yesterday, I saw at least one 300 every couple of blocs ... I also saw 3 Mercedes SUV's one behind each other. My point being, if I don't see a CTS on every block, its nice to at least see something other than an armada of Benz's, BMW's, and Lexus' .... I hope they get the reliability worked out. Once again, the styling is very courageous .... from the Viper,Prowler, Concorde, Crossfire, Magnum, to the 300c, Chrysler is definitely bringing outrageously beautiful cars to the marketplace at a remarkable rate. Show the concept at an international show, and 2 years later, its in your neighbour's driveway. I love my STS, and if I had a 97 Concorde in my driveway, it would be a paperweight by now ... I just try to take my blinders off and look around at what else is currently out there. 1989 FWD Fleetwood, Silver 1995 STS Crimson Pearl on Black leather 1997 STS Diamond White 1999 STS Crimson Pearl 2001 STS Silver 2003 STS, Crimson Pearl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldgamer Posted May 14, 2005 Report Share Posted May 14, 2005 It looks like all innovations were made by Chrysler. What a beautifull cars. I think we can see the same long list in a Cadillac musem too. You are right, though: it is good we can see more good american cars out there and for good price. And yes, styling is subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldgamer Posted May 16, 2005 Report Share Posted May 16, 2005 http://www.1959cadillac.com/innovations_and_milestones.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonA Posted May 16, 2005 Report Share Posted May 16, 2005 ...true, Chrysler has a recent past history of head gasket, tranny, and AC problems... And like the head gasket bolt problem and case half leak problem really gets blown out of proportion on our Cadillacs, transmission issues are way blown out of proportion on Chryslers as well. Sure, some transmissions went out that shouldn't have. That happens with all makes. But the vast majority of transmission problems are when the incorrect fluid is used. This isn't documented very well...especially with the earlier models. You CANNOT use Dexron or Mercon in Chrysler transmissions. It doesn't matter what Haynes says, it doesn't matter what your local AAMCO says, it doesn't matter what your neighbor says. ATF+3 or +4 (depending on year) is the ONLY approved fluid in these transmissions. Public doesn't know that -- and lots of "failed" transmissions result. The 41TE is one of the first driver adaptative transmissions out there...and it was out in the early 1990s. Sensitivity to fluid aside, it's really a great piece that doesn't get the credit its deserved. Jason(2001 STS, White Diamond) "When you turn your car on...does it return the favor?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy_W Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 I've owned 5 Dodge trucks since 1995 and I like them, but the transmission problems were real and certainly NOT all related to improper fluid use. Check thier tsb list since about 1994! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonA Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 True, not ALL were related to improper fluid use, as I stated above. We had a '89 Cherokee with the 4-speed auto that we pulled a 7000-lb travel trailer across the country with (from CA to MI). Through the Rockies and Yellowstone. In the summertime. Not a single transmission issue the whole time we had it. Also had an '88 Chief with same OD auto with 150k miles with no issues. Also had a '96 Grand Cherokee that my brother just sold with over 100k on it with no issues with the transmission on that one. We also pulled a 20-ft travel trailer with that one. It's interesting how some people tend to get all the lemons and some people get perfect equipment, just by the luck of the draw. Jason(2001 STS, White Diamond) "When you turn your car on...does it return the favor?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marika Posted May 18, 2005 Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 By me 300C looks ugly. The front reminds me style of much more expensive cars and side windows look too small for huge body. It's too early to talk about reliability but I don't think 300C will be more relaible than caddy. Talking about power, I NEVER felt my STS needs more power. So, what a big deal around this 300c? I think the 300C big deal is that it offers an alternative for people who don't want to put 60 large into the folded origami style of the CTS/STS/new Deville ... true, Chrysler has a recent past history of head gasket, tranny, and AC problems, but they also have a strong Mopar based history on design and technical innovations ... here's a partial list. * Four-wheel hydraulic brakes (the system was nominally designed by Lockheed, but had to be completely redesigned by Chrysler engineers before it could be used. They assigned their patents to Lockheed afterwards.) * All-steel bodies - as standard across the line * Rubber engine mounts to stop vibration (part of Floating Power) * Electronic ignition in all cars * On-board computers / Computer control of ignition timing and carburetor (1976 Chrysler Lean Burn) * AC Alternator instead of a DC generator that kept electrical current flowing, even at idle. * Regular production engines that got a "supercharged" effect without having the mechanical components of an engine driven blower. * Mass produced unit bodies that were designed by use of computers. * Outside sheet metal didn't have to be part of the overall structure for strength of the unit body. * A seven step series of body structure rust proofing baths that employed the use of electrostatic charge to insure sealant bonding to the structure metal. * Replaceable cartridge oil filter (1924 Chrysler). Another note - oil filters were standard on Plymouths way back into the 1930s at least. I don't know when they became standard on Fords, but in 1961 they were still an option on 6 cyl Chevrolets. * Ignition key starting (1949) * Safety rim wheels (1940) (made blowouts much safer) * Electric windshield wipers (1949; they had been pneumatic) * Resistor spark plugs * Disc brakes ('51 Imperial--quite a different design than today's disc brakes, they were called "spot" disc brakes. But they were still a non-drum, disc-type brake) * Power steering (1951 Chrysler--GM didn't get until 1952; Chrysler's was "full time", GM's was "part time", i.e. there was no assist until 3 lbs or so of pressure was applied to the steering wheel. ) * Automatic choke (1940s) - interesting stories in Carl Breer's book * Unitized body (Airflow, 1934) * Auto Pilot. I'm not certain of the sequence of events here. Chrysler and Cadillac had some form of cruise control optional in 1958, but Chrysler came out with Auto Pilot in 1966 I think. It was the first modern cruise control, operating similarly to current types, although setting it was done via a dial with speed makings. * Steering wheel rim-blow horn * Superlight (1969 Dodge Monaco) and swivel seats (1959) - neither lasted * Electronic dimming rear-view mirror (Chrysler 1959) * Ram induction * Driver side airbags standard on all cars (1990) * Driver side sliding door on minivans (1996) * 4 wheel antilock brakes (1971 Imperial) * Padded dash (1949 Chrysler) * Independent front suspension (1934 Plymouth) - Chevy also brought out a version in 1934, calling it "knee action"; it was standard on the Master (deluxe) model, with an I-beam one piece axle standard on lesser models. Chevy used it for several model years, but Plymouth went back to the one piece axle in 1935. The design of the Plymouth suspension was much closer to that of independent suspensions of the 1940s and 1950s than was that of Chevy. [Webmaster: However, it does seem that Chevy developed theirs first, even if they didn't beat Plymouth to production.] * There's been a lot of arguing about who made the first 2 door hardtop. Generally, the honor is given to Buick in 1949. Chrysler apparently built a few in 1946, however. Anyone ever seen proof? * High compression engines. Chrysler, shortly after the company was formed, began pushing the envelope on high compression engines. Throughout the 30s, 40s, and 50s, Chrysler products typically had the highest compression ratios in the industry. During the 1930s, optional high compression aluminum heads were offered on some models. * Chrysler also introduced hardened valve seat inserts in their engines around 1935, I believe. Other manufacturers just let the valves close on a seat that was machined into the block or head. Up to that time, it was common for owners to have to have a valve job at 30,000 miles or earlier. The Chrysler engines, because of the inserts, were good for at least 80,000. * Chrysler also used a process called "Superfinish" on bearings starting in the early 1940s that decreased friction and increased the life of the engine. The Superfinish process reduced grinding marks to 1 millionth of an inch or less. For those who don't recall, the Chrysler engines outlasted their counterparts from Ford and GM. This was especially noticeable if you compared the Plymouth to the Ford or Chevy. Typical oil consumption for v-8 Fords of 1936 was listed in gallons, not quarts, in a 1936 Ford service manual. Chevy had only one technological advance in the old "stove-bolt 6", that being overhead valves. Otherwise, the engine was a throwback, using cast iron pistons, non-replaceable rod bearings, and splash lubrication. In contrast, Chrysler used aluminum pistons, bearing inserts, and full pressure lubrication. Details on this and hardened valve seats are in Carl Breet's book. * First widely available automotive air conditioner: 1951 Chrysler New Yorker (this system was also the first of the modern type) * First modern air filter: 1955 Chrysler C300 * First 1 horsepower per cubic inch engine: 1956 Chrysler 300B (355 hp, 354 cid Hemi engine) * First American full line passenger cars with unit-body construction: 1961 * First owner-selectable music system (YOU select what gets played): Highway Hi-Fi (turntable with special records and dampening) * First digital fuel injection: 1957 DeSoto Adventurer (Bendix aircraft system adapted for Chrysler use); again, 1981-1982 Imperial. It's worth noting that the DeSoto's system was very modern in design and had reliable capacitors and such been available, it would most likely have been very successful. * Four wheel brakes * Clutch and selective gear transmission * Battery/distributor ignition I'm sure some of these points are highly debatable, but Chrysler certainly deserves the chance to show their innovations .... I hope the 4-6-8 hemi proves to be reliable, as the concept is as important now as it was in 1980 for Cadillac. Styling is subjective, but I see more 300's in Toronto than any other near luxury brand ... on an albeit random drive yesterday, I saw at least one 300 every couple of blocs ... I also saw 3 Mercedes SUV's one behind each other. My point being, if I don't see a CTS on every block, its nice to at least see something other than an armada of Benz's, BMW's, and Lexus' .... I hope they get the reliability worked out. Once again, the styling is very courageous .... from the Viper,Prowler, Concorde, Crossfire, Magnum, to the 300c, Chrysler is definitely bringing outrageously beautiful cars to the marketplace at a remarkable rate. Show the concept at an international show, and 2 years later, its in your neighbour's driveway. I love my STS, and if I had a 97 Concorde in my driveway, it would be a paperweight by now ... I just try to take my blinders off and look around at what else is currently out there. I thought it was Rambler/Nash that came up with galvanized steel, Uni-body Construction, and they did it before Chrysler? If you really want to make people safe drivers again then simply remove all the safety features from cars. No more seat belts, ABS brakes, traction control, air bags or stability control. No more anything. You'll see how quickly people will slow down and once again learn to drive like "normal" humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuickLeSabre1960 Posted May 23, 2005 Report Share Posted May 23, 2005 Sure it goes slightly faster in a straight line, but is the 300C faster around corners? Does it feel nimble when throwing it around a bend.... In fat did Chrysler spend billions of dollars engineering the SRT-8 as well as test and tune the suspension on the world famous nurburgring? Don’t even get me started on Chrysler quality! If you want a refined sport sedan that has major grunt as well as agility, the CTS-V is champion hands down they both do .9 on the skid pad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy_W Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 In fat did Chrysler spend billions of dollars engineering the SRT-8 as well as test and tune the suspension on the world famous nurburgring? Lol im sure GM didnt spend billions testing there either I dont like Chrysler but the exterior styling on the 300 win hands down I guess there's no accounting for taste, or lack there of! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.