JLAWS Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 I was looking at the latest Car and Driver Magazine which reviews the 300C. You could buy a fully loaded one with Hemi V8 and Mercedes 5 speed tranny for about $35K!! The performance #s were shocking, 0 to 60 in 5.3 seconds from a 4000lbs car! Personally the looks are easier on the eyes then what I've seen so far of the new STS. And I'm sure there will be several aftermarket parts that will make it look and perform better. I love my 98 STS but It'll be a matter of time before I see 300c's on the road with a few owners who may want to race. But why even bother when you'll get blow away at any speed. Not that it matters, but you know you all occasionally race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpk Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 Is that the Chrysler that looks like the modern incarnation of a Checker cab? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpk Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLAWS Posted April 2, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 That's Halirious!!! I can't believe how similar they look!! Wonder if they'll make it in yellow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MotorCityRick Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 From certain angles, it does have an odd sense of porportion. In this shot, it looks totally different and quite attractive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpk Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 Looks to me like they're trying to echo what I would consider a low point (was there even a high point?) in Chrysler's design history.. At least they didn't tilt the headlights this time... You might guess that I've never been a fan of Chrysler styling, at least from about 1955 to 1985. I thought they were going in the right direction in the 90's, but now that they've abandonded that, I shudder to think where they're going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadillac STS Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 Please, this is a poor mans luxury car...dont compare it to the STS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marika Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 Actually, Checker cabs were pretty nice and fun to ride in, if you could put up with all the noise of the darn thing rattling since everything came loose on it. Yes, I'm old enough to remember Checker cabs... <_> 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...
Marika Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 From certain angles, it does have an odd sense of porportion. In this shot, it looks totally different and quite attractive. Odd sense of proportion huh??? From that angle, it' looks like I've just about been run over by it. It's ugly. There's no comparison to the Classic Seville. BARF!!! 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...
Cadillac STS Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 eh the more i look at it the more i hate it, thanks but i'd take a loaded CTS for 35k! much better handling and looks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Kuczek Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 I think the 300 is one of the best looking new cars out there. To me, it has kind of an intimidating Soviet-style look, like something the KGB would have driven. I'll always be a Cadillac guy first, but this "Art & Science" thing and all the badge engineering (CTS, Escalade, etc) going on just leaves me cold. I suppose I'll just have to keep the Caddies I have running until I can afford the 300 or until GM and Cadillac come to their senses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 I think that the new seville should have looked like the 300c. I don't like the super sized CTS look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justgreat Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 have to agree with daniel k... i like the looks...it's defintely different and distinctive...kinda like the new caddy look...both designs set the marque apart from the maddening crowd....anyway...it's the small block hemi with a 5 speed that's a head turner to me...looks are fleeting...the engineering is what matters. also like the fact that the hemi comes with variable displacement...should help out with gas going to 2.50 a gallon. jackg 90 seville 93k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jinxed45 Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 This is more like it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillip Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 What styling studio came up with this look. It certainly is a departure from the more typical sleek styling or the angular caddy styling. It kind of looks like an SUV. Perhaps that is the target. In any case, I'll stick with the Seville, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonA Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 anyway...it's the small block hemi with a 5 speed that's a head turner to me...looks are fleeting...the engineering is what matters. Yeah, concur 100% there. You might "look cool" in your CTS, but you'll get wiped clean from a performance standpoint by that new 300C (and thusly, not look very cool -- like those ricers with 110 hp 4-cylinders and whale tail wings and their "dubs"). I bet it's every bit as nice inside as our Cadillacs. I can't wait to get my Car & Driver this month. 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...
maydog Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 What about the dodge magnum? Isn't that basically a 300c wagon only cheaper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marika Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 This is more like it.. are they mating???? 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...
Bill K Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 I didnt get a Cad because it will beat another car in a race. I got it cause it's a Cad. The new Chrysler is just that, a new Chrysler. I deal with a number of used car dealers and none have been impressed w/build quality of Chryslers. This one could be different, time will tell. It would have to be really good to get me to switch brands. Plus I think the ratio between the body and the top looks goofy. Reminds me of a 50's Merc. w/a chopped top. I didnt like the look then & dont like it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terminus Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 That Mopar sure does make the new GTO look attractive! 95 Eldo---Sold! 05 STS4-WooHoo!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marika Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 I didnt get a Cad because it will beat another car in a race. I got it cause it's a Cad. The new Chrysler is just that, a new Chrysler. I deal with a number of used car dealers and none have been impressed w/build quality of Chryslers. This one could be different, time will tell. It would have to be really good to get me to switch brands. Plus I think the ratio between the body and the top looks goofy. Reminds me of a 50's Merc. w/a chopped top. I didnt like the look then & dont like it now. I know someone who owns a very large transmission repair shop in Louisiana and he says that Chrysler keeps him in business..... Nuf said....... 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...
justgreat Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 i know this flies in the face of prevailing engine design, but i LIKE ohv engines and one reason why, is the adaptation of dod or variable displacement to the valve train...it's like having your caking and etc....great fuel economy and the performance...gotta have a v8...sorry...all the revs in the world can't make up for the bottom end punch of a pushrod v8...that's why i love my 4.5...for around town skirmishes, it'll hold it's own against some expensive hardware. that's not to say, that caddy doesn't have some tricks up their sleave, but it's nice to see that somebody besides gm thinks enough of ohv engines to soldier on with them. think about this: if chrysler starts out with 340 hp/ 390 ftlb's...where will they go from there? jackg 90 seville 93k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonA Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 that's not to say, that caddy doesn't have some tricks up their sleave, but it's nice to see that somebody besides gm thinks enough of ohv engines to soldier on with them. think about this: if chrysler starts out with 340 hp/ 390 ftlb's...where will they go from there? I think the key here is displacement and tuning rather than ultimate technology. My other vehicle is a Nissan truck, and I frequent a Nissan forum very much like this one. The new Nissan Titan has a new 5.6L DOHC V-8 engine that pretty much trumps everything from any automaker in its class, including the overhyped (in my opinion) Dodge Hemi. The Nissan will flat outrun anything in its class, and it's conservatively rated at 305 hp and 380 lb*ft of torque. Chassis dynos are showing wheel horsepower in the range of 275 hp through automatic transmissions, so actual crank horsepower is probably pretty close to Dodge's claimed 345 hp for their Hemi. Both engines are within a tenth of a liter of displacement. The Nissan will outpower the Dodge because of its superior breathing capability with 32 valves vs. 16. I've driven one -- and it's not a big revver. Usually, the smaller multi-valve engines like to run over 6000 rpm, but this thing was shifting by 5500 rpm at WOT. So yes, it has 4 valves per cylinder, but it's still tuned to provide excellent torque down low where you need it...kind of reminds me of a certain domestic 32 valve V-8, huh? Back in the Cadillac world, even the smallish Northstar engines perform pretty well compared to their pushrod counterparts just off idle. I don't know what the 4.5/4.9 engines make torque-wise, just off idle, but the Northstar is already at almost 250 lb*ft of torque at JUST 1000 RPM! The torque peak (300 lb*ft) doesn't occur until 4000 rpm, but the curve is very flat, and over 85% of the peak torque is available by 1500 rpm. I don't know the torque curves of the 4.5/4.9 engines, but they can't be making much more torque at those engine speeds, if they make that much at all. What is the peak torque figure on the 4.9 engines? Anyone have a power curve for a 4.5 or 4.9 engine? I'd love to compare it to the curve of a Northstar. But anyway, the redline of a Northstar is an indicated 6250, but I understand it shifts right at 6000 rpm. The torque is available down low, where you need it (especially on LD8 engines), but the 32 valves still provide for superior breathing at all engine speeds, to allow the flexibility I just LOVE with this engine. I flat swore I'd never own anything that wasn't powered by pushrods, but the Northstar really turned me on to modern technology, and made me a believer. I still don't think I'd enjoy something I had to rev to the moon to make a performer out of it (like a Honda for example), and I'm glad the Cadillac Northstar is tuned like it is, to provide for effortless driving anywhere you go. 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...
STYES Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 It's not a bad looking car, but remember it is still a Chrysler! I don't care if MB is the new influence! My friend just bought a C320. She has had it back twice, in a month. I didn't ask the first time, but I did the second. She told me that it went back the second time, because they had to repair the paint damage it ensued the first time she took it to the dealer! One more thing. If the CTS-V has 400 horse, what do you think the STS-V will have? Mr Bob Lutz influenced what current cars on the market? He currently works for which car company? Tell me, because I am a dummy! He is a real life blood, in any car company, that I know. Caddy will be back, and in my opinion, it already is. Did anybody see the recent GT race, at Sebring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg P. Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 I have to say i like the look of the 300C. It's bold and aggressive. I really looks like a major value for the price. Of course, I always loved the look of the Virgil Exner designed Chryslers of the late 60's and early 60's. These are some of my favorite cars on the planet. I have owned a few including a 300K with dual quads and the long rams. Then there was my 1961 Plymouth which I liked scaring little kids with. Here's one if you never saw one before: http://www.stationwagon.com/gallery/1961_P...h_Suburban.html The 2005 Cadillac STS looks a bit wimpy in comparision to the 300C, though I'm hoping it will look better in person. I'll reserve final judgement until I see and drive both cars in person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.