2005 and up Chrysler 300C - What say you?

A fresh trade came in and I took this one around the lot to get some pics. It's really nice and I found myself liking it for all the opposite reasons I like the MINI. It's big, really comfy, lots of room for the family and looks cool. This one's a V6 and I think I would like a HEMI but I'm interested in your valued opinion. What's the gas mileage like for the HEMI vs. the V6's? Anything I should watch for? I know the chassis and some bits are Mercedes which is nice and some of the Mopar switchgear is not but it all seems 'large and in charge' to me.

Here's a pic of the car but I don't like the red, I would prefer black or blue.

<a href="">300C

I looked at them a couple years back when I was looking at Chargers and really liked them. I was more drawn to the 300hp V6. Seemed to be the best compromise between performance and MPG. The thing I noticed about it was when you are sitting in it the controls and everything just seem to fall where you would expect them to be. The other thing was that the interior seemed large and open and yet you can easily reach all the controls radio ac etc. I had just been in a SHO of the same year and it felt cramped and more like you were wearing the car where as the 300 you sat in the car.

Even with working in them for a few years, I'd still like to own one.

Biggest thing with the v6's is to avoid the 2.7 version like the plague. Complete utter garbage. The 3.5's are better but like to break roll pins that hold the rocker shafts in place. You'll get a upper end knock when it's broke. It isn't a big job to fix either.
MPG's, I think the difference is only a few between the two, given the Hemi has cylinder deactivation.
Only other areas I had problems were outer tie rods wear out way too fast and the rotors love to warp.

A friend of mine has a V8 one, and he added Bilsteins and bigass sway bars, and it is a very fine highway cruiser.

This sounds good to me. Going to check it out tomorrow. Thanks again for all the input.

Biggest thing with the v6's is to avoid the 2.7 version like the plague. Complete utter garbage.

Could you elaborate on why you feel this way?

Whats the thoughts on the SRT version?

93gsxturbo wrote: Whats the thoughts on the SRT version?

Thoughts are strong just worried about gas mileage. To and fro work, I do about 100km's a day (62miles).

rustysteel wrote:

93gsxturbo wrote: Whats the thoughts on the SRT version?

Thoughts are strong just worried about gas mileage. To and fro work, I do about 100km's a day (62miles).

Ex-wife had a '13 SRT Charger, with the 392. It was a berking blast, to hammer the go pedal. I don't remember exactly what the fuel economy was, but I'm pretty sure it was mid-teens, even with driving like an ass-hat.

Vigo wrote:

Biggest thing with the v6's is to avoid the 2.7 version like the plague. Complete utter garbage.

Could you elaborate on why you feel this way?

Yeah you know I poured hours and days and weeks into engineering quality manufacturing processes for those engines and the performed just as expected minus some poor cost savings decisions. Everyone hates on them.

In reply to rustysteel:

Yes get one. Very nice cars, the brakes do get warped, sometimes due to over torqued lugnuts, other times due to excessive aggressive driving where the stability control is activating for a longish period.

Rear suspension link bushings were a little spotty in the first gen cars.

We are debating car replacement now and a used 300 or Hyundai Genesis sedan are on the list of big used car options.

Not a fan. I used to work part time at a rental car company and the only people who ever rented these(along with chargers) were thugs from the ghetto who had a big night planned with their posse.

I like the styling and the interior, but I didn't drive one yet.

plance1 wrote: Not a fan. I used to work part time at a rental car company and the only people who ever rented these(along with chargers) were thugs from the ghetto who had a big night planned with their posse.

This goes well with me 'Rollin in my 5.0'.

Vigo wrote:

Biggest thing with the v6's is to avoid the 2.7 version like the plague. Complete utter garbage.

Could you elaborate on why you feel this way?

Underpowered, mediocre mpg vs the 3.5, questionable casting and machining to name a few.

Had a rental V6 back in about 2007 and it was pretty nice but refused to drift...

They're fun. Mash the go pedal, and they move out. Turn off the ESP, and they will waggle the tail on a hard launch, drift, and do killer burnouts.

62miles a day mostly highway? I'd rather be in a 300 than a mini. Better yet, buy my Crown Vic :P

Correct me if I'm wrong: Developed during M-B's ownership of Chrysler. A veritable M-B E-class for a lot less money.

Vigo wrote:

Biggest thing with the v6's is to avoid the 2.7 version like the plague. Complete utter garbage.

Could you elaborate on why you feel this way?

The 2.7 when the water pump fails it dumps coolant into the crank case... Is a pretty good reason to avoid them.

In my experience at a large used car dealer, most of them are garbage with higher miles. The normal demographic who buys them doesnt take care of anything.

Suspension parts wear out like mad(on 2WD models), cheap interior quality, rear wheel bearings are pretty common, etc. Ball joints, inner and outer tie rod ends, and the tension-struts(front front lower control arm), and end links and bushings all horribly common.

If it has the NAG1 transmission, check the electrical plug on the trans front right corner for leaking through the connector making the wires gooey. Cheap easy fix like $20 for the part or a few $ for the o-rings alone.

The 5.7/6.1 are common for oil pressure switch failure which is a bit of a pain in the ass but cheap to do.

Seat heater failure is common.

PS pump failure is common along with high pressure hose.

Id buy a cheap used one, to fix what is wrong myself... But never pay what any dealer is selling them for.

1988RedT2 wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong: Developed during M-B's ownership of Chrysler. A veritable M-B E-class for a lot less money.

Designed before MB merger. Some changes to use some MB gear. Oddly the Suspension engineering team told me they don't know where the idea came from that they used an E class rear suspension. Some marketing spin. Multi link rear suspension= MB style suspension I guess.

My group was officially asking them because if it was common to the MB suspension then my manufacturing engineering group would try to get tooling specs from MB to make copy equipment instead of new. But we had to design tooling from scratch because it wasn't e class stuff. Really the best thing from MB the car has is the transmission. Way better than the Chrysler units of the day. All the rest was Chrysler derived stuff as it was designed before the merger.

I like them and could totally see myself getting the srt8 version at some point.

Advan046 wrote: Designed before MB merger. Some changes to use some MB gear. Oddly the Suspension engineering team told me they don't know where the idea came from that they used an E class rear suspension. Some marketing spin. Multi link rear suspension= MB style suspension I guess.

The merger happened in 1998. 7 years would be a hell of a long time to gestate a design. I'm thinking most of it was done post-merger.

Anyhow, I like them well enough. It's the type of car that appeals to me. I just can't shake my mistrust of Chrysler products, especially from that era.

plance1 wrote: Not a fan. I used to work part time at a rental car company and the only people who ever rented these(along with chargers) were thugs from the ghetto who had a big night planned with their posse.

Seems similar to the car in your avatar. Of course, I'd drive that car to too and I'm no thug with a big night planned lol.

In reply to plance1:

I guess they do call them the Bentley of the hood for this reason.