Just got the new Car and Driver today and there is a review of the new 300c.

0-60 5.3
1/4 13.9
top speed 150 (limited)

In the same issue there is a combo test of a Mercedes CLK55 AMG, a BMW 645ci and a Maserati coupe. The BMW had the same times as the 300c in the 0-60 and the 1/4. As tested it cost 76,070.

The Maserati is a sweet looking car. Of course it cost 92k as tested and the Merc was 80k. Wow that's alot of money for a car.

Those are very impressive times. If they really do a PVO version:

:mg:

HOLEY SHIT.

They already have a working blower, remember the SRT-8, which is to be out sometime next year I hear. So hopefully, they'll be able to do a hi-po version if they want. Might just be the Magnum / Charger though.

oh yea...i can only imagine what the 430 hp would do for that thing

DAMN! Well, that's far better than the 6.3 seconds that Dodge was claiming for the Magnum. But, yeah, I imagine that if a PVO version were to be made, it would blow the CTS-V off the road. I may be wrong, but I'd still like to see it.

As long as we get one of them. I'm not sure if the 300c will get it but the Magnum / Charger should.

Not sure if you guys have seen this or not.

http://automotivemachine.net/300cdrifting.avi

This car is going to blow away any doubts that American muscle is back in a big way.

This could really open the doors for the 60's hp wars to be back in a big way. Except with clean running engines getting decent economy. Best of both worlds. ;)

Originally posted by DMAG
This car is going to blow away any doubts that American muscle is back in a big way.

This could really open the doors for the 60's hp wars to be back in a big way. Except with clean running engines getting decent economy. Best of both worlds. ;)

Yeah but the way it ended was increasing insurance premiums and fuel costs. hey arnt we already experiencing that.

5.3 0-60 and only a 13.9 1/4 something doesn't look right with those numbers.

Originally posted by adaptabl
5.3 0-60 and only a 13.9 1/4 something doesn't look right with those numbers.

I've been thinking about those numbers all day, and they don't seem right. A 5.3 to 60 should get you in the mid 13's in the quarter. And a 13.9 quarter should get you to 60 in the upper 5's. Motortrend clocked the 0-60 in 5.8.

The biggest difference between now and the muscle car days is these cars are getting very good gas mileage. I think the 300C is rated 17 city and 24 highway.

Unless it's geared for low for 0-60 but dies later in the 1/4 run...

The time has come it should be interesting to see if they can sell them. Personally I don't think they will sell even with huge rebates and 0% financing. The 300C and Magnum are two of the ugliest cars I have ever seen.

Originally posted by alderran
Unless it's geared for low for 0-60 but dies later in the 1/4 run...

The time has come it should be interesting to see if they can sell them. Personally I don't think they will sell even with huge rebates and 0% financing. The 300C and Magnum are two of the ugliest cars I have ever seen.

They will sell a few at first. After the lots are full and the regular buyer needs to takeover, sales will be on life support. The bright spot is any car/station wagon sold cheap enough will sell. GM managed to dump the Aztecs. They are very ugly. An old mans type of car.

Originally posted by adaptabl
They will sell a few at first. After the lots are full and the regular buyer needs to takeover, sales will be on life support. The bright spot is any car/station wagon sold cheap enough will sell. GM managed to dump the Aztecs. They are very ugly. An old mans type of car.

They didn't sell many Aztecs, the Magnum /300C are replacing two of Chysler's best sellers... I don't know IMOP even rebates won't move them

Originally posted by moparman
Just got the new Car and Driver today and there is a review of the new 300c.

0-60 5.3
1/4 13.9
top speed 150 (limited)


I just read motor trend and they indicated the US version of the C would have a 126 mph limiter on it, the euro version would be limited at 155 mph.

...and it ran the 1/4 in 14.2, not 13.9. Still very impressive, but there's a world of "ass-o-meter" difference between the two numbers.

Originally posted by 94IntrepidES
Not sure if you guys have seen this or not.

http://automotivemachine.net/300cdrifting.avi

that is so badass..it smoked the tires forever after it straightened out

It looked like it smoked 1 tire. (open differential)
Anyway 225 width tires on a 4000 lb car. not cool
But at least the wheel width is 7.5" and a 245/55 18 will fit nicely.

Originally posted by Operator
...and it ran the 1/4 in 14.2, not 13.9. Still very impressive, but there's a world of "ass-o-meter" difference between the two numbers.
ACTUALLY...in car and driver...it ran a 13.9, i just looked at the issue....and the difference in that is that NHRA says a car running 14.2 isnt required to have its driver wear a helmet, but a 13.9 car is required...

Fast 0-60 and a bit slow 1/4 mile.....pushrod engine. Tons of low end torque but runs out of air at higher speeds. But who cares? From stop sign to stop sign, light to light, nothing will touch ya!!!!

My thoughts.

Danny
ex 2k1 trep R/T
current 04 GTP Comp G

:bigsmile: :bigsmile: :bigsmile:

Motor Trend:
1/4 mile: 14.27@98.56 mph
0-60: 5.8 seconds
Slalom: 63.2 mph

1/4 14.7@98
0-60 6.1
0-100 15.2
70-0 180 ft, peak 0.99g
L 0.84g R 0.83g

This thing must be governed extra low in 5th gear, only 100 mph. 4th is good for 126

How can all these times be so far off? I drove the C on Thursday and can say there's no way the car I drove runs the 1/4 in 13.9. I drove the C on the same route I drove the Hemi Durango and there wasn't much difference. In the Durango I hit a landmark at 80 MPH and in the C I hit 82.

BTW, the exterior looks VERY GOOD in person. The grill doesn't look near as big and out of place as the pictures make it look (I drove the cool vanilla).

Originally posted by anil_zx3
Yeah but the way it ended was increasing insurance premiums and fuel costs. hey arnt we already experiencing that. SUV's are doing that - not sports/performance cars ... :(

Originally posted by chrisgaddy
The biggest difference between now and the muscle car days is these cars are getting very good gas mileage ... They handle much better, too - the things I can put my Trep through compared to my GTX ... :wow:

Originally posted by MikeW
It looked like it smoked 1 tire. (open differential)
Anyway 225 width tires on a 4000 lb car. not cool I disagree. If you look near the end while he's still in the curve, you can clearly see smoke coming from the driver's side above the trunk. Also, the 300 that I saw had 215's on it (but they were taller tires - maybe 215/65/17???) and all but the 300C weigh in at just over 3700 same as my Trep ...
{edit} My mistake ... about 150# more than my Trep. {/edit}

Wonder if the ESP has a disable button???
I can also see the first mod for it ... swap out the standard gears for the 2.7 gears - that'll take down that 1/4 time!!!

All intrepids weigh less than 3600 lbs.
Brake actuated traction control is quick enough that even with an open differential in a car like the Jaguar XJR, you can spin both tires. So the c was spinning both tires at low speeds in the curve and then accelerating out the traction control cuts out, so the already overheated inner tire will continue to spin (assuming that the throttle reduction traction control is off)

Yeah base 300 have 215/65 17 with 7" wide tires, so the first 'mod' would be 235/60 17's

yes, ESP can be turned off but not traction control as far as I remember from premeire night...

funny to me that car and driver got it to do 0-60 in 5.3 and then I turn to a GTO ad and see that it does 0-60 in surprise, surprise 5.3 seconds... hmm good for the 300C bad for the GTO, as the 300C is a luxury car and the GTO is supposedly a muscle car. I'm just optimistic about what can be done with a charger, especially if they change body styles every year like they did in the 60's (I doubt the 68 syle will make it today because it has to have a high drag coefficient in a wind tunnel, even though it looks the best IMO).

Whatever the thing runs, be it car and driver's time or motor trend's time, it's impressive to me. :)

What is the price of gas this week?

BTW, the GTO is coming out with a 400HP engine next year. The looks aren't impressive but the speed sure will be.

Danny

Originally posted by idaho96trep
... especially if they change body styles every year like they did in the 60's (I doubt the 68 style will make it today because it has to have a high drag coefficient in a wind tunnel, even though it looks the best IMO) ... The body styles didn't change all that much ... 68-69 changed tail lights, 69-70 changed front bumper (OK, for those picky people there were a few other very minor changes). Then redesign in '71 but 71-74 were pretty much the same except for grill changes and other little things.

How about the Daytona/Superbird ... minus the rear wing?

Originally posted by idaho96trep
yes, ESP can be turned off but not traction control as far as I remember from premeire night...

funny to me that car and driver got it to do 0-60 in 5.3 and then I turn to a GTO ad and see that it does 0-60 in surprise, surprise 5.3 seconds... hmm good for the 300C bad for the GTO, as the 300C is a luxury car and the GTO is supposedly a muscle car. I'm just optimistic about what can be done with a charger, especially if they change body styles every year like they did in the 60's (I doubt the 68 syle will make it today because it has to have a high drag coefficient in a wind tunnel, even though it looks the best IMO).

Whatever the thing runs, be it car and driver's time or motor trend's time, it's impressive to me. :)

The C&D 's 5.3 second run to 60 is a bit on the low side. Looking at the gear ratios, it does not seem to be geared for 0-60 (doesn't reach 60 at the end of first nor end of 2nd gear).

5.3 would put it up there with the Camaro SS and WS6 Firebird, both are LS1 powered with 6spd manual, and much lighter.

The GTO is not much lighter than a 300 though (over 4000 lbs with driver). If that thing, and also the Cobra, could loose some weight, they could be even faster. Believe the GTO was automatic though.

Anyway, the 300C is one awsome machine. The looks are really subjective, I personally like it, though only the front. You could make richboy in a 745 or S500 think real hard about what's wrong with their cars.

I believe you're right, great low-end power, "runs out" (and that's pushing it) at higher speeds. Still, it's better then everything in it's class.

I'm about 99.999% sure that when you push the button, the trac control is off but the stability system remains on. Hence the low skidpan numbers (according to most car magazines) and the ability to smoke the tires when it is off.

I saw my first close up hemi c in silver yesterday on the way to pick up my girlfriend. All I can say is it's definately a head turning in the looks department. Not enough to make me crash like say spotting a mclaren, but I'd buy one right away if I had the cash they were asking for on hand.

Originally posted by Don Hardy
I'm about 99.999% sure that when you push the button, the trac control is off but the stability system remains on. Hence the low skidpan numbers (according to most car magazines) and the ability to smoke the tires when it is off.
Again true. the "ESP Off" turns off the Traction, and makes the Stability induction threshold higher (but not really off).

I read the same CD article. I thought I noted top speed as 130mph govenor limited. If thats the case, my RT is faster.

Originally posted by rt_bob
I read the same CD article. I thought I noted top speed as 130mph govenor limited. If thats the case, my RT is faster.

But the C is quicker! ;)

Originally posted by DMAG
But the C is quicker! ;)
yep....and by the time your R/T gets up to the speed to pass the C, the C would already be at that LIMITED 130 mph top speed...and be cruising comfortably

Originally posted by irishred
yep....and by the time your R/T gets up to the speed to pass the C, the C would already be at that LIMITED 130 mph top speed...and be cruising comfortably I can cruise comfortably at 130 ... :biggrin:

Originally posted by D76G12
I can cruise comfortably at 130 ... :biggrin:
indeed you can...but the C would probably be there about 10 seconds or so sooner than the R/T
300C 0-120 in about 20-21 seconds
2000 Intrepid R/T 0-120 in about 37 seconds...0-130 in about 60 seconds...
my 3.2....0-119 in i dont know how long...but alot longer than that R/T
you do the math :)

Either way.....I WANT ONE!!! I'm seriously debating going on getting one....but then theres the Magnum which I also love, and now rumors of a Charger, which I would love even more! DAMN IT!!!! Why did they have to drop these now?!?!? ARRGGHH!!

I'll take low-end power over top end grunt any day...

Originally posted by E8502
I'll take low-end power over top end grunt any day...

Amen. I'l drive under 130 ALOT more then over. ;)

The 300C has the same powertrain characteristics as the Intrepid R/T or 300M..........not much off the line........then at 3500RPM it's like the turbocharger kicks in :eek:

Originally posted by DMAG
Amen. I'l drive under 130 ALOT more then over. ;)
Yeah, and to even think of going that fast here on roads in Mass!! :mg:

It probably on takes 1/2 mile from a stop to achieve 126 mph. But the brakes are not up to that kind of speed. Maybe the export models have better brakes.

Boy do I disagree - from a stop it is like a freight train!! Lots and lots of torque. And MikeW - you always seem to have the goog info, but from what I feel, the brakes are GREAT! They really haul ya down.

Originally posted by MikeW
It probably on takes 1/2 mile from a stop to achieve 126 mph. But the brakes are not up to that kind of speed. Maybe the export models have better brakes.
What makes you say this? :eek:

Well the 300C are the best of the LX(so far) and maybe the skinny crappy OEM tires are just that, junk. Maybe the exports have better brake pads (and better cooling ducts?) and wider/ non all season tires. Even with brake assist the 300 only pulled a peak braking of 1g, an RX330 can do that.

Just imagine a 300C having to pull a 150-75 deceleration because of dumbass on the autobahn, that is what brake assist was made for. certainly the flagship should be able to handle this with aplomb?

Originally posted by MikeW
Well the 300C are the best of the LX(so far) and maybe the skinny crappy OEM tires are just that, junk. Maybe the exports have better brake pads (and better cooling ducts?) and wider/ non all season tires. Even with brake assist the 300 only pulled a peak braking of 1g, an RX330 can do that.

Just imagine a 300C having to pull a 150-75 deceleration because of dumbass on the autobahn, that is what brake assist was made for. certainly the flagship should be able to handle this with aplomb?
Humm, are the wheel specs for the Euro model wider?

I'll see if I can dig up that info....

13.9 ?!?!?!?!?! That seems a bit too low. If it truely is a 13 second car that is impressive. But these other times rolling in almost a second slower seems way off too. I could see a few tenths here or there but almost a full second?? That's odd. Unless these things are like GTP's, some are hotter than others off the floor. Only one way to find out, everyone needs to test drive one and take it to the track. ;)

Yes, the 300C would get there faster. No doubt about it. But on the "open road", you would overtake it in about 30 seconds. Assuming your RT will reach <= 140mph.

I am really just a little puzzled why the RT was built for speed and the 300C is not. This is especially curious considering the higher cost.

I think it's all in the gearing ...
The R/T's get better gas mileage with the lower gears, which gives them a higher top end.
The 300C was designed for the "GO!" factor, which means higher gears and better acceleration, but a lower top end.

Originally posted by D76G12
I think it's all in the gearing ...
The R/T's get better gas mileage with the lower gears, which gives them a higher top end.
The 300C was designed for the "GO!" factor, which means higher gears and better acceleration, but a lower top end.

The 300C's 5 speed transmission has tall gearing (2.82 final drive ratio) which is better for fuel economy and top speed than low end acceleration. And for the 17/25 mpg rating the 300C has, it's been rated at 20/32 here in Canada. (Why? I don't have a clue :confused: )


Perhaps explaining the limited top speed is:

1. The narrow tire size with its low (H) speed rating
2. The .35 drag coefficient on the 300C
3. The 4046 pound estimated Curb weight on the 300C
4. The electronic limiter :rolleyes:

That's 20/32 liters/100KM. LOL

I have to agree with D76G12. It appears they were seeking the speed off the line but the pushrods traitionally don't have enough air to breathe higher up. Who cars anyhow? Its beating the ricers from light to light than cruising at 140MPH taht counts. You're guaranteed to get caught for speeding and pay a hefty fine/lose your license and I'd rather have the low end torque/speed than the high end, anyday.

There must be more than just the gearing. The tires are H-rated and the speed limiter to 126. Fuel economy is one consideration since they have to meet certain federal regulations. The others, I'm not sure.

In any case, with the 300C, you'll love the pushrod and the low end torque like I do in my GTP Comp G

Danny

ok, i read the first few posts and just skiped ahead. i believe the 300c wont be too powerful (even if they come out with the 6.1L hemi version...) because that is contending with the viper. the viper has been the fastest car dodge has made in almost 15 years. if the 300C gets a supercharged/turbo 6.1L engine, it will have 500 hp easy. Look at the 5.7L hemi now, it runs high 13s and has 325 hp and TONS of torque. correct me if im wrong, but i believe that that extra .4L will add much more torque and it will be crazy in the 1/4 mile. if they have a really low budget classy car that runs low 13s or even 12s *gulp*, i think they will lose sales dramatically on the viper and then they'll take it off the line. and the viper is an american icon and a shelby masterpiece. i dont care if i cant afford a viper till im 80, i still want it to be sold.


edit: btw, look at the srt4, they all said it ran a 14.1, but when tested by actual owners, some got it to run 13.9...the magazines always post alittle high. then, when u put some mods on it, im sure the C would fly...but like everyone is saying, its probably geared low and has the limiter at more top speeds... look at the ram srt10, it friggen has a v10 in it but yet runs 14s. its because of wieght, i think there are many factors to why the c runs 13.9...and im sure the magazines arent off by much.


but, maybe its like the 69 z28, when it first came out, it was the first z28 from chevy. and they ranked it at 250 horses. (for insurance purposes) but yet it had close to 450 horses. i wish they did stuff like that now...

Originally posted by BigJ
The 300C's 5 speed transmission has tall gearing (2.82 final drive ratio) which is better for fuel economy and top speed than low end acceleration. And for the 17/25 mpg rating the 300C has, it's been rated at 20/32 here in Canada. (Why? I don't have a clue :confused: )




Our gallons are bigger here in Canada. Thats why it has a higher rating here. Also our ratings are done more conservativly. The U.S. E.P.A. test in a more real world test situation. Our estimates are more lab numbers.

Originally posted by Race
ok, i read the first few posts and just skiped ahead. i believe the 300c wont be too powerful (even if they come out with the 6.1L hemi version...) because that is contending with the viper. the viper has been the fastest car dodge has made in almost 15 years. if the 300C gets a supercharged/turbo 6.1L engine, it will have 500 hp easy.

but, maybe its like the 69 z28, when it first came out, it was the first z28 from chevy. and they ranked it at 250 horses. (for insurance purposes) but yet it had close to 450 horses. i wish they did stuff like that now...

The 6.1 won't be supercharged or turboed from my understanding.

And 450 horses from a 69 Z-28? That would mean 426 HEMIS would be running ohhh...700 HP.

Originally posted by Race
but, maybe its like the 69 z28, when it first came out, it was the first z28 from chevy. and they ranked it at 250 horses. (for insurance purposes) but yet it had close to 450 horses. i wish they did stuff like that now...
http://img22.photobucket.com/albums/v66/threefortyduster/umno.gif
the first Z28 was in 1967 for one, and were made through 69 in the same level, and they came with the 302, and it was 290 HP...NHRA even rates it at 290...therefore...thats the closest to actual

Originally posted by 340duster
... they came with the 302, and it was 290 HP...NHRA even rates it at 290...therefore...thats the closest to actual :eek: I didn't know it was a 302. Always thought the early Z's were 327's.
But I'm Mopar not Bowtie - so no arguments from me, just surprise ...

well, i watched it on speed channel, i believe it was dream car garage. but maybe it was 350 hp, i just remeber it was drastically greater than the factory ratings.

Both the Magnum and the 300C have the same drive trains. Why the big differance in times 5.3 (C), and 6.3 (Mag).

weight? :confused:

Originally posted by Race
well, i watched it on speed channel, i believe it was dream car garage. but maybe it was 350 hp, i just remeber it was drastically greater than the factory ratings.
if it was drastically greater...NHRA would factor it like that...if you need the actual HP figures for a motor of just about any year, you need to look at what NHRA factors them at, since those factors are what the racers go by to be classed...they dont even look at factory rating, they do it by how fast those cars run

Originally posted by 300Michael
Both the Magnum and the 300C have the same drive trains. Why the big differance in times 5.3 (C), and 6.3 (Mag).
car and driver got 5.5 for the magnum...and 14.2 on the 1/4...you gotta look at times from the same magazine for them...besides, Chrysler only said the 300C would do 6.3 0-60