Chrysler Concorde 1998 vs Chrysler 300M 1998
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.2 Petrol | 3.5 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 228 HP | 254 HP | |
| Torque: | 301 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.5 seconds | 8.8 seconds | |
|
Chrysler 300M is a more dynamic driving. Chrysler Concorde engine produces 26 HP less power than Chrysler 300M, whereas torque is 39 NM less than Chrysler 300M. Due to the lower power, Chrysler Concorde reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.3 | 10.7 | |
| Chrysler Concorde consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chrysler 300M, which means that by driving the Chrysler Concorde over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 590 km in combined cycle | |
| 790 km on highway | 750 km on highway | ||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.28 m | 5.00 m | |
| Width: | 1.89 m | 1.92 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.42 m | |
| Chrysler Concorde is 28 cm longer than the Chrysler 300M, 3 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 530 litres | 530 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 530 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | 11.5 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 2`120 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chrysler Concorde has
|
Chrysler 300M has
| |