Chrysler 300C 2004 vs Chrysler 300M 1998
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.5 Petrol | 3.5 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 253 HP | 254 HP | |
| Torque: | 340 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 8.8 seconds | |
| Chrysler 300C engine produces 1 HP less power than Chrysler 300M, the torque is the same for both cars. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | no data | 10.7 | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 72 litres | 64 litres | |
| 660 km with real consumption | 560 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.02 m | 5.00 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.92 m | |
| Height: | 1.48 m | 1.42 m | |
| Chrysler 300C is 2 cm longer than the Chrysler 300M, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Chrysler 300C is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 442 litres | 530 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
504 litres | 530 litres | |
|
Chrysler 300M has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Chrysler 300C has 88 litres less trunk space than the Chrysler 300M. This could mean that the Chrysler 300C uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Chrysler 300M (by 26 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.9 meters | 11.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chrysler 300C is 0.4 metres more than that of the Chrysler 300M, which means Chrysler 300C can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 2`120 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 4200 | 1400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.0/10 | 9.6/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chrysler 300C has
|
Chrysler 300M has
| |