Chrysler 300C 2004 vs Chrysler 300M 1998
| Body: | Estate car / wagon | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The wagon generally has more cargo space due to a larger trunk door opening, a roof that extends as far back as possible, and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into cargo space. Sedans tend to be quieter than wagons due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| 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: | 9.2 seconds | 8.8 seconds | |
|
Chrysler 300M is a more dynamic driving. Chrysler 300C engine produces 1 HP less power than Chrysler 300M, the torque is the same for both cars. Due to the lower power, Chrysler 300C reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.0 | 10.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.9 l/100km | 11.3 l/100km | |
|
By specification Chrysler 300C consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Chrysler 300M, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chrysler 300C could require 45 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Chrysler 300C consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chrysler 300M. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 68 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 610 km in combined cycle | 590 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 750 km on highway | ||
| 620 km with real consumption | 560 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Chrysler 300M) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Chrysler 300C) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.02 m | 5.00 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.92 m | |
| Height: | 1.56 m | 1.42 m | |
| Chrysler 300C is 2 cm longer than the Chrysler 300M, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Chrysler 300C is 14 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 630 litres | 530 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1602 litres | 530 litres | |
|
Chrysler 300C has more luggage capacity. Chrysler 300C has 100 litres more trunk space than the Chrysler 300M. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Chrysler 300C (by 1072 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12 meters | 11.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chrysler 300C is 0.5 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): | 2`235 | 2`120 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 4600 | 1400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.0/10 | 9.6/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chrysler 300C has
|
Chrysler 300M has
| |