Chrysler 300C 2005 vs Chrysler 300M 1998
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Diesel | 2.7 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 218 HP | 203 HP | |
| Torque: | 510 NM | 256 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.6 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
Chrysler 300C is more dynamic to drive. Chrysler 300C engine produces 15 HP more power than Chrysler 300M, whereas torque is 254 NM more than Chrysler 300M. Thanks to more power Chrysler 300C reaches 100 km/h speed 2.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.1 | 10.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.1 l/100km | 11.2 l/100km | |
|
The Chrysler 300C is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chrysler 300C consumes 2.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chrysler 300M, which means that by driving the Chrysler 300C over 15,000 km in a year you can save 360 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chrysler 300C consumes 2.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chrysler 300M. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 68 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 830 km in combined cycle | 600 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 800 km on highway | ||
| 740 km with real consumption | 570 km with real consumption | ||
| Chrysler 300C gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 460'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Jeep Grand Cherokee, Jeep Commander | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Chrysler 300C, Chrysler Sebring, Dodge Intrepid | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Chrysler 300M might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
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: | 504 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 26 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: | 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`360 | 2`120 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 4000 | 1400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.0/10 | 9.6/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chrysler 300C has
|
Chrysler 300M has
| |