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: | 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 | |
| 820 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: | 1.48 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`180 | 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 300M has
| |