Chrysler 300M 1998 vs Chrysler Concorde 1998
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 2.7 - 3.5 | 2.7 - 3.5 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 203 - 254 HP | 203 - 253 HP | |
| Torque: | 256 - 340 NM | 258 - 339 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.8 - 10 seconds | 8 - 10.5 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.5 - 10.7 | 10.1 - 10.8 | |
|
Chrysler 300M petrol engines consumes on average 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than Chrysler Concorde. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.00 m | 5.29 m | |
| Width: | 1.92 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.43 m | |
| Chrysler 300M is 29 cm shorter than the Chrysler Concorde, 3 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 530 litres | 530 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
530 litres | 530 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.5 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 2`120 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Chrysler Concorde has
| |