Chrysler 300M 1998 vs Chrysler 300C 2004
| Body: | Sedan | Estate car / wagon | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 2.7 Petrol | 2.7 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 203 HP | 193 HP | |
| Torque: | 256 NM | 257 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Chrysler 300M is more dynamic to drive. Chrysler 300M engine produces 10 HP more power than Chrysler 300C, but torque is 1 NM less than Chrysler 300C. Thanks to more power Chrysler 300M reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.5 | 11.0 | |
| Chrysler 300M consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chrysler 300C, which means that by driving the Chrysler 300M over 15,000 km in a year you can save 75 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 68 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 600 km in combined cycle | 610 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 820 km on highway | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| 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: | 460'000 km | 460'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 13 years | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.00 m | 5.02 m | |
| Width: | 1.92 m | 1.88 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.56 m | |
| Chrysler 300M is 2 cm shorter than the Chrysler 300C, 4 cm wider, while the height of Chrysler 300M is 14 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 530 litres | 630 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
530 litres | 1602 litres | |
|
Chrysler 300C has more luggage space. Chrysler 300M has 100 litres less trunk space than the Chrysler 300C. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Chrysler 300C (by 1072 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.5 meters | 12 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chrysler 300M is 0.5 metres less than that of the Chrysler 300C, which means Chrysler 300M can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`120 | 2`225 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 5000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 9.6/10 | 8.0/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chrysler 300M has
|
Chrysler 300C has
| |