Chrysler Concorde 1998 vs Chrysler 300M 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 - 253 HP | 203 - 254 HP | |
| Torque: | 258 - 339 NM | 256 - 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8 - 10.5 seconds | 8.8 - 10 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.1 - 10.8 | 10.5 - 10.7 | |
|
Chrysler Concorde petrol engines consumes on average 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than Chrysler 300M. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.29 m | 5.00 m | |
| Width: | 1.89 m | 1.92 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.42 m | |
| Chrysler Concorde is 29 cm longer than the Chrysler 300M, 3 cm narrower 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: | no data | 11.5 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | ~ 2`120 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chrysler Concorde has
|
| |