Chrysler Concorde 1998 vs Chrysler 300M 1998
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.5 Petrol | 3.5 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 253 HP | 254 HP | |
| Torque: | 339 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9 seconds | 8.8 seconds | |
|
Chrysler 300M is a more dynamic driving. Chrysler Concorde engine produces 1 HP less power than Chrysler 300M, whereas torque is 1 NM less than Chrysler 300M. Due to the lower power, Chrysler Concorde reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.8 | 10.7 | |
| Chrysler Concorde consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Chrysler 300M, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chrysler Concorde could require 15 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 590 km in combined cycle | 590 km in combined cycle | |
| 760 km on highway | 750 km on highway | ||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.31 m | 5.00 m | |
| Width: | 1.89 m | 1.92 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.42 m | |
| Chrysler Concorde is 31 cm longer than the Chrysler 300M, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Chrysler Concorde is 2 cm higher. | |||
| 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
|
| |