2008 Chrysler 300 Refresh

[CMG]

Another instance of Chrysler's divisions being poorly-defined. This is where a Plymouth brand comes in hand, offering a bottom-barrel 2.7l Fury and a 3.5l Gran Fury. Chrysler gets the 3.5l standard out of the gate; Ditto with Dodge.

"Poorly defined" divisions?

How so? There is DODGE, less expensive and lower trim levels- leaning towards the performance in the top-end cars, and CHRYSLER, more creature comforts, cushier interiors, higher price tags for similar models.

[Flybrian]

"Poorly defined" divisions?

How so? There is DODGE, less expensive and lower trim levels- leaning towards the performance in the top-end cars, and CHRYSLER, more creature comforts, cushier interiors, higher price tags for similar models.

Chyrsler and Dodge overlap in so many fields its ridiculous. The difference comes down solely to styling preference and if Chrysler intends to be 'premium,' it should probably start working on it.

[CMG]

Chyrsler and Dodge overlap in so many fields its ridiculous. The difference comes down solely to styling preference and if Chrysler intends to be 'premium,' it should probably start working on it.

How about Chevrolet, Buick, Pontiac, Cadillac, and Oldsmobile.

What is THEIR "definitions"??

What's the defining difference between Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Buick?

I think Chrysler stuff is more "premium" than the Dodge counterparts, better interiors and trim levels etc.

Always has been.

[Flybrian]

How about Chevrolet, Buick, Pontiac, Cadillac, and Oldsmobile.

What is THEIR "definitions"??

What's the defining difference between Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Buick?

Neither here nor there.

I think Chrysler stuff is more "premium" than the Dodge counterparts, better interiors and trim levels etc.

Always has been.

Yes, I agree, in the past the brands were well-defined (or at least better-defined). However, not the case as much today. As far has Chrysler having better interiors and equipment levels, compare the 300 and Charger. For the $2600 premium paid for the base model Chrysler, what do you actually get over the Dodge? A glove box light, a rear seat cupholder, and an 8-way power driver's seat. For $2600. There was a time when the Charger was similarly cheaper, but had the 3.5l, stability control, etc....cheaper with more power and luxury? Plus, compare an Avenger and Sebring...one really looks more luxurious on the inside...?

[CMG]

Neither here nor there.

Yes, I agree, in the past the brands were well-defined (or at least better-defined). However, not the case as much today. As far has Chrysler having better interiors and equipment levels, compare the 300 and Charger. For the $2600 premium paid for the base model Chrysler, what do you actually get over the Dodge? A glove box light, a rear seat cupholder, and an 8-way power driver's seat. For $2600. There was a time when the Charger was similarly cheaper, but had the 3.5l, stability control, etc....cheaper with more power and luxury? Plus, compare an Avenger and Sebring...one really looks more luxurious on the inside...?

A 300 and a Charger are different cars. You can't accurately compare two admittedly similar cars as far as a $2600 price difference goes and expect differences laid out on paper.

1968 Chevelle/Skylark/Cutlass were all sharing the same platform and all had different prices, but the price differences couldn't be pointed to by break down.

Suzuki and Chevrolet sold identical vehicles with different badging at different price levels too, did they not?

Chrysler 300s have more than just what you list as differences with the Charger, we both know it, but the amount you state can't be written down on paper in a listed cost breakdown IMO.

Chryslers are STILL more "upscale" than Dodges. Caravan vs Town and Country (or whatever they are called) is a great example- same van, different level of trim.

*shrugs*

How about Saturn, as a GM division, where does it fit in with Chev/Buick/Pontiac etc? I don't see why you can't answer the differences with GM's divisions if it troubles you about other company's divisions? Ford and Mercury too?

[Flybrian]

Chrysler 300s have more than just what you list as differences with the Charger, we both know it, but the amount you state can't be written down on paper in a listed cost breakdown IMO.

Those differences come from Chrysler's Build and Price application on their site.

[CMG]

Those differences come from Chrysler's Build and Price application on their site.

OK. But they are for DIFFERENT model cars built on the same platform.

I can point to quiiiiite a few GMs built on the same platform but different models with just as big a price difference with no visible reason I bet.

I just don't see the gripe?

[Flybrian]

Well, honestly. I don't really care. I don't forsee Chrysler being around for much longer anyway.

[CMG]

Well, honestly. I don't really care. I don't forsee Chrysler being around for much longer anyway.

Haha

I'm sure many people don't see GM, Ford, or Chrysler around for much longer with the debt load they all have.

LOL

They'll survive...

[Flybrian]

GM is too large with too many fingers in too many pies to ever go away. Too many have too much invested in it (especially in America) to ever let it fail. Even in the current environment of multinationalism, this country has too much to lose if GM just goes under. No way.

Ford will just continue divesting itself of everything non-core. It'll stay, too.

Chrysler may or may not. No real global presence (a toehold in Europe, groundwork of an alliance with Chery on some $h!box), no one besides Cerberus wanted Chrysler when it was for sale, and they may not even get the finances to buy Chrysler now. So...who knows?

[CMG]

GM is too large with too many fingers in too many pies to ever go away. Too many have too much invested in it (especially in America) to ever let it fail. Even in the current environment of multinationalism, this country has too much to lose if GM just goes under. No way.

Ford will just continue divesting itself of everything non-core. It'll stay, too.

Chrysler may or may not. No real global presence (a toehold in Europe, groundwork of an alliance with Chery on some $h!box), no one besides Cerberus wanted Chrysler when it was for sale, and they may not even get the finances to buy Chrysler now. So...who knows?

Actually Chrysler was persued by MANY, the Canadian "Magna" being one of the frontrunners. All sorts of interest, and Daimler was only willing to part with 80% in the end, they kept 20% of Chrysler.

GM has more money troubles as of late than any manufacturer in the world ever has, and to think money troubles are insignificant because of the company's size would be a tragic mistake IMO.

All three domestic manufacturers need to get their houses in order, or face the inevitable. Immense company size or not.

[CMG]

Lots of interest, here's the Magna link.

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/03/23/m...lerrumours.html

[Northstar]

Lots of interest, here's the Magna link.

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/03/23/m...lerrumours.html

If they were only willing to pay $4.7 billion I'd say they weren't really too interested. They were just trying to get a great deal. GM was just fooling around and really had no reason to buy anything but possibly Jeep so that they could keep Hummer more upscale.

[CMG]

If they were only willing to pay $4.7 billion I'd say they weren't really too interested. They were just trying to get a great deal.

Every bid wasn't just the cash bid, they all had all sorts of provisions, just as the Cerberus deal had.

Magna is STILL interested from what I hear. I'll bet they are hoping the Cerberus deal falls through?

[FAPTurbo]

Every bid wasn't just the cash bid, they all had all sorts of provisions, just as the Cerberus deal had.

Magna is STILL interested from what I hear. I'll bet they are hoping the Cerberus deal falls through?

I'm not sure Frank Stronach would go through with it again. Then again, a Canadian car company would sound pretty awesome.

Only a matter of time anyways... hopefully by the end of 2030, Canada will own everything that is American, and have your country too, and we'll change your name to Saskatchewan.

[LosAngeles]

IMO Plymouth should have a FWD large car to give buyers an alternative who don't want/car if it's FWD or RWD.

Only on C&G is there this weird movement that there SHOULD be frontie standards alongside rear-drive standards in the same company.

If it never happened, certainly no one would be convinced it should be that way. The general public obviously doesn't care. Just get them a car they can feel for their convenience and enjoyment that can get out of its own way at the right price, and they're golden.

If I was a bettin' man, good money says only we on message boards are really trippin' about drive wheels on these cars. Now, ENGINE? That's another story.

BTW, of course, GM, Ford and Chrysler are here to stay. Just gotta make the right decisions so they can have more of those HITS we all want to see...and definitely shave down the oversize dealer networks...but none of them are leaving this planet anytime soon.

And then....

hopefully by the end of 2030, Canada will own everything that is American, and have your country too, and we'll change your name to Saskatchewan.

Yeah, except one thing. We ain't bowing to no queen, speaking French (Spanish is bad enough), giving up the Glocks and Winchesters, or measuring metric....nor will we ever quit being racist or throwing around our regionalism (ever been to NYC, LA, the Bay Area, or the South?). We'd be a bigger problem than we're worth. Edited July 28, 2007 by LosAngeles

[ZL-1]

If they were only willing to pay $4.7 billion I'd say they weren't really too interested.

None of us know that. It depends, along with other things, on what liabilites were part of the deal. It may very well be that Daimler made one hell of a deal by getting $4.7bn for Chrysler.

[bowtie_dude]

My god, the 300 is such a complete joke.

"Already sophisticated interior design..."

[guionM]

My god, the 300 is such a complete joke.

"Already sophisticated interior design..."

Care to elaborate, or is this just another mindless & pointless bashing of a successful car that has gotten both GM and Ford off their laurels to get RWD American cars back in the showroom?

GM is too large with too many fingers in too many pies to ever go away. Too many have too much invested in it (especially in America) to ever let it fail. Even in the current environment of multinationalism, this country has too much to lose if GM just goes under. No way.

Ford will just continue divesting itself of everything non-core. It'll stay, too.

Chrysler may or may not. No real global presence (a toehold in Europe, groundwork of an alliance with Chery on some $h!box), no one besides Cerberus wanted Chrysler when it was for sale, and they may not even get the finances to buy Chrysler now. So...who knows?

Chrysler has a VERY solid presence overseas compared with other US car divisions. The PT Cruiser is also made in Europe (Austria if I remember correctly) along with 1 or 2 other Chryslers. The Chrysler 300C is the best selling large car in Australia, beating out the local Holden Statesman and Caprice (I've personally seen how successful Chrysler is in Australia). Jeeps are also made in Egypt. The Charger SRT8 has recently gone on sale in Japan. To be honset, Chrysler seems to be the most successful at selling "American" cars abroad, let alone manufacturing them outside outside North America.

Quick rundown on Chrysler's international operations:

http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/Projects/c2..._CG_mapIntl.pdf

As for Chrysler's deal with Cerberus:

1. Everyone wanted Chrysler. The sticking point was that most wanted Chrysler to cut up into pieces and sell off. To Daimler's rare credit, they actually made keeping Chrysler in tact as part of any deal. Also, although Chrysler was generally better off than Ford & GM, no one wanted to inherit the pensions and healthcare liabilities of retirees.

2. As part of the deal, Daimler completely pays off all of Chrysler's debt. That includes pensions, healthcare, loans, the whole enchalada. I believe this also includes the cash value of funding of all current projects in the pipeline or at least those that are already approved. If I'm wrong on that, then that still means Chrysler has more money for future products because of the funds freed up by not having debt or retiree liabilities.

3. Chrysler's deal with Cerberus has brought back quite a few of Chrysler's heavy hitters who had a huge impact on the company. This includes not just Wolfgang Bernhard, but design chief Tom Gale to name two. If it wasn't for Bob Lutz's current gig at General Motors, it would likely be a safe bet that he'd be pulled in as well.

4. Cerberus's Stephen Feinberg is an auto buff. So what can best be determined through this, the moves to get top former Chrysler people back, combing through product plans with a fine tooth comb, and the stated purpose of not dismantling Chrysler (part of the deal for purchasing it) is that the whole effort not only is serious, but is also likely to succeed since Chrysler is for all intents and purposes "Debt Free" once the ink's dry on the final signatures.

If anything, I'd put Chrysler ahead of Ford on the survival list. Anything that would bring down Chrysler would almost certainly bring down Ford first.

Edited August 1, 2007 by guionM

[Robert Hall]

My god, the 300 is such a complete joke.

"Already sophisticated interior design..."

It's certainly nicer than GM's tired FWD rentals...

[Robert Hall]

I'm not sure Frank Stronach would go through with it again. Then again, a Canadian car company would sound pretty awesome.

Only a matter of time anyways... hopefully by the end of 2030, Canada will own everything that is American, and have your country too, and we'll change your name to Saskatchewan.

Hmmm... I'd be down with this, as long as we can split it up into the 'The United States of Canada' (Canada + blue states) and 'Jesusland' (red states) ala some maps I saw after the '04 election..

[Intrepidation]

My god, the 300 is such a complete joke.

"Already sophisticated interior design..."

It's certainly nicer than GM's tired FWD rentals...

[bowtie_dude]

It's certainly nicer than GM's tired FWD rentals...

And if someone said the interior in the Impala was sophisticated, I would laugh just as hard.

[Intrepidation]

And if someone said the interior in the Impala was sophisticated, I would laugh just as hard.

Well it offers a Multimidea center that has a HD based Nav system, along with space on teh HD for msic and files, it also offers adaptive Cruise control, excellent sound system, better interior materials than the FWD Gm cars. Tht's fairly sophisticated, especially when most or all of it's competition doesn't offer that stuff for. Also add UConnect, ipod interface, a optional real wood.

And of course, it's a proper large, RWD car with optional V8 power.

The only real joke is the base model, which should be dropped entirely.

Edited August 1, 2007 by Dodgefan

[BrewSwillis]

The only real joke is the base model, which should be dropped entirely.

Yeah, because they wouldn't want to sell as many as possible!?

[ocnblu]

The base car has a purpose, I just wish the 2.7L would disappear.

[Intrepidation]

Yeah, because they wouldn't want to sell as many as possible!?

To fleets? Oh heaven forbid the fleets go without the cheapo model. There's nothing wrong with a "base" model, but when you slap that 2.7L piece of $h! in it there's a problem. The base engien should be the 3.5, which would give it an edge over the other base LX cars and make it seem more premium...which is it's intended mission. Even if you slapped the 4-speed to it and saved the 3.5L/5-speed for the Touring, you still have more power, more value, and most importantly, a better engine.

The base car has a purpose, I just wish the 2.7L would disappear.

I wish they would have continued to use teh 3.2...I wonder why they stopped using it after it was only used in the LH cars (unless I'm mistaken).

[Fletch Radford]

"Pointlessly bashing" is usually a personal issue, not a VEHICLE issue... IMO anyways.

I don't care what people say, usually there is an agenda behind the constant bashing. Those who bash other brands to feel better about their own brand, that kind of thing.

There isn't a brand made I can't ACCURATELY bash, as well as accurately praise. They ALL have their good and bad, IMO. The blind either see all good, or all bad, for personal reasons.

Well there is Toyota (though it probably would'nt all be accurate but for alot of us it would be fun).

Edited August 2, 2007 by Fletch Radford

[CMG]

Well there is Toyota (though it probably would'nt all be accurate but for alot of us it would be fun).

Yeah, soooooooo hard to find any fault with Toyotas. Wouldn't be accurate at all!

Here.

Have some "fun".

:rotflmao:

How's your Toyota Tundra camshaft?

LOL

Have a browse, lots of entertainmant for you. I don't even have to tell you about the obvious stuff, you can read it yourself!

http://www.automallusa.net/01/toyota/recalls.html

(Fun stuff. )

[CMG]

Care to elaborate, or is this just another mindless & pointless bashing of a successful car that has gotten both GM and Ford off their laurels to get RWD American cars back in the showroom?

Chrysler has a VERY solid presence overseas compared with other US car divisions. The PT Cruiser is also made in Europe (Austria if I remember correctly) along with 1 or 2 other Chryslers. The Chrysler 300C is the best selling large car in Australia, beating out the local Holden Statesman and Caprice (I've personally seen how successful Chrysler is in Australia). Jeeps are also made in Egypt. The Charger SRT8 has recently gone on sale in Japan. To be honset, Chrysler seems to be the most successful at selling "American" cars abroad, let alone manufacturing them outside outside North America.

Quick rundown on Chrysler's international operations:

http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/Projects/c2..._CG_mapIntl.pdf

As for Chrysler's deal with Cerberus:

1. Everyone wanted Chrysler. The sticking point was that most wanted Chrysler to cut up into pieces and sell off. To Daimler's rare credit, they actually made keeping Chrysler in tact as part of any deal. Also, although Chrysler was generally better off than Ford & GM, no one wanted to inherit the pensions and healthcare liabilities of retirees.

2. As part of the deal, Daimler completely pays off all of Chrysler's debt. That includes pensions, healthcare, loans, the whole enchalada. I believe this also includes the cash value of funding of all current projects in the pipeline or at least those that are already approved. If I'm wrong on that, then that still means Chrysler has more money for future products because of the funds freed up by not having debt or retiree liabilities.

3. Chrysler's deal with Cerberus has brought back quite a few of Chrysler's heavy hitters who had a huge impact on the company. This includes not just Wolfgang Bernhard, but design chief Tom Gale to name two. If it wasn't for Bob Lutz's current gig at General Motors, it would likely be a safe bet that he'd be pulled in as well.

4. Cerberus's Stephen Feinberg is an auto buff. So what can best be determined through this, the moves to get top former Chrysler people back, combing through product plans with a fine tooth comb, and the stated purpose of not dismantling Chrysler (part of the deal for purchasing it) is that the whole effort not only is serious, but is also likely to succeed since Chrysler is for all intents and purposes "Debt Free" once the ink's dry on the final signatures.

If anything, I'd put Chrysler ahead of Ford on the survival list. Anything that would bring down Chrysler would almost certainly bring down Ford first.

Great post.