GTP Cool Wall: 2002-2004 Chrysler 300M Special

[Liquid]

I sure do hope that this doesn't end up like the Aries thread.

You're going some way to ensuring that that will happen; you don't need to defend the car at every turn and make yourself every second or third post in the thread. It is perpetuating and even inviting people to scythe their way through your argument.

Not that you are alone on the first point, mind. The Dodge Aries long went past a considered evaluation of a 1980s Chrysler and turned into a Cool Wall circle jerk by other GTPers looking to throw their weight around. I hope that overnight this thread doesn't suffer the same fate.

But as a piece of constructive criticism, you should think more carefully about what you say and in particular how you say it. We know that Chrysler is your favourite brand but much of what you say is, at best, spurious and comes across as though you're in the dealership trying to sell us the car. Comparing this to a BMW M3 and suggesting that the M3 is in supercar territory is just not true. I think a lot of what you try to get across becomes lost in description and inaccurate verbage.

---

Edit: As for the car itself? Well, the 2nd gen Chrysler Sebring and Chrysler 300M are guilty pleasures of mine but this particular model tries way too hard and falls flat on its arse.

 

[R5]

Believe me, I don't want these arguments. These arguments started indirectly, I didn't nominate the Aries for polling just so there could be a 520-page long fight.

Maybe not that, but surely it'd make you think twice about posting any further cool wall threads...?

And I do provide evidence.

You posted a Wikipedia article stating what the car has when asked about how well the car handles.

Fantastic evidence.

I also point you to this

Cherry picking arguments to have

And rest my case.

 

[Obelisk]

I own a 1987 Aries. It's not my daily driver, and I do praise it. But do I think it's the greatest thing every given to mankind? Not at all. Greatest car ever? Not close. Greatest Mopar? Still no. Greatest 80's car? Nope.

You completely disregarded the paragraph about the 300M and how to express an opinion.

Believe me, I don't want these arguments. These arguments started indirectly, I didn't nominate the Aries for polling just so there could be a 520-page long fight. And I do provide evidence.

Like Liquid just said, stop defending the car evey other post. The arguments are happening beczuse you keep trying to defend the car and force your opinion on other people. And Wikipedia is unreliable. It does not constitute a valid resource for supporting evidence.

You're going to ruin the Cool Wall polls at this rate. As a matter of fact, don't even try to make a vote on my nomination. I'm not going to tolerate this behavior, and I doubt anyone else wants to.

 

[MisterWaffles]

Also, I don't see mopar as much of a "performance brand" like M, AMG, SRT etc, I see them more as the guys in the back of the dealership that fetch you your car mats and windshield replacements. Had I known this was a "mo-car" before then I would have voted seriously uncool but it's too late now.


Oops

 

[ProjectWHaT]

Quick question, are you part of or planning on joining the 300M Club?

 

[MisterWaffles]

Quick question, are you part of or planning on joining the 300M Club?

The cringe, save.... me.....

He named it M-pressive, and unofficially named it ride of the decade.

Why?!?!!

 

[Tornado]

Like everyone else has said, the 300M isn't a very good car.

Oh? The dumb arguments that this was the definition of sports sedans at the time notwithstanding, the 300M was consistently one of the better viewed cars on the market when it was around. By 2002 it was getting long in the tooth as its competition improved (and frankly, the entire market segment it was in was on the way out anyway as cars that big switched to RWD or just faded into irrelevance), which is why most of the the bits and bobs from the "Special" should have been made as standard mid-life upgrades instead of a pricey option package that didn't really increase its performance; but I'm somewhat hesitant to subscribe to the idea that just because cars made since then in different market segments were sportier that it wasn't very good.

Handling wise, it would actually be worse if they have the same suspension system in place (I estimate maybe the same as the Impala - .7 to .75. a Mazda3 base model hatchback from the same year was closer to .8 on the skidpad.)

It had a stiffened and slightly lower suspension with wider and lower profile tires. It didn't really seem to improve the handling any over the old sport trim, but it certainly didn't degrade it.

...the last thing on the list of cars to be enjoyed on a canyon road or a racetrack is an old 300. Our Mazda6 could out perform that.

Our Mazda6 is 10 year's old, and could definitely out perform it in bends. And no not every car is really meant for a windy road.

Your 2006 Mazda6 was a newer and smaller car that targeted a different market, so I'd certainly hope so.






Looking at actual tests, though, it seems like the main difference in the mountain road scenario would come down more to the Mazda6 being significantly faster in a straight line rather than the Mazda6 significantly outhandling it.

 

[LivingWithGames]

Ugly and never heard of this thing. My vote should be pretty obvious.

And I also still prefer the M5. Memories of it and it worked pretty well for it's time.

EDIT: Oh...I just read teh 4 pges..named Crossfire, and this stuff... I..have no words.

Even I wouldn't defend a few faves of mine..in fact, I'm gonna even check if one I'm thinking is up for suggestion.

 

[Dan]

I drive an '04 Buick LeSabre. If it has a V6 and says "Custom" on the rear, does that make it a sports car?

 

[Sage Ages]

Chrysler Crossfire
Chrysler 300C SRT8
Chrysler LHS

Here are three examples.

I don't think you understand what an opinion is.

 

[LivingWithGames]

I don't think you understand what an opinion is.

Clearly. We say that it's uncool and not a sports luxury car, yet tries to prove us wrong but failing badly. As he mentioned those three..uhm..cars. They don't interest anyone either.

I can kinda explain but I'm poor. An opinion is when you want to estabalish soemthing about the car/product/item if you like it or not, disagree or agree and give the reason why so. But no, he thinks that just because we dislike it or hate it or not agree, he has to push it down our throats in order to convince the world that it is cool. It's the olde' car dealer's trick as one of you mention.

But I must admit, as he said that it has fake carbon fiber but going with it anyway is just, slimy.

Anyway, I better get going, but surely by tomorow this thread will have at least 8 pages. I made my tiny explanation and my vote already given, no need to beat the horse further for me.

 

[Crash]

Not to mention 400 horsepower in an FF car would cause massive understeer.

Not necessarily. Understeer is caused by the front tires reaching their limit of adhesion in a corner before the rear tires do. A car cornering that is within the front tires' traction limit won't understeer. I can get understeer in a rear wheel drive car, I can get understeer in a front wheel drive car with less than 100 hp, let alone with 255 hp.

But the E39 M3 would be closer to a supercar than a sports sedan. An E39 M3 should be called a "high-performance sedan" since it made supercar like power. Sports driving is about having fun driving the car, not about having as much power as possible.

Not M3, it's E39 M5.

You can have fun with a lot of power and have fun without a lot of power. E39 M5 had quite a bit of power in those days, but that didn't mean that that's all they were good for; they were still plenty fun to drive otherwise.

Close enough, it had 393.

Where are you doing your research? That is such an odd mistake to be off of the actual hp by 1, and yet not be from rounding.

I think you are confusing "sports car" with "performance car". Sports cars are all about fun driving, and they don't need super high power outputs. The Mazda MX5 makes 167 horsepower, and that is enough for it. No one ever complains that it needs more.

Performance cars, on the other hand, are more about heavy power outputs, and high speed driving. E39 M3's and Merc E55 AMG's are examples of these, while 300M Specials, E39 540i's, Taurus Sho's, and Impala SS's (1996) are sports sedans.

Sports car and performance cars are not mutually exclusive. To be a sports car does not mean that it cannot also be a performance car. To be a performance car does not mean that it cannot also be a sports car.

But a Veyron can never be classed as a sports car, because it has 987 horsepower, and can't turn. Sports cars are meant for being driven on curvy roads and racetracks, not straight lines like the Veyron.

Of course it can actually turn. What I mean was that it can not turn well compared to other cars. The 300M special can turn better than the ordinary 300M, due to a better suspension, sports tires, racing brakes, and lower ride height.

So are you claiming that this 300M Special would corner better than a Veyron?

 

[Obelisk]

Crash, just leave it.

 

[TB]

Move the hell on with your lives, people.

 

[Eva]

Nothing wrong with liking or not liking a car, but why on earth are people so adamant on turning every cool wall nomination into a flaming pile of trash to read through?

 

[SVX]

Ah hooray, more baiting for a circle jerk. Do you people not have anything better to do than leaving @The87Dodge be instead of instantly going on the offensive? Wild claims or not, there's no need to respond in such a rude way. I've noticed such a large majority have gone in for a response to Dodge just to simply trigger a reaction; it really needs to stop.

As for the car, uncool. Personally I think it looks rather sharp, but sort of added on chin spoilers and creases does not change the fact it is a tarted up cheap saloon at the end of the day.

12k.

 

[nick98]

Not a fan of the looks, but the engine seems decent enough.

Very low meh.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Like @Joey D, I had a soft spot for this when it came out. I was young enough to not really know any better, I guess. The neighbour across the street had an Intrepid of roughly the same vintage, and it just looked so much more modern than the pre-jellybean Tauruses, Bonnevilles, and Grand Marquis that littered the streets.

It's transport. Dressed as a quote-unquote sporty model, the fake carbonfibre almost drops it to SU... but these aren't stand-out enough to warrant that. The whole line falls into Uncool, with the Special teetering on the edge. I feel like even the Corolla, the most white-bread, boring washing machine of a car, has fake CF these days.

 

[Wolfe]

A "special edition" overweight FWD Chrysler sedan with imitation carbon fiber and a handful of sporty parts is lipstick on a pig, absolutely SU. Without those aspirations, I might give it more credit since I know from @Mrs Wolfe's old Intrepid how impressively capable the LH platform and 3.5L V6 are, though the Chrysler branding and styling would still drag it down.

 

[GT'S BiG FaN]

Chrysler Crossfire
Chrysler 300C SRT8
Chrysler LHS

Here are three examples.

So these are cool?

Mmmmmmmkay..

 

[FoRiZon]

So these are cool?

View attachment 544830

View attachment 544831

Mmmmmmmkay..

Irrelevant. Like it or not is personal subjective. Its just the attitude that really matters.

I think some people still didnt learn the lesson and its on both sides. Just leave him alone.

 

[Famine]

Believe me, I don't want these arguments.

Then stop creating and participating in them. It's not a complicated concept.

Do you people not have anything better to do than leaving @The87Dodge be instead of instantly going on the offensive?

Yes, in many ways I am responsible for his rude response to my one-word post, making up things I never said and attributing them to me because he cannot remain objective...

In other news, like @McLaren, I'm waiting for a source on those:

racing brakes

 

[FoRiZon]

That didn't tell me a thing about its turning capabilities. Right now, I'm under the impression that it can't turn.

@The87Dodge Isn't wrong. It can turn. How it can turn well however....

 

[Roo]

As a matter of fact, don't even try to make a vote on my nomination. I'm not going to tolerate this behavior, and I doubt anyone else wants to.

It's a forum. If he wants to vote on your nomination he can - you don't get a say in that. Whether you tolerate his opinions is irrelevant.

 

[SVX]

Yes, in many ways I am responsible for his rude response to my one-word post, making up things I never said and attributing them to me because he cannot remain objective...

Your post wasn't rude, therefore not what my post was directed towards. I'm not going to entirely defend Dodge in saying he's a saint - but some slack needs to be cut for the poor guy.

Ripping into someone at a moment's notice of course is going to get a defensive comment back because ultimately the message received at the start wasn't sending off any supportive messages - in fact, it's more the opposite in the way that they do not give off the sense that they're actually going to listen.

I mean,

You must be joking.

doesn't exactly scream "how do you come to this conclusion?"

Not to mention the unwarranted statements that have been made that it can't handle were basically called off with this:

These handled well enough, they looked sharp inside and out, had good "presence", made good use of their space and were reasonably quick. Much more than the sum of its parts would suggest (since on paper it is just an LHS with most of the overhangs chopped), Chrysler managed to cut the legs off the second generation Aurora before GM even got it to the market; and the 300M was rightfully lauded at the time for being one of the best in the segment when new. If I had bought one of them instead, it also probably wouldn't lurch between various states of "broken".

Bold statements have definitely been thrown around without fact - but it's coming from both parties.

 

[Dennisch]

I'm waiting for a source on those

Go fast holes.

Edit.

They aren't Go Fast holes. They're Stop Fast holes.

 

[Famine]

Go fast holes.

Edit.

They aren't Go Fast holes. They're Stop Fast holes.

Phwoar. 12-inch steel rotors. BECAUSE RACE CAR.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Heavy, not a much better spec than the vanilla, doesn't actually make 300 bhp... and ugly as sin itself. Super Seriously Ultra Uncool.

 

[ToyGTone]

Not again...seriously guys? I thought we learned from the last time, opinions are opinions but what i noticed however is that some person used some lines as a fact and started defending it like a fanboy.

The car? I dom't see anything special about it, sorry chrysler but it's SU.

 

[GTP_Ingram]

Name three cool Chryslers:

Chrysler Crossfire
Chrysler 300C SRT8
Chrysler LHS

Here are three examples.

Our survey said:

[URL='https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/gtp-cool-wall-2005-2010-chrysler-300.315667/']2005-2010 Chrysler 300 -0.600[/URL]
2005-2006 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 -0.720

Oh. Guess not.