Forgot to mention - Chrysler are planning on importing the 300C to Australia.
We will only get the HEMI, BUT the vehicle will cost around US$50000 here, when similar, and better, locally made vehicles (Ford Falcon, and GM's Commodore - Pontiac GTO's base vehicle) cost around US$40000, I think Chrysler are going to struggle...

Also, just a quiet tip from me (and I know more than most )
You will probably see more vehicles engineered in Australia sold in the US.
The vehicles won't be produced here (we don't have the population or infrastructure to support mass produced vehicles for the US), but all the design work and engineering will be done here.

The reason being, Bob Lutz (GM's operations manager) has said that Holden (GM's Australian arm) will be the engineering team behind GM's new RWD Zeta architecture. Bob also implemented the Pontiac GTO into the US.
Also, Richard Parry-Jones (Fords Product Development Chief) acknowledged that the Australian Fords are some of the best vehicles in the world, and was instrumental in getting Ford US, to essentially mirror Ford Australia's Territory when designing the interior and exterior of the Freestyle.

 

You are going to have to ask Fords management that one...

 

Chrysler is just now catching up with Fords wonderful Crown Vic, a very understated, ubiquitous and wonderful piece of machinery that is overlooked.

Those of you complaining about Ford being behind, what does Chevrolet have to offer?, an Impala whose 6 cyl has MAJOR problems, at least the 3.1-3.4 engines that eat intake gaskets. For reliability they have the 3.8, which if you are talking about ancient, dates to the early 1960's,( was sold to AMC, and bought back.) And it is the best motor GM offers. Thats pathetic.

Every 3 years there is much fanfare to something Chrysler puts out at being new and exciting, but it is still a mopar--remember the Avenger! Or the STratus reinventing automobiles with CAB FORward design. Plymouth Prowler? Pt Cruiser? FADS that come fast and go away faster, and Still crap. Im still wating for them to bring back the Dodge Aspen and Plymouth Volare, or better yet the BElvedere..

 

Believe it or not, the PT Cruiser isn't just a fad anymore. It has exceeded Chryslers expectations in the sales department. They recently dropped the price of PTs by $5000, and introduced a Convertible option. It as gone beyond the fad stage.

As for the 300 being a fad, it may be, but its still an advantage for Chrysler over their competitors. With the SRT-8 coming soon sales should stay steady.

On a side note, I think putting the 5.4 in Ford cars ins't a good idea. Just because its a V8 that doesn't mean it will sell. The Hemi sells not beccuase its a V8, but because its got the power, and that magic 4 letter word that starts with 'H' attached to it. Think about it.

 

Absolutely right. Regardless of whether or not the 300c styling remains as eye catching in a few years as it is now, the fact that two very powerful V8 engines are available for it will keep long term interest alive and well.

So far as the Crown Vic goes - I never meant a bash on it. The Crown Vic is a car I respect very much. It is known for reliability and strength. Given a choice between having the Crown Vic and any GM car (well not including the Corvette of course) and the choice would be easy for me. Inspite of this it does not excite me in the least. Few cars do. I'm a truck guy - like all of you.

A car needs to stand out in many many ways for me to take any kind of interest in it. Bold looks alone won't do it. Neither will a powerful engine. Nor material quality or fit and finish. Everything needs to come together as one.

Trucks are just the opposite for me - I like em all, Ford, Dodge, GM - even my brothers new Titan (much nicer truck than I thought it would have been when it debued BTW). While new vehicles of all types are expensive, I've always considered any car as a big waste compared to a truck. But there's something special enough about the 300C that I don't feel that way toward it - it's the exception. Only one other car I can say that about (for me) and that's the new Mustang GT. You can add the upcoming Charger to this list as well.

Caddy, Lincoln, Mercury, Buick, Chevy (cars), Ford (cars), imports - all = waste (to me). I'm not saying that these really are a waste, but with the three noted possible exceptions above, there's nothing on the market which could make me want to spend my money on (it) instead of a new truck.

 

Your right, the two cars are completely different-one is made to be a taxi, a cop car, and an old man's land yacht, while the other is a drivers car. The 300C handles/brakes/accelerates better, protects & pampers its driver better, and will have better resale value than the crown vic. Apples and oranges. And if you think Chrysler was trying to copy the Crown vic, I want some of what your smoking. Just a little info for you, DCX owns shares of Hyundai (Kia is part of Hyundai), and the 300 is not a fad, it was a car introduced as a continuance of the 50's era "musclecar" with the 300M and the 300C is the next car in the lineup.

 

there were no 50s era musclecars, musclecars are late 60s two door coupes

 

And i cant think of anything Chryslers' from the 50's that I would consider classic

belvedere???

the 300c looks like it has a great big blindspot behind it. they are not very roomy and it does look like one of those kia thingys

Chryslers have been overhyped for the past 10 years, and generally don't seem to hold up very well after only a couple of years. I have heard several horror stories about negative equity and resale value concerning Chrysler products. Sebring, Cirrus, Stratus, Avenger, and Intrepid--all junk

If it werent for government intervention and rebadging Mitsubishis, Chrysler should have went the way of the Nash a long time ago. I bet Daimler is wishing they could unload this money sucking pit anytime now.

 

It is quite obvious; the fact is Ford has no product that is comparable to the 300C. GM on the other hand does with the CTS.

Having to resort to post like this, is a good indicator that the article from BlueOvalNews must me right on.

 

The chrysler 300's were considered the first of the musclecars.

 

The term muscle car was first used in the mid sixties for the GTO. What set a muscle car apart from the others was its intermediate size and a big block. GTO's, Charger's, Torino's and Chevelle's. These are the true muscle cars of the time. The Camaro's, Challengers and Mustangs where all pony cars and even though as fast or faster with a big block where still pony cars.

There is lots of debate about this but this is the general consense. By the early 70's the era was dead. Sure there where cars in the 50's that might of fit this mold but there where not purpose designed from the factory to fit this roll.

 

I bet if the USA had higher octane requirements like austrailia, we would have many more exiteing and performance cars.

 

Dead wrong on that one. There were cars in the 50's that are refered to as the first musclecars. Like the Impala, and 300 serries. Especially with Chryslers intro of the first Hemi engine in 1951. I think you should do a little research before making a statement as bold as this one. Musclecars went from 50s all the way to mid 70s. Until gas prices, and insurance killed it. Its nice to have a taste of that era for me because Im only 15, and would give anything to live in the 60s for a day, and see the cars of that time when they were in full glory. I guess its ok to dream once in a while.

FYI the 300 serries cars from the 50s are considered classics. I spoke to a man who owns 3 of them, all worth over 100k, and in mint condition. I was lucky enough to see his 300D in person. The car is a piece of art. Moste certainly a classic today.

MEGALOADON1.

What do you think of the new Charger ? There has been alot of contraversey over it in the last while concerning looks, and the fact that it has 4 doors. Just curious to see what you think of it.

As far as the 300 goes, I believe that it is more than a fad. Expect to see a nother addition to the 300 family within the next 3-5 years. I have heard talk about a possible 300N. Potential exciting news.

 

Sorry MC, the term was not used until the mid 60's. This was the first time any manufacture built a car to fit the term. Prior to that cars with big engines where designed to haul trailers, everyone forgets that. Back in the 50's and 60's it was cars pulling the travel trailers not trucks. The only place I have ever seen 50's cars referred to muscle cars is on the allpar site. You can take the roots back to the 50's and the hodrod craze for making the 60's happen.

 

1.) The Crown Vic has the governments highest safety rating in every category, so the 300C doesn't protect it better. It's probably worst due to the likelyhood of having it stolen.

2.) I don't smoke anything and I'll only ask you one time to never insinuate that again.

3.) I never said that the 300C was a fad.

4.) Like Tmyers said, it was the GTO that ushered in the musclecar era when John DeLorean put a larger engine (389) into the tempest body in 1964 without the consent of GM.