I am not fond of the looks of the 300 or the small windows. The Charger
looks better to me and at least the rear window is bigger. I am not sure
about the rest of the glass but rear visibility is definitely better in the
Charger. But the Charger is not available with memory seats which is kind
of ridiculous so I am waiting to see if they make that option available.
Also, a ton of hybrids are coming out in the next few years so maybe it is a
good time to just wait the industry out.


"NJ Vike" <ErieLackawanna (AT) Scranton (DOT) com> wrote

I was just reading a motor mag in the doctor's waiting room where they
compared front and rear wheel drive handling and braking on wet and dry
roads. They bought comparable models meaning size, weight and engine power,
as best they could. Turns out in wet and dry roads there was no inherent
difference between front and rear wheel drive. Basically it depended on the
quality of stability and traction control. They did not test in snow or
slush. Having owned a 1971 Dodge Dart in Rochester, NY I do not have much
faith in rear wheel drive in snow and icy roads. Now I live in NC but we
did have about 20 inches of snow a few years ago and I had an opportunity to
drive a 94 LHS thru it and it did great.


"MoPar Man" <MoPar (AT) Man (DOT) com> wrote

Art wrote:

So AWD was not part of the comparison.

I garantee that I'd have better 0-60 time (dry road) if my M was RWD.
Off-the-line acceleration is pretty much the only "real-world"
advantage that RWD has over FWD. If the pavement is wet, then that
advantage is reduced quite a bit.

Now, you throw a winter snow dump during the night and you've got to
drive to work the next AM (and your court hasn't been plowed yet,
maybe not even your feeder streets) and FWD with snows will drive
circles around RWD.

I've driven my 2001 RAM (2WD, limited-slip differential option) on a
slight inclined road in the winter (road is bare, but "dark" because
of frozen ice/snow layer) and I tell ya, I barely get the thing moving
forward from a stop light.

I don't know where people live where they can, on a daily basis, drive
their car like it's the 24 hours of LeMans, but my take is that
handling and stability issues just don't play a role in people's
every-day driving experience.

AWD is for the birds, unless you drive on un-managed or un-plowed
roads in the winter (or you drive where there are no roads, which I'd
like to see you do in a car with AWD vs a truck or suv).

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:26:43 -0400, MoPar Man wrote:

Yes, I live in Massachusetts.

The LHs got much better mileage then the 300C. My 94 Concorde also got 29
on the highway and my average MPG was 22 vs 16 on the 300C.

I also don't care for the looks of the new 300 but that's just my own
opinion. It's rather hard to ignore the AWD with 340 HP though.

I have looked at the Charger and like the looks a lot better but as you
pointed out, there are fewer options and that dash is just bland.

I'm going to look at the Magnum this week.

Ken

--
"Now Phoebe Snow direct can go
from thirty-third to Buffalo.
From Broadway bright the tubes run right
Into the Road of Anthracite"
Erie - Lackawanna



"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE (AT) mindspring (DOT) com> wrote

Any regrets?

--
"Now Phoebe Snow direct can go
from thirty-third to Buffalo.
From Broadway bright the tubes run right
Into the Road of Anthracite"
Erie - Lackawanna



"Sharkman (AT) comcast (DOT) net" <sharkman (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote

A manager at a local supermarket has a black Magnum. It is always pretty
filthy, sitting in the supermarket parking lot. In black, when dirty, it
looks pretty bad. Suitable for carrying dead bodies to funerals.
Visibility is about the same as the 300 when I test drove one a while back.
It has limited options just like the Charger. For 2006 the V6 now gets the
5 speed I believe in both the Magnum and Charger. Before you had to buy the
hemi to get the 5 speed due to production limitations. Gas mileage is the
same though.


"NJ Vike" <ErieLackawanna (AT) Scranton (DOT) com> wrote

I had a 95 Subaru Legacy AWD wagon. Great steering feel on that car but I
never felt that AWD was doing anything in particular.


"MoPar Man" <MoPar (AT) Man (DOT) com> wrote

According to the 300M display I get about 20 mpg on my 300M average. I do
the same according to the display on my 2001 Avalon and I believe it was the
same on my 94 LHS. Even my 91 Taurus read the same. I used to love the
digital speedometer on that car. Maybe they are all hard wired to read 20
mpg average.


"General Schvantzkoph" <schvantzkoph (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

Yea, I know about having a black car is like as that is what the color is on
my existing M. If I only knew what I was in store for.I like the red and
wish they just had white as opposed to the "Cool Vanilla". No more black
cars for me.

I see on the Dodge website that it does have some pretty nice options but
not everything that the C offers. I guess there has to be in order to keep
Chrysler as the upgrade?


--
"Now Phoebe Snow direct can go
from thirty-third to Buffalo.
From Broadway bright the tubes run right
Into the Road of Anthracite"
Erie - Lackawanna



"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE (AT) mindspring (DOT) com> wrote