Looked at new Chrysler 300 and Kia Amanti

A General Discussion forum for cars and other topics, and a great place to introduce yourself if you are new to NICO!
User avatar
Jesda
Posts: 39644
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 1:50 pm
Location: STL, DTW
Contact:

Post

I like the body of the 300 a LOT. Its absolutely gorgeous to look at, although not nearly as attractive as the 300M IMO.

I also liked the Intrepids and Concordes of the 90s, and felt they were the best looking low-priced sedans of their time. But I worry that with such a low price, the once-menacing look of the 300 will slowly become a big ugly shoebox simply because we'll see them in quantities similar to the Intrepid.

I frequent a forum for Chrysler LH and LX-platform cars, and one dealer put the 300M next to the 300 in an attempt to show the improvement. A lot of customers noticed that the 300M was -BETTER- in a lot of ways, made comments about it, and the dealer quickly separated them the next day.

-Jesda


AZ94Q
Posts: 1108
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:51 pm

Post

Yea, I think the price is a double edged sword..

34gs for a monster v8 is a helluva price..

but how can it be that cheap?

Simple: cost cutting...

I haven't owned one, nor do I plan to, I haven't driven one, and I may never.. that being said..

A car with the top of the line chrysler engine can't be that cheap, without a reason:

There must be cost cutting, which will show up with age..

I don't know if it's in the interior/exterior/somewhere, but it does exist..

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 54542
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

^ Right on the money.

p.s. Correct on the tires as well. Still too small for the car IMO.

I'm waiting for the Magnum to come out - now THAT is a good-looking car. Unfortunately, as Ryan said, they'll have to cut costs somewhere on that car as well. We already know they're not dumping millions into engine R&D.

Q45tech
Moderator
Posts: 14296
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 3:19 am
Car: 1990 Q45 342,400 miles 22 years ownership with original engine
1995 G20t 5 speed 334,000 miles 16" 2002 wheels - 205/50/16 Sr20ve vvl

Post

Read an article about why GM still uses 2 valves it can make 85-90% of power and save $600 [3 cams, 16 springs and valves etc] , plus of course 2V is almost 7" narrower in width plus the weight savings from no extra cams springs and valves vs single cam and push rods

Don't confuse 4V PENTROOF designs with Hemisperical with 2V or the hybrids MB Cloverleaf with 3 or 5 valves [Audi] or Honda Cloverleaf with 4 valves.

You can buy [$9,000] 4 valve heads for a 350 chevy engine that will scream

User avatar
louiegz
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 6:17 am
Car: 2003 BMW 330i, 2007 Audi A3 3.2 Quattro

Post

Q45tech wrote:Read an article about why GM still uses 2 valves it can make 85-90% of power and save $600 [3 cams, 16 springs and valves etc] , plus of course 2V is almost 7" narrower in width plus the weight savings from no extra cams springs and valves vs single cam and push rods

Don't confuse 4V PENTROOF designs with Hemisperical with 2V or the hybrids MB Cloverleaf with 3 or 5 valves [Audi] or Honda Cloverleaf with 4 valves.

You can buy [$9,000] 4 valve heads for a 350 chevy engine that will scream


Yes Dennis, I read that article in this months Car & Driver. Very interesting. Anyway, the one good thing about those pushrod engines that they failed to mention in the article is the globs of low end torque you get from those pushrod V8. Low end is where I need the power the most. Who needs to redline when you get most of your power in the low end.

maxnix
Posts: 22627
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2002 8:11 pm
Car: 1995 Infiniti Q45
1995 Infiniti Q45t
2000 Infiniti Q45

Post

louiegz wrote:Who needs to redline when you get most of your power in the low end.
I do when I pass on the highway. Two valve pushrods generally wheeze above 5500, unless they are tuned for high rpm. If they are so tuned, then low end sucks from too much overlap (no variable valve timing with pushrods).

Notice that Mercedes is abandoning their "best compromise for the street" 3 valve single cam, low end torquers for 4 valve heads again?

AZ94Q
Posts: 1108
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:51 pm

Post

I didn't know merc was abandoning their 3 valve setups, it's about time..

What is the consenus on Audis 5 valve tech.. is it neccasary, is it better, does it suck?

User avatar
Jesda
Posts: 39644
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 1:50 pm
Location: STL, DTW
Contact:

Post

I actually wish my minivan had more low-end power. SOHC V6 just doesnt get the job done. Its used for hauling gardening crap and around-town driving. It was also designed for towing (RWD). Why have all the power from 45-65mph?

User avatar
louiegz
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 6:17 am
Car: 2003 BMW 330i, 2007 Audi A3 3.2 Quattro

Post

maxnix wrote:I do when I pass on the highway. Two valve pushrods generally wheeze above 5500, unless they are tuned for high rpm. If they are so tuned, then low end sucks from too much overlap (no variable valve timing with pushrods).

Notice that Mercedes is abandoning their "best compromise for the street" 3 valve single cam, low end torquers for 4 valve heads again?


I guess it all depends on where you do most of your driving. I do a lot of city driving that exploits a lot of the Qs dead spots. So yes, I need some low end torque. I wish there was a better compromise.


Return to “General Chat”