Chrysler 300C & SRT8 Forums banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
303 hp/ 323 ft-lbs torque estimated 0-60 5.7 seconds. Is this considered a worthy competitor to the 300C, I am sure they will be crossed shopped but it is FWD
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
952 Posts
Not sure if that 0-60 time will hold but this will be the Chevy equivalent to the Grand Prix GXP that's out now. I look at the GXP when I sold my GTP grand prix, but I'm not a fan of the new body style.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
If I was looking at the C, I don't think I'd really consider the Impala. performance, styling (subjective), and Luxury wise.

I would cross shop between the limited and toruing and the Impala.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,621 Posts
You got to hand it to Chrysler, they really raised the bar.

All the other car manufacturer's are playing catch-up.
Very good for us the consumer. In a year or two there are going to be a lot more very fast sedans in the $35k range.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
124 Posts
It should be as quick or even quicker. The Impala SS is 3,7XXlbs. GM claims, IIRC, 5.7seconds to 60 (Chrysler claims 6.3s for the 300C).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
482 Posts
Looks like a bunch more than two words to me ;)

For those considering, take a nice drive in the Impala someday....Once you see how cheap the interior feel is, I think you'll head back over to your local DCX dealer.

Todd
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 · (Edited)
ChromeTailfins said:
It should be as quick or even quicker. The Impala SS is 3,7XXlbs. GM claims, IIRC, 5.7seconds to 60 (Chrysler claims 6.3s for the 300C).

I have read places that the 300C 0-60 times range from 5.2 up to 5.8, Having gone up against a few 350Z's and Infiniti G35's I feel that it is failry accurate of low 5 second range for the 0-60 in the 300C

Also quote from Car And Driver

"Buried to the carpet, the cast-iron 5.7-liter V-8 sounds just like Petty's old Plymouth (if it had mufflers the size of a milk truck). Posting 5.3 to 60 and 13.9 in the quarter at 102 mph, the 300C runs with Mustangs and 350Zs. It muscles right past anything approaching its size and price, including the 270-hp (and 3480-pound) Acura TL, which is good for 5.7 seconds to 60. It puts the Mercury Marauder on a hauler home to Mama"

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=8009&page_number=2


2005 BMW 530i 6.9 15.30
2005 BMW X5 4.8is 6.0 14.50
2005 Buick Rendezvous Ultra 8.3 16.60
2005 Buick Terraza CXL 10.6 17.80
2005 Cadillac CTS-V 4.8 13.20
2005 Cadillac STS V-8 6.0 14.50
2005 Chevrolet Corvette Convertible (6-Speed) 4.3 12.80
2005 Chevrolet Corvette Coupe Z51 (6-Speed) 4.1 12.60
2005 Chevrolet Equinox LT AWD 8.3 16.70
2005 Chrysler 300C Hemi 5.3 13.90
2005 Chrysler 300C SRT-8 4.7 13.20

Here is a great site to find 0-60 times all the way back too 1955

http://www.ssmoparmuscle.com/speedcomp.htm?NORDERBY=year&OORDERBY=make&OORDERDIR=ASC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
909 Posts
5.42 to 60 2006 300C NO MODS

Friend who races drove my car to a 5.42 0-60 time with elecronic timer installed, but no print out available (just my luck to tell a "fish story")

I drove it to 5.52 so somewhere in there it must be real?

Even Chrysler publishes 5.6 in their brochures, so you know they are doggin it!
 

·
BLOODY ADMENSTRUATOR
Joined
·
7,554 Posts
kobe8 said:
303 hp/ 323 ft-lbs torque estimated 0-60 5.7 seconds. Is this considered a worthy competitor to the 300C, I am sure they will be crossed shopped but it is FWD
Large luxury muscle cars have:

  • A honkin' big V8 up front, followed by a tranny, followed by a drive shaft, followed by a multi-link IRS.
  • The front wheels steer and brake.
  • The rear wheels handle the acceleration and some of the braking.
. . . and that is how God intended things to be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,068 Posts
Northern Rider said:
Large luxury muscle cars have:

  • A honkin' big V8 up front, followed by a tranny, followed by a drive shaft, followed by a multi-link IRS.
  • The front wheels steer and brake.
  • The rear wheels handle the acceleration and some of the braking.
. . . and that is how God intended things to be.
CAN I GET AN AMEN!!! HALLELUJAH BROTHER!! :biggrin: :biggrin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
448 Posts
srt8danno said:
CAN I GET AN AMEN!!! HALLELUJAH BROTHER!! :biggrin: :biggrin:
You can even get a double order on constant replay!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
331 Posts
If the 300C did not exsist I might consider the new Impala, but the interior is so cheap. I'd probably go with a Acura TL or a G35 (maybe a STS but that is more money). Anyway it does exsist. I am with Northern, big V8, rear wheel drive. I have seen published 0-60s on the C from 5.3 to 6.2. I'd like to assume it does under 6 on a good day. And THERE IS NO TORQUE STEER. Plus the torque on the C is always there when you need it. Took mine out the other day, turned off ESP, had my sister with me and scared the hell out of her as I laid a nice patch of rubber. No way on FWD.

Bob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
482 Posts
It is a GM need I say more? That is reason enough to forget about it. I haven't seen but a few GM's that I would be caught dead in, that's been built in the past decade. The new C6, and XLR aren't too bad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
The REAL impala

vvv90 said:
2 words


BAD-M-FN'-FRONT-WHEEL-DRIVE-TORQUE STEER!
My buddy has a '96 impala...shifter on the floor. RWD...big motor...muscle, attitude, power....everything....

my 300c (2005) is the closest I could find...and in my opinion, it certainly surpases it...

RWD american made sidan.... How could anyone boast about the new impala's???

You know..it's not all about hp....there are other issues...(torque for starters....) :drive:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Hey ALL!! I had a 95 Impala SS BB. I customized her to the tune of about $8,000. I was even blessed to have been Super Chevy magazine 5 times as class winner, modified,show car division, 3 times with the SS. Fully loaded the SS was only $25,082. The LT1 produced 260hp/330 lb ft. stock. 0-60 was about 7.5 sec. stock. By the time I redid the exhaust with export pipes(deleting the cats), Dynamax cat back, headers, Callaway SS intake, she was around 300-320hp and would fly. She was BIG, BAD, and good looking. I'm sure you all know it was the police 9C1 Caprice package done muscle makeover. The new "SS" can't compare to the 300C. Chevy and GM for that matter have lost their way. I had a 2001 WS6 Ram Air T/A. Bad ass car. GONE! F bodies, GONE! What's left, the C6? Not a lot of folks can swing 50+K. The GTO? Well, power wise it's cool, look's wise, I'll pass. With the LX car's, and looks like more to follow ie: Cuda, Challenger, GM better decide who's gonna pen the future designs of it's car's, lest they ALL wind up at your friendly neighborhood Hertz. IMHO of course!! :wave: :wink1: Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
As the proud owner of a 1996 Caprice LT1 (not 9C1), I can't even look at the new wImpalas with respect. GM peaked in 1996, why they gave up on the Impala I'll never know... They are headed in the right direction with the GTO, C6, and Cadis, but they need to offer a stylish, powerful RWD V8 sedan for the masses. *sigh* I'll stop now. I should be content with my RT for many years to come. Thank you DCX!
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top