Jag S Type VS Chrysler 300
#22
12-23-2011, 02:56 PM
Senior Member
When car review magazines and people do comparisons like this, I think that one of the key things that they miss are the emotional ties that enthusiasts have to a cars brand and pedigree. I think it's going to always be difficult to compare a 300C to a Jaguar S-Type because they are two very different cars whose marketing and price points are towards very different purchasers.
Also, within this thread there have been discussions around handling. I think you will find that for most car enthusiasts, this will generally be down the list in regards to importance. I think you'll find that an enthusiasts emotional tie to a brand is going to be at the top.
When I think of Jaguar, I think of the C-Type, the D-Type, Steve McQueen's XK-SS, and the beautiful E-Type. I love the long flowing lines and the beautiful and sumptuous wood and leather interiors of Jaguars. I am proud to own a car whose heritage, racing pedigree, and DNA came from these cars.
Also, within this thread there have been discussions around handling. I think you will find that for most car enthusiasts, this will generally be down the list in regards to importance. I think you'll find that an enthusiasts emotional tie to a brand is going to be at the top.
When I think of Jaguar, I think of the C-Type, the D-Type, Steve McQueen's XK-SS, and the beautiful E-Type. I love the long flowing lines and the beautiful and sumptuous wood and leather interiors of Jaguars. I am proud to own a car whose heritage, racing pedigree, and DNA came from these cars.
#23
12-23-2011, 03:59 PM
#24
12-24-2011, 01:04 AM
Senior Member
When car review magazines and people do comparisons like this, I think that one of the key things that they miss are the emotional ties that enthusiasts have to a cars brand and pedigree. I think it's going to always be difficult to compare a 300C to a Jaguar S-Type because they are two very different cars whose marketing and price points are towards very different purchasers.
Also, within this thread there have been discussions around handling. I think you will find that for most car enthusiasts, this will generally be down the list in regards to importance. I think you'll find that an enthusiasts emotional tie to a brand is going to be at the top.
When I think of Jaguar, I think of the C-Type, the D-Type, Steve McQueen's XK-SS, and the beautiful E-Type. I love the long flowing lines and the beautiful and sumptuous wood and leather interiors of Jaguars. I am proud to own a car whose heritage, racing pedigree, and DNA came from these cars.
Also, within this thread there have been discussions around handling. I think you will find that for most car enthusiasts, this will generally be down the list in regards to importance. I think you'll find that an enthusiasts emotional tie to a brand is going to be at the top.
When I think of Jaguar, I think of the C-Type, the D-Type, Steve McQueen's XK-SS, and the beautiful E-Type. I love the long flowing lines and the beautiful and sumptuous wood and leather interiors of Jaguars. I am proud to own a car whose heritage, racing pedigree, and DNA came from these cars.
Being a sedan guy, the Mark 8-9, the Mark 2, the MarkX, the S-type, the 420, and the 420 G are what brought me to Jag. Grace, space and pace described the early sedans as they evolved to "a different breed of cat." in the later years. Beginning with the Series 1 XJ, they became mass produced sedans, however, they retained most of the original Jaguar character until the latest models (XF and the new XJ).
Our S-types have much of that original character, although they were based on a Ford DEW98 platform. At least they became more reliable than previous versions. These vehicles are a lot easier to own than the XJ sedans of the 1970's.
It is nice to own a car like this with such a low cost of entry.
The following users liked this post:
Simon McGuirk (02-25-2021)
#25
12-24-2011, 03:00 AM
Jag -v- Others
FloridaJag, think back some (if you are old enough- no I'm not being rude, just I'm a '44 model); when the first Ford Cleveland's appeared, in some models changing the spark plugs on one bank meant unbolting the bloody engine mount, and jacking that side of the engine up!! And you couldn't buy platinum plugs back then.
As to comparing a Jag with Chrysler - you can't, except on price. One is a luxury saloon, the other a 'dray'. You can drive a Jag, you ride suffereage in a Chrysler.
cheers
As to comparing a Jag with Chrysler - you can't, except on price. One is a luxury saloon, the other a 'dray'. You can drive a Jag, you ride suffereage in a Chrysler.
cheers
#26
12-24-2011, 08:07 AM
Veteran Member
Oh, come on... Like it never goes on with Jags...
Any stylish or premium car that starts to become affordable ends up customized by the "great tasteless". That's not what this thread is about.. Heck, give me ten minutes and I can build quite a collection of tasteless Jags just with google alone. (see above)...
Funny thing is most of the really bad 300's out there are 6cyl cars.. But I have seen a few V8's too..
Any stylish or premium car that starts to become affordable ends up customized by the "great tasteless". That's not what this thread is about.. Heck, give me ten minutes and I can build quite a collection of tasteless Jags just with google alone. (see above)...
Funny thing is most of the really bad 300's out there are 6cyl cars.. But I have seen a few V8's too..
That's OK because I can't afford to pay new pricing on a car like I got for an unbelievable price. It comes with the territory. I stopped buying expensive brand new automobiles in 1990. I just got tired of pissing money down the drain. I saved nearly $40K on this last one alone.
If we compared the 300 to the current XF I think it might be an even tougher result. Especially if it was the 510HP version! LOL
#27
12-24-2011, 10:30 AM
Veteran Member
#28
12-24-2011, 12:33 PM
Veteran Member
#29
12-24-2011, 02:00 PM
American Car
This is something I've wanted to write for a long time. Sitting here at 5 in the morning I figured, what the heck, so here goes.
We all know the infamous Top Gear where the Chrysler 300C, Vauxhall Monaro (Pontiac GTO), and Jaguar S Type R are pitted against each other. I also know that Top Gear basically hates Chrysler. So having lived with both cars I figured I would compare them. This is based on my experience and is not some instrumented test like Car and Driver. Also, I think it only fair that I base my comparison on two V8 cars. We all know it was kind of unfair for Top Gear to bring in the R. They should have used the regular V8 Jag. I've had enough seat time in a naturally aspirated 4.2 S type to make the logical comparison. Eventhough my Jag was the 3.0 and Chrysler makes V6 300's, this is pitting the 300C V8 against the base V8 S Type.
So here goes..
Exterior and Styling:Tie
Before everyone starts flipping out, let's remember that styling appeal is a totally subjective thing. Suffice to say, since I've had both cars, I like them both. They present totally different looks and I find them both interesting. To be totally honest I would have to say I prefer the 300. But that is just me. Someone else would have a totally different opinion. Now as far as quality goes, I'll have to give that one to the 300. The panel fits on the 300 and the S Type were good but the trim on the Jag was just weak. Didn't fit well and didn't weather well either. The 300 on the other hand looks and feels tough. Everything is bolted together well and is not showing signs of wear. Also, I found the paint work on the Jag to be fragile. It was applied beautifully, and looked awsome, but just scratched and chipped real easy. The 300 on the other hand, again, not applied as well but tough as nails.
Engine: Winner, 300C Hemi V8
I know, I know... The Hemi is an overhead valve 5.7 liter low tech brick compared to the sophisticated 4.2 liter Jaguar V8. The thing is, both are great engines. The Jag and Chrysler power plants put out good power and are very reliable. Here is the thing. I expected and appreciated that the 4.2 put out a healthy 300 hp and could rev up there to 6000 rpm. Sweet! Funny thing is, the "low tech" 5.7 Hemi revs out also. Literally screams to 6000 rpm under full throttle. Puts out great hp and tourque numbers and with a simple intake tube and low restriction filter sounds like an old school muscle car getting there. Also, the Hemi V8 has some neat tech stuff as well. There is a multi-displacement feature that works great. It shuts down half of it's cylinders at low load to boost MPG. It works, and works seamlessly. The real tipper though is the ease of maintenance. It takes 16 spark plugs and they need replacement frequently since they spec standard plugs with a 30,000 mile life. But here's the kicker, they are only around a buck each and it honestly took me all of 20 minutes to change all 16. It doesn't end there. The throttle body is tough, no issues there with failures and water intrusion. Takes all of 10 minutes to pull it and clean it if dirty. Everything on the engine is right there and simple to maintain. Has to be the easiest modern car I've ever worked on. Even easier than the 4.0 straight six in my previous Jeeps. Then there is the aftermarket. There is a bunch of stuff to be had pretty inexpensively to wake the engine up. So, all things considered, I think the Hemi is a winner.
Transmission: Winner, Chrysler 300C
The ZF hp26 is a great transmission for both durability and performance. Thing is, so is the Mercedes Nag1(sic) 5 speed. Even with one less gear there are some real world reasons I like the Mercedes trans. First things first. They both suffer very similar flaws. There is a minor fitting that is known to leak on both of them. They are both "sealed" transmissions. They both are adaptive and get "moody". Here is where the difference lies. When the ZF drifts and lurches..time to beg the dealer for a re-flash. When the Mercedes trans starts to act up..pull a fuse! If you really want to check the ZF's fluid pull the fill plug and stick your finger in there. On the Mercedes trans, buy a service dip stick and use the "service only" dip stick tube already there. Then there is service costs. Less than a third of the cost of servicing the ZF box. AND... taking it to the dealer to do it if you don't want to deal with all the temperature nonsense, 120 bucks... Again, cheap and easy.
Suspension: Winner Jaguar S Type (HANDS DOWN)
By far the weakest part of the 300. Not only is it tuned poorly, but it is prone to fail in many many ways. Not that the 300 is horrible to drive, it isn't. Just the Jag was light years better. They both "ride soft and smooth" until you decide to throw them into a turn. The 300 gets unsettled, leans, and just doesn't perform well. The Jag, even without adaptive suspension, just hunkers down, grips, and basically handles wonderfully. Now I know not everyone wants to be a track star at every exit ramp but there is a practical side to this as well. In any emergency move in the Jag, I knew just what it would do and that it would take care of me. No so much in the 300. Then there is the Jag's DSC vs the Chrysler's ESP. Jag... great ... Chrysler .... Not so much... Here it is tuning as well. The Jag in wet, dry, snow stepped in enough to keep the car planted but did so gently. It allowed a bit of drift and wheel spin. The Chrysler, not so much... It knows two things... Off and On. The part that is really bad is the abrupt nature that it kicks in. It basically cuts everything off and doesn't allow for a bit of performance to sneak in. This to me is an everyday issue. I found myself always leaving the Jaguar's DSC on and am constantly turning off the Chrysler's ESP. In fact, last winter it wouldn't go anywhere with ESP on. Not cool.
Then there is the durability... I basically can expect to have to replace all the suspension components before 100k. Already at 40k I had to replace two lower control arms!
Interior: Jaguar S Type
This one is me being honest with myself. I actually like the interior of the 300 better, but for all the wrong reasons. It is made of tough materials that can be cleaned with a scrub brush (not what I really do). The leather on the seats is even some thick tough stuff. No signs of wear on the outside bolster that is typical of actually all other leather seats.. But I need to be honest. The interior in the 300 is the second weak spot next to the suspension. It is cheap feeling, like the interior of a Ryder Rental Truck! It rattles and buzzes. I've applied more felt, silicone, and other garage fixes to this thing than all my other cars combined... and it sill rattles and buzzes. I know the Jag has it's flaws as well and in respect to space I'll leave it at that. Thing is it always felt rich inside. Also, no matter what the weather it was always silent in there. A true retreat from the outside world. I miss it. I also didn't need to constantly fix it. In the 300's defense, it is comfortable. The seats don't have any lateral support (maybe the Germans did that on purpose... see suspension comments) but they are very comfortable. Also, it is very well equipped. It may not look like it but every thing is there plus some. Things are more adjustable in the 300. You have access to the computer and can really personalize it right from the driver's seat. Still, even with the limitations, the S Type was always a pleasant drive.
Audio: Winner Chrysler 300C
Not really a category but so impressed that I had to do this... I had the base audio in my Jaguar S Type. It was great sounding in my opinion. I also had plenty of seat time in a S Type with the upgraded Alpine system and actually thought it sounded worse! My 300 has the Boston Acoustic upgraded sound system but not the available trunk mounted sub. It has a basic head unit as well. Well, this thing rocks! It has great bass and super clear highs. I am really blown away by it's performance. So much so, that the ONLY way I will replace the head unit with something more current and feature rich is if I can do it with the current speakers and amp.
Overall Chrysler 300C
So, before everyone freaks out.. I truly loved my Jaguar S Type. There was something almost "bigger than life" about it. It was magical to get in and drive. That is also a flaw. It was almost like a fine piece of china on the shelf. I was always scared to hurt it. Actually used to joke how cruel it was to beat the poor thing with daily life duty. No so with the Chrysler. I'm not scared in the least to flog it day in and day out. That may seem like I don't care too much about it. Not true. I really love this thing. There is a childish enthusiasm that it projects. Like an old 60's big block muscle car. It just slams you back and roars through the day. But, it does it while giving you all the luxury things you need and it doesn't kill your wallet doing it. It gets a consistent 20+ mpg even with the hard on ramp acceleration and passing. It is cheap to keep well maintained. Even fixing the frustrating suspension is relatively cheap.
Here is the major realization that I had. You know that "what if I won the lottery" thought that you have? Well, when I had the Jag, it was what would I get to replace it... With the 300, not so much. It is "what would I get to go with it". I know it will wear out some day, but I don't see me getting rid of it until it either is costing me too much or just dies. It is really that much fun and practical to have. Fits my needs and my Family's needs as well.
I know... Long... But I needed this. Thanks for reading...
And let the bashing and beating begin.... LOL.....
We all know the infamous Top Gear where the Chrysler 300C, Vauxhall Monaro (Pontiac GTO), and Jaguar S Type R are pitted against each other. I also know that Top Gear basically hates Chrysler. So having lived with both cars I figured I would compare them. This is based on my experience and is not some instrumented test like Car and Driver. Also, I think it only fair that I base my comparison on two V8 cars. We all know it was kind of unfair for Top Gear to bring in the R. They should have used the regular V8 Jag. I've had enough seat time in a naturally aspirated 4.2 S type to make the logical comparison. Eventhough my Jag was the 3.0 and Chrysler makes V6 300's, this is pitting the 300C V8 against the base V8 S Type.
So here goes..
Exterior and Styling:Tie
Before everyone starts flipping out, let's remember that styling appeal is a totally subjective thing. Suffice to say, since I've had both cars, I like them both. They present totally different looks and I find them both interesting. To be totally honest I would have to say I prefer the 300. But that is just me. Someone else would have a totally different opinion. Now as far as quality goes, I'll have to give that one to the 300. The panel fits on the 300 and the S Type were good but the trim on the Jag was just weak. Didn't fit well and didn't weather well either. The 300 on the other hand looks and feels tough. Everything is bolted together well and is not showing signs of wear. Also, I found the paint work on the Jag to be fragile. It was applied beautifully, and looked awsome, but just scratched and chipped real easy. The 300 on the other hand, again, not applied as well but tough as nails.
Engine: Winner, 300C Hemi V8
I know, I know... The Hemi is an overhead valve 5.7 liter low tech brick compared to the sophisticated 4.2 liter Jaguar V8. The thing is, both are great engines. The Jag and Chrysler power plants put out good power and are very reliable. Here is the thing. I expected and appreciated that the 4.2 put out a healthy 300 hp and could rev up there to 6000 rpm. Sweet! Funny thing is, the "low tech" 5.7 Hemi revs out also. Literally screams to 6000 rpm under full throttle. Puts out great hp and tourque numbers and with a simple intake tube and low restriction filter sounds like an old school muscle car getting there. Also, the Hemi V8 has some neat tech stuff as well. There is a multi-displacement feature that works great. It shuts down half of it's cylinders at low load to boost MPG. It works, and works seamlessly. The real tipper though is the ease of maintenance. It takes 16 spark plugs and they need replacement frequently since they spec standard plugs with a 30,000 mile life. But here's the kicker, they are only around a buck each and it honestly took me all of 20 minutes to change all 16. It doesn't end there. The throttle body is tough, no issues there with failures and water intrusion. Takes all of 10 minutes to pull it and clean it if dirty. Everything on the engine is right there and simple to maintain. Has to be the easiest modern car I've ever worked on. Even easier than the 4.0 straight six in my previous Jeeps. Then there is the aftermarket. There is a bunch of stuff to be had pretty inexpensively to wake the engine up. So, all things considered, I think the Hemi is a winner.
Transmission: Winner, Chrysler 300C
The ZF hp26 is a great transmission for both durability and performance. Thing is, so is the Mercedes Nag1(sic) 5 speed. Even with one less gear there are some real world reasons I like the Mercedes trans. First things first. They both suffer very similar flaws. There is a minor fitting that is known to leak on both of them. They are both "sealed" transmissions. They both are adaptive and get "moody". Here is where the difference lies. When the ZF drifts and lurches..time to beg the dealer for a re-flash. When the Mercedes trans starts to act up..pull a fuse! If you really want to check the ZF's fluid pull the fill plug and stick your finger in there. On the Mercedes trans, buy a service dip stick and use the "service only" dip stick tube already there. Then there is service costs. Less than a third of the cost of servicing the ZF box. AND... taking it to the dealer to do it if you don't want to deal with all the temperature nonsense, 120 bucks... Again, cheap and easy.
Suspension: Winner Jaguar S Type (HANDS DOWN)
By far the weakest part of the 300. Not only is it tuned poorly, but it is prone to fail in many many ways. Not that the 300 is horrible to drive, it isn't. Just the Jag was light years better. They both "ride soft and smooth" until you decide to throw them into a turn. The 300 gets unsettled, leans, and just doesn't perform well. The Jag, even without adaptive suspension, just hunkers down, grips, and basically handles wonderfully. Now I know not everyone wants to be a track star at every exit ramp but there is a practical side to this as well. In any emergency move in the Jag, I knew just what it would do and that it would take care of me. No so much in the 300. Then there is the Jag's DSC vs the Chrysler's ESP. Jag... great ... Chrysler .... Not so much... Here it is tuning as well. The Jag in wet, dry, snow stepped in enough to keep the car planted but did so gently. It allowed a bit of drift and wheel spin. The Chrysler, not so much... It knows two things... Off and On. The part that is really bad is the abrupt nature that it kicks in. It basically cuts everything off and doesn't allow for a bit of performance to sneak in. This to me is an everyday issue. I found myself always leaving the Jaguar's DSC on and am constantly turning off the Chrysler's ESP. In fact, last winter it wouldn't go anywhere with ESP on. Not cool.
Then there is the durability... I basically can expect to have to replace all the suspension components before 100k. Already at 40k I had to replace two lower control arms!
Interior: Jaguar S Type
This one is me being honest with myself. I actually like the interior of the 300 better, but for all the wrong reasons. It is made of tough materials that can be cleaned with a scrub brush (not what I really do). The leather on the seats is even some thick tough stuff. No signs of wear on the outside bolster that is typical of actually all other leather seats.. But I need to be honest. The interior in the 300 is the second weak spot next to the suspension. It is cheap feeling, like the interior of a Ryder Rental Truck! It rattles and buzzes. I've applied more felt, silicone, and other garage fixes to this thing than all my other cars combined... and it sill rattles and buzzes. I know the Jag has it's flaws as well and in respect to space I'll leave it at that. Thing is it always felt rich inside. Also, no matter what the weather it was always silent in there. A true retreat from the outside world. I miss it. I also didn't need to constantly fix it. In the 300's defense, it is comfortable. The seats don't have any lateral support (maybe the Germans did that on purpose... see suspension comments) but they are very comfortable. Also, it is very well equipped. It may not look like it but every thing is there plus some. Things are more adjustable in the 300. You have access to the computer and can really personalize it right from the driver's seat. Still, even with the limitations, the S Type was always a pleasant drive.
Audio: Winner Chrysler 300C
Not really a category but so impressed that I had to do this... I had the base audio in my Jaguar S Type. It was great sounding in my opinion. I also had plenty of seat time in a S Type with the upgraded Alpine system and actually thought it sounded worse! My 300 has the Boston Acoustic upgraded sound system but not the available trunk mounted sub. It has a basic head unit as well. Well, this thing rocks! It has great bass and super clear highs. I am really blown away by it's performance. So much so, that the ONLY way I will replace the head unit with something more current and feature rich is if I can do it with the current speakers and amp.
Overall Chrysler 300C
So, before everyone freaks out.. I truly loved my Jaguar S Type. There was something almost "bigger than life" about it. It was magical to get in and drive. That is also a flaw. It was almost like a fine piece of china on the shelf. I was always scared to hurt it. Actually used to joke how cruel it was to beat the poor thing with daily life duty. No so with the Chrysler. I'm not scared in the least to flog it day in and day out. That may seem like I don't care too much about it. Not true. I really love this thing. There is a childish enthusiasm that it projects. Like an old 60's big block muscle car. It just slams you back and roars through the day. But, it does it while giving you all the luxury things you need and it doesn't kill your wallet doing it. It gets a consistent 20+ mpg even with the hard on ramp acceleration and passing. It is cheap to keep well maintained. Even fixing the frustrating suspension is relatively cheap.
Here is the major realization that I had. You know that "what if I won the lottery" thought that you have? Well, when I had the Jag, it was what would I get to replace it... With the 300, not so much. It is "what would I get to go with it". I know it will wear out some day, but I don't see me getting rid of it until it either is costing me too much or just dies. It is really that much fun and practical to have. Fits my needs and my Family's needs as well.
I know... Long... But I needed this. Thanks for reading...
And let the bashing and beating begin.... LOL.....
I had the 99 LHS with the 3.5 V6. It was one car I wish I held onto
It had FWD and ran well in the snow. The engine had 253 HP and never gave me any problems. I got a lot of second looks because it was silver metallic paint. It was a great family car. Enjoy the American luxury car !
#30
12-26-2011, 10:21 PM
I bought my STR to replace my '02 300m which was totalled. It was fully loaded, 17" chrome wheels which people always commented on my nice "aftermarket" rims (which they weren't). Very comfortable ride and seats, beautiful interior with wood trim.
So I was somewhat disappointed when I test drove the 300c. Handled corners like a minivan, cheap interior, wood trim replaced with that silver plastic crap. I wouldn't mind owning another 300, but I wouldn't get the current body-style ones. Look nice on the outside but that's where it ends for me.
So I was somewhat disappointed when I test drove the 300c. Handled corners like a minivan, cheap interior, wood trim replaced with that silver plastic crap. I wouldn't mind owning another 300, but I wouldn't get the current body-style ones. Look nice on the outside but that's where it ends for me.
#31
12-26-2011, 11:48 PM
I've gotten some decent seat time with the 300 6 and 8 cylinders, as well as a few minutes with the SRT-8. I've seen the grills start peeling on the 300s, I really don't think they used very quality materials for the exterior or the interior. The paint on the Chrysler has that bad orange-peel look. Looks are subjective to each individual, I don't care for how the Chrysler looks, but that's just me. I think it looks over-done and gaudy, and the Jag is more smooth and refined.
The interior, as you mentioned is a typical low-quality American car interior. I think they come off the lot rattling, and most of it is poorly put together plastic and it will rattle and drive passengers insane until its final days.
The engine is obviously going to be better with the Chrysler, its bigger and more powerful. As mentioned, it probably isn't fair to pit the hemi against the Jag v8, just as pitting the Jag s/c v8 against the hemi isn't fair.
The transmissions I would have to disagree as well. I came from a V8 Mercedes E-Class with the 722.6 5-speed transmission. Even after resetting the adaptive function, it was still very slow to downshift, and putting it in tiptronic still has only a minor advantage. Both transmissions are smooth, but I like the extra gear with the ZF. Also, the way the 300C is geared was bothersome (I understand this isn't specifically a transmission issue, but I'll lump it in here). Its more for fuel mileage than performance, it seemed like 1st gear hung on forever! That definitely detracts from the car's power band. Also, that dipstick tool for the Benz was about $70, which is pretty high unless you plan on changing your fluid 10 times. I've seen the cheap ones on ebay, but I have problems trusting ebay parts on my cars. The reaction of the ZF I've found is much better, and using the J-gate is more precise.
Now the chassis and suspension, that's a whole other story. The Lincoln LS chassis is way better than the Mercedes W210 chassis that the 300 used (still uses probably). The feedback, response and handling are not even comparable. Even after I put sport shocks and springs on my Benz, as well as bigger/wider tires (235/40R18 front and 275/35R18 rear) I could still run laps around it in my S-Type. The W210 chassis from 1994 was already 11 years old and outdated when Chrysler decided to use it for the 300. Heck, even Mercedes hadn't used it in 3 years! It was set up to be more for luxury cruising than sport, even with a 300C or E55 AMG, although the E55 was FAR better tuned than the 300C.
I can't really comment on the sound system in the Chrysler, I'm not an audiophile and don't much pay attention to sound systems other than making sure I can hear my music and it sounds fine with the Alpine in my Jag.
Also, how long have you had the Chrysler?
The interior, as you mentioned is a typical low-quality American car interior. I think they come off the lot rattling, and most of it is poorly put together plastic and it will rattle and drive passengers insane until its final days.
The engine is obviously going to be better with the Chrysler, its bigger and more powerful. As mentioned, it probably isn't fair to pit the hemi against the Jag v8, just as pitting the Jag s/c v8 against the hemi isn't fair.
The transmissions I would have to disagree as well. I came from a V8 Mercedes E-Class with the 722.6 5-speed transmission. Even after resetting the adaptive function, it was still very slow to downshift, and putting it in tiptronic still has only a minor advantage. Both transmissions are smooth, but I like the extra gear with the ZF. Also, the way the 300C is geared was bothersome (I understand this isn't specifically a transmission issue, but I'll lump it in here). Its more for fuel mileage than performance, it seemed like 1st gear hung on forever! That definitely detracts from the car's power band. Also, that dipstick tool for the Benz was about $70, which is pretty high unless you plan on changing your fluid 10 times. I've seen the cheap ones on ebay, but I have problems trusting ebay parts on my cars. The reaction of the ZF I've found is much better, and using the J-gate is more precise.
Now the chassis and suspension, that's a whole other story. The Lincoln LS chassis is way better than the Mercedes W210 chassis that the 300 used (still uses probably). The feedback, response and handling are not even comparable. Even after I put sport shocks and springs on my Benz, as well as bigger/wider tires (235/40R18 front and 275/35R18 rear) I could still run laps around it in my S-Type. The W210 chassis from 1994 was already 11 years old and outdated when Chrysler decided to use it for the 300. Heck, even Mercedes hadn't used it in 3 years! It was set up to be more for luxury cruising than sport, even with a 300C or E55 AMG, although the E55 was FAR better tuned than the 300C.
I can't really comment on the sound system in the Chrysler, I'm not an audiophile and don't much pay attention to sound systems other than making sure I can hear my music and it sounds fine with the Alpine in my Jag.
Also, how long have you had the Chrysler?
#32
12-27-2011, 02:18 AM
Veteran Member
#33
12-27-2011, 08:42 AM
Veteran Member
#34
12-27-2011, 09:35 AM
Thanks for the write up. Very detailed and well thought. But try not to be so defensive. You yourself stated that your write up was your opinion. So are these responses.
Now, IMO... lol I hate the look of the 300's. Too big and bulky for my taste. The S-Type is just sexy.
To everyone else, why say you can't compare the two? I can compare a Ford Focus to a Land Rover if I like. Does not mean I think they are the same vehicle.
Now, IMO... lol I hate the look of the 300's. Too big and bulky for my taste. The S-Type is just sexy.
To everyone else, why say you can't compare the two? I can compare a Ford Focus to a Land Rover if I like. Does not mean I think they are the same vehicle.
#35
12-27-2011, 11:02 AM
Veteran Member
#36
12-28-2011, 05:45 AM
An interesting comparison, but I would have weighted the criteria slightly different.
Styling: S-Type a clear winner IMHO. The S-Type has classic styling whereas the 300C is rather bulbous.
Engine: Hemi vs the 4.2 V8 the Hemi wins. The V6 in both, the S-Type wins. As in both cars the V6s are the most prevalent. In my area V8 S-Types are hard to find.
Transmission: Not sure as I haven't driven the 300C. I did drive a V6 Charger which is similar and the S-Type's transmission was a lot better.
Interior: S-Type wins going away. The seats are miles better and the overall appearance is a lot better in the S-Type.
Audio: I rarely listen to the CD or radio so for me it's a non-issue.
My overall rating has the S-Type winning clearly.
Mike
Styling: S-Type a clear winner IMHO. The S-Type has classic styling whereas the 300C is rather bulbous.
Engine: Hemi vs the 4.2 V8 the Hemi wins. The V6 in both, the S-Type wins. As in both cars the V6s are the most prevalent. In my area V8 S-Types are hard to find.
Transmission: Not sure as I haven't driven the 300C. I did drive a V6 Charger which is similar and the S-Type's transmission was a lot better.
Interior: S-Type wins going away. The seats are miles better and the overall appearance is a lot better in the S-Type.
Audio: I rarely listen to the CD or radio so for me it's a non-issue.
My overall rating has the S-Type winning clearly.
Mike
#37
12-28-2011, 07:09 AM
Come on man, your too damn focused and stuck on the words to get over the fact he did a good comparison on two vehicles he has owned. Perhaps the comparison is not for you, so what. He’s not Top Gear, he’s not Car and Driver. So he don't have to worry about them being the same class or not.
Last edited by JimC64; 12-28-2011 at 09:26 AM. Reason: name calling is not tolerated here!
#38
12-28-2011, 07:11 AM
Thanks for the write up. Very detailed and well thought. But try not to be so defensive. You yourself stated that your write up was your opinion. So are these responses.
Now, IMO... lol I hate the look of the 300's. Too big and bulky for my taste. The S-Type is just sexy.
To everyone else, why say you can't compare the two? I can compare a Ford Focus to a Land Rover if I like. Does not mean I think they are the same vehicle.
Now, IMO... lol I hate the look of the 300's. Too big and bulky for my taste. The S-Type is just sexy.
To everyone else, why say you can't compare the two? I can compare a Ford Focus to a Land Rover if I like. Does not mean I think they are the same vehicle.
I compared the two because even though there are many differences and for sure when new they were most likely not cross shopped, in the market I'm in (and many others are) the used price points are close and are cross shopped.
Edit: Based on your next post... Yea, you get it.. LOL... That was classic!!!
Last edited by JOsworth; 12-28-2011 at 07:15 AM.
#39
12-28-2011, 07:42 AM
An interesting comparison, but I would have weighted the criteria slightly different.
Styling: S-Type a clear winner IMHO. The S-Type has classic styling whereas the 300C is rather bulbous.
Engine: Hemi vs the 4.2 V8 the Hemi wins. The V6 in both, the S-Type wins. As in both cars the V6s are the most prevalent. In my area V8 S-Types are hard to find.
Transmission: Not sure as I haven't driven the 300C. I did drive a V6 Charger which is similar and the S-Type's transmission was a lot better.
Interior: S-Type wins going away. The seats are miles better and the overall appearance is a lot better in the S-Type.
Audio: I rarely listen to the CD or radio so for me it's a non-issue.
My overall rating has the S-Type winning clearly.
Mike
Styling: S-Type a clear winner IMHO. The S-Type has classic styling whereas the 300C is rather bulbous.
Engine: Hemi vs the 4.2 V8 the Hemi wins. The V6 in both, the S-Type wins. As in both cars the V6s are the most prevalent. In my area V8 S-Types are hard to find.
Transmission: Not sure as I haven't driven the 300C. I did drive a V6 Charger which is similar and the S-Type's transmission was a lot better.
Interior: S-Type wins going away. The seats are miles better and the overall appearance is a lot better in the S-Type.
Audio: I rarely listen to the CD or radio so for me it's a non-issue.
My overall rating has the S-Type winning clearly.
Mike
The V6 charger you referenced may have had the crappy Chrysler 4 speed transmission. Most of them did. In the real early years upper trim 3.5 V6 cars had the 5 speed but Chrysler dropped it to save money. The big tell tale is if it had the "auto-stick" function. Auto-stick is the 5 speed, non is the 4 speed. The only issue I've seen with the 5 speed so far is I would agree that manual shifts are sluggish. Honestly with the help of the handheld tuner I have it shifts great in just auto mode. Before the tuner, it shifted nice. Yea, it's short a gear, but it doesn't lurch like my ZF used to. I also didn't get the sluggish shifts that others mentioned. Now, with the shifts tuned by my Diablosport Predator, it rocks.
Other than that, I totally agree. I also expected that most people in here would like the S Type better.. Just thought it would be fun...
#40
12-28-2011, 07:53 AM
Edit: Now go post your OP in the 300 forum, and you'll see everyone complaining that you gave the S-Type marks better than the 300. ha ha ha Gotta love the internets... groups of biased people flexing their internet muscles...
Last edited by SchultzLD; 12-28-2011 at 07:56 AM.