Talk:Chrysler 300

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Brands  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


If I recall correctly the Chrysler 300 was not available as a convertible. Only a concept was every produced.VX1NG (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Mercedes Chassis Reference[edit]

I have edited the article to reflect the fact the LX is based off the newer W211 and not the W210 Mercedes chassis. I have cited the reference which came directly from a LX Chief Engineer. Before anyone changes this back to W210 again please CITE your reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueck (talkcontribs) 08:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Pacifica related?[edit]

Is it really true that the Pacifica is on the same platform as the 300? I thought I'd heard that it was on the Voyager van platform. RivGuySC 21:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nope, the Pacifica uses the RS platform. The only Chrysler LX platform cars are the 300C and the Magnum.--SFoskett 22:52, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

what about the Mitsubishi Galant it has a similer body style.

^^^EDIT BY FordRules

The Pacifica is FWD. The 300/C is RWD

Famous owners list anyone?[edit]

I have seen a lot of supercar wikipages that has a famous owner list incorporated into the article, I am thinking of a famous owners list for this model as well as it has became popular with celebrity owners, I know the Manchester United footballer Wayne Rooney drives one. So what do you think? Willirennen 12.17 6 April 2006 (itc)

Split this up?[edit]

I think it's kind of odd having the 300M merged with this article, since the article treats the 300M as if it was the first generation 300 (which it isn't). Who's in favor of spilting this up? --ApolloBoy 01:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I just split it up, since nobody really responded; if anyone has any problems with it, please contact me. --ApolloBoy 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Explaination of Edit[edit]

I updated the section on the Extended Wheelbase Model and added the link to the press release. Before the edit it was out of date. Bok269 21:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

1960s/1970s models?[edit]

I just noticed that this article doesn't even mention the original non-letter 300 made from 1962 to 1971. Can someone please expand this article and include info on that 300? --ApolloBoy 02:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

rear wheel drive[edit]

is the regular 300(V6) rear wheel drive? --MarioV 02:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. --ApolloBoy 07:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What does the "C" stand for in 300C? Me and a friend of mine where arguing about it. He says it stands for "Chrysler" and I say it a random letter. Any help would be appreciated. Sorry it has nothing to do with this thread, but I am new to Wikipedia and didn't know how to start a new thread.

It's from the original 1950s/1960s Chrysler 300 letter series. The C was probably the most successful/famous of them. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

near-luxury car?[edit]

What's that? Wouldn't entry-level luxury be better? --Mato Rei 10:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. James Mowery 06:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I took it upon myself to edit it to Luxury_vehicle#Entry-level_luxury instead of the previous version, which complements the entry in the "Luxury_vehicle" Wikipedia entry, and prevents any type of possible confusion to those who visit either article. James Mowery 06:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Luxury is subjective-what one man may consider "luxurious" another may consider to be ordinary. For that reason can we get some citations for any statement about its level of luxuriousness. I personally would dispute the claim its only a near luxury car but I can't be bothered finding citations to back that up. (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that the sedan which costs 80000$ can be called luxurious. And its predecessor 300M was called. Ps for somebody 7th beamer which costs more than 200000$ is not luxurious car — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Added much higher quality photo[edit]

I added a much higher quality photo, which I believe is preferred here on Wikipedia. If anyone has any objections, revert it back please. Someone in my family rented it and I had to snap some photos. James Mowery 04:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it back. I don't like the photoshopped blur around your version, and the angle doesn't show the front nearly as well. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know I added your picture along with a one that I took into a photo gallerey, if you don't really like it just let me know. I'm kind of new at this discussion stuff, so bear with me. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AClements3 (talkcontribs) 18:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Long Wheelbase[edit]

how bout some information on the 2008 chrysler 300 long wheelbase and the new rear look? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


Chrysler: 2008-present? Last time I checked it was 2007, so unless Chrysler have a time machine this makes very little sense to me. Mageslayer99 09:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason why he is saying that it's a 2008 model is because when car companies release a vehicle they always release it 1 year before the actual model year. So, if it's a Chrysler 300- 2008 model, then it will me released in 2007. I know, it's very confusing. Aaron Clements 11:35 a.m., November 16, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Tiny windows[edit]

Does the Chrysler 300 have the smallest window profile of any mass market car? An Automobile Magazine article I read says The short windows start high up, so some drivers may feel like they're sitting in a bathtub or looking out through gun slits, but that's the trade-off for the hot-rod exterior styling. -Rolypolyman (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Chrysler 300 Wagon[edit]

On the page on the Chrysler 300 I noticted that there is a 300 wagon that looks just like a Dodge Magnum. The interior may be diffent but the design looks the same. I did see that it shared metal with the dodge but I wondered if it is a Magnum with a diffrent name.Plyhmrp (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Plyhmrp


Hemi engine[edit]

Does anyone have any details on how the engine works with four cylinders? I would like to know if it works like a straight 4 a v4, or what?

Furthermore, how exactly does it do this. Turning of the fuel injectors and possibly the spark plugs off seems to me to be the least one could do, and also, not awfully difficult to achieve. But what about the valves? Are these operated by the camshaft(s)(i'm guessing there is only one because American engines are usually OHVs rather than OHCs)? If so, then this would mean that work is done in the compression phase of the otto cycle on all eight cylinders, which would result, in a much less powerful and much less fuel efficient engine than one half the size(is this the case, or was this somehow circumvented?)

If however this turns out to be an ohv engine with online one camshaft between the cylinder banks, i don't see how one could overcome the issue i previously stated.

Pushrod induction tube[edit]

What? Can someone explain this a little better? I can't seem to find anything about it on google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor van Poppelen (talkcontribs) 00:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not manufactured[edit]

Chrysler just announced that they have closed their plant in Brampton, Ontario, Canada, which is where the 300 was manufactured, so I have placed the text "Assembly suspended" in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Chrysler Ad[edit]

How could a 1998 Chrysler ad tout the 300 as "the most-awarded new car ever" if the 300 didn't exist until 2005? Is it refering to the original 300 series? Can anyone verify the content and/or age of this ad? Perhaps the statement should just be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The picture at the top of the article[edit]

I do not like the picture of the chrysler 300 that is at the top of the article can someone please change it to a photo off Chrysler's offical website.Andrew nicholson (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

While any photo should be unquestionably Public Domain, which Chrysler website photos probably are not, I agree with Mr. Nicholson that the top infobox photo is arguably the worst on this page. The reflectivity of the silver body glares-out the detail in places and then the front and rear facia details fade into obscurity given the close crop and light color. The angle appears too shallow to obtain the called-for (WP:CARPIX) 3/4 view and is lower than head height. Even the 2011 AWD, which is lower resolution and has contrast issues with the background at the driver's door, shows the body details better. The 2011 in the second-gen infobox, in spite of one glare spot, is, to my eye, most representative of the car - but any good front 3/4 on this page would be an improvement. Proposed: Move the AWD to the second-gen infobox and the photo now there to the main infobox.--Rwberndt (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the top photo is not ideal. However, the reflection-covered auto show photos (interior photos rarely turn out well, because of the horrid unnatural interior lighting) are definitely not the best available photo of a Chrysler 300. I'd be okay with a switch to either the 1st-generation infobox or the first-generation 300C, but the others are quite poor. IFCAR (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Section about Future plans[edit]

Can the section that contains a quote from Bob Nardelli still be considered relevant as he is no longer CEO of the company and plans have most certainly changed since then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BetaMaxx11 (talkcontribs) 01:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

2012 Chrysler 300C SRT8 Pictures[edit]

We have a need to upload some pictures of the new (2012) Chrysler 300C SRT-8 . (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The 300C in Europe[edit]

The article says the 300c will be sold in Europe as the "Lancia Therma from October 2011". How can this be, when the 300c is already sold in Europe as the Chrysler 300c, as it in the US? They obviously aren't imports, as right-hand drive versions can be seen in Britain and Ireland. Then again, Chrysler is a well established in Britain and Ireland, whereas if it were to be sold in mainland Europe, the 'Lancia' badge is probably more well known. Just a thought. (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It will be Lancia only in the mainland Europe and Chrysler in Uk -->Typ932 T·C 15:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bmuni (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody have info about sales volumes in the UK and mainland Europe? I know there was a waiting list for the diesel version in Britain following the 2005 launch, but they remain a fairly rare sight on the roads. Possibly Chrysler decided to limit numbers to enhance the model's image. The pimpmobile styling certainly isn't to everyone's taste though it has plenty of fans. --Ef80 (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


I believe this is the first car article on wikipedia I've ever read in which the car's weight is not specified. Why might that be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:15, 5th October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed this too. Retrieved the kerb weight from which I have found to be reliable for other information and added. --Warmington (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

2011 sales are wrong[edit]

The sales posted here for the 2011 calendar year are completely wrong. It supposedly went up by 2-3x what it was in 2011. The source isn't very easy to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)