Chrysler hasn’t had an easy time selling cars (as opposed to trucks and minivans) for the past decade or two. As sales of the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry have risen, its sedans have been pushed to the sidelines. Few people shopping for a sedan even think about Chrysler anymore, much less stop by a dealer for a test drive.

Clearly, Chrysler couldn’t hope to regain consumers’ attention simply by knocking off the Accord and Camry. It had to do something radical. In 1993 it tried extra-swoopy “cab forward” styling. The Dodge Intrepid and Chrysler Concorde did grab consumers’ attention. Sadly, too few signed on the dotted line, in part because the cars looked and felt cheap inside, lagged the Japanese competition in refinement, and suffered from a few quality lapses. In 1998 the LH sedans’ styling got swoopier still, and while people certainly took notice—the Chrysler 300M variant was especially sharp—sales remained lukewarm.

Seeking a replacement for the LHs, Chrysler (now under German management) decided that swoopy just wasn’t cutting it. At any rate, the swoopy thing had been maxxed out. The windshield and backlight could not be laid any flatter. The replacements would have to be at least as radical—going mainstream would just result in total anonymity—but radical in a totally different way.

The solution: a return to the way American cars used to be. Through the late 1970s the typical American car was a large, V8-powered, rear-drive sedan. In the 2005 300 Chrysler has sought to capture the flavor of those sedans from Detroit’s heyday, albeit with some significant updates under the skin.

The question is, after deciding that the Japanese know the formula for the perfect car, and witnessing Detroit’s mixed attempts at knocking off this formula, are Americans ready for an unapologetically American sedan?

The Chrysler 300 is available in four trim levels: base, Touring, Limited (officially an option package on the Touring), and 300C. The first has a cloth interior and 2.7-liter V6, the second and third leather and a 3.5-liter V6, and the last premium leather and a 5.7-liter V8. I drove the Touring and 300C. I also plan to drive the related Dodge Magnum, which will only be available in wagon form. (Dodge dealers complained loudly about this, so they’ll get a sedan version next year.)

Styling

The new Chrysler 300 is as upright and boxy as the LHs were swoopy, most notably in the modest rake of its windshield and nearly level hood. The thing with doing a box is you have to make a very boxy box to not end up with dull. This is a very boxy box.

Actually, focusing on the 300’s newfound boxiness does the car an injustice. The overall shape is very brick-like, but the front lamps are circular (within enclosures whose shape would require too many words to describe), the round wheel arches are prominently flared, and every transition between surfaces is handled with a curve of just the right radius (especially the transition of the roof into the formal C-pillar). No one will mistake this car for a Volvo. There’s simply a lot more going on here than in, say, a 1990s S70. The more I study the styling, the more perfectly handled aspects I notice. A lot of thought went into this exterior. I’ll avoid discussing every last detail. Most notable are the proportions, front end, and greenhouse.

At 197 inches the new car is significantly shorter than last year’s Concord and about the same length as the 300M, but it rides on a 120-inch wheelbase, which is seven inches longer than the LHs’. This makes for far shorter overhangs than on the LHs, much less traditional American iron. Even the similarly lengthy 7-Series from a manufacturer known for tight proportions rides on a two-inch-shorter wheelbase. Short overhangs tend to make a car look purposeful and sporty, and they certainly do in this case. This brick on wheels looks like it could punch through walls and keep going.

The Chrysler 300’s massive upright front end is dominated by a very large, very bold grille that nevertheless looks like it fits the overall design of the car (unlike the large grilles on some other recent Chryslers). This both is and is not unique. It’s certainly different than anything in its market segment. But it’s also a dead ringer for a Bentley. But, hey, I guess if this styling works on a stately $250,000 car, it should do even better at $25,000, right? Also, in a kill two birds with one stone move, it wouldn’t hurt Daimler’s super-premium Maybach brand if the image of its VW-owned British competitor suffered from the flattery.

Returning to America for other influences, the new 300’s greenhouse resembles that of a chopped street rod in its distinct lack of height. The low square windows and thick window frames suggest a bunker. Chrysler’s market research has found that people want to feel safe in their vehicles. Thus their latest designs—the Pacifica and now the new 300—resemble forts on wheels. Think Hummer H2 in car form.

Put the bold front end and fortress-like cabin together, and you’ve got a tough-looking car. Literally. In the darker shades especially it resembles a Russian ZIL limo, just without the limo wheelbase and from the pens of more talented stylists. When I pointed one out to my wife, she thought it looked like the sort of thing a CIA director might drive. Tony Soprano would look good in this car—and he did just total his Escalade.

I suspect this aesthetic will play well with many men. Maybe even well enough to lure some away from trucks. Is this the plan? Trucks keep getting curvier and curvier. The new Durango looks positively pregnant. And now the same organization has created a sedan that is anti-round.

But will the 300 appeal to many women? I guess we’ll see. Some women like the Hummer. Those women will like the new 300, too.

In another throwback to old Detroit, the top-of-the-line V8-powered 300C features additional chrome trim. After years in which blacked-out or body-color trim was upscale, and chrome was for tasteless Americans, it seems chrome is truly back. Courtesy of the Germans.

The Dodge version will only be available in wagon form. Its front end is less upright and in-your-face, and the sloping wagon roofline takes some of the bunker aura away from the greenhouse. Still looks like a guy’s car, though, in my opinion. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. If a manual transmission was available I’d really, really want one. Maybe my wife needs one…

There is one big caveat with the styling. The Chrysler 300’s tall bodysides need big flashy wheels to avoid looking a bit plain. Viewing the base car at the Detroit auto show with its blah 17-inch wheelcovers and roomy drab cloth interior, the first thought that came to my mind was “This will make an excellent taxi cab.” A first-class cop car, too. If Chrysler pursues these markets—and it certainly should—then kiss the Ford Crow Vic goodbye.

The problem is, most people don’t want their cars confused with taxicabs. For them, the alloys standard on the Touring do a bit better. They’re suitable for your father’s Oldsmobile. The differently styled chrome wheels on the Limited look like they were lifted off the aforementioned ZIL. Easily the best of the bunch are the 18-inch thin-spoked alloys on the V8-powered 300C. Sadly they’re only available in chrome, which isn’t my thing. Chrome wheels tend to look best with dark colors, especially black. If you want the sharpest 300, you want the C in black or perhaps magnesium (moderately dark green).

If you want a vibrant shade on your 300, well, you’re out of luck. Dark, dark red is as vibrant as the palette gets, with magnesium the runner-up. It seems Dodge gets exclusive use of bright red and the like. I suspect this will not appeal to many people, but it is an interesting way to visually separate the two cars.

The Chrysler 300's interior appearance similarly varies by trim level. The base interior is quite drab, though not as drab as the Dodge Magnum's. The fashionable faux aluminum trim is necessary here, and the Dodge does without it. The real wood accents optional on the Limited and the faux tortoise-sheel accents and electroluminescent gauges standard on the 300C further liven up the interior.

And it does need livening up. The retro-American theme is less successful inside. Without the 300C's tortoiseshell accents and additional faux aluminum trim, the flat surfaces appear plain rather than bold, in part because the transitions are managed with sharper angles. I’m seeing less evidence of careful thought here. I especially dislike the appearance of the center console in the regular 300. The sharply rectangular chrome bezel around the shift lever recalls 1980s Chryslers, and not in a good way. The panel surrounding this bezel is the color of the interior trim in the regular 300 and faux aluminum in the 300C. The latter makes it much less evident, as it blends in. The 300C also benefits from richer feeling leather.

The quality of the materials is mixed. The dash upper is top quality soft-feel polymer, but the center console adjoining it, which you will touch much more often, is made of the hard stuff. It and the lid on its storage compartment could also benefit from a more solid feel. Supposedly Chrysler went cheap with the interior so they could put more money into the chassis. It shows a bit much, though in top-line 300C trim it’s passable.

Or even more than passable. My father was along for the Chrysler 300C test drive. He mostly drives a Lexus GS 400. I expected him to perceive the Chrysler interior as cheap, but he did not. He liked the car far more than I expected him to.

The interior color choices are even more limited than the exterior The base car is available in either medium gray or dark gray cloth, with very little difference between the two. The light gray and medium gray leather are noticeably different. But why no tan or black? Gray is just boring, and it’s your only choice with the new 300.

Accommodations

The Chrysler 300’s 120-inch wheelbase and upright greenhouse yield a very roomy interior. Once upon a time rear-drive cars were inherently less roomy. Well, that was when live axles were the norm. An independent rear suspension permits both the rear suspension bits and the driveshaft to be packaged much less intrusively—no huge hump here.

Roomy is not the same as airy. The 300 not only looks like a bunker on the outside, but it feels a bit like one on the inside. Not only are the windows short vertically, but the windshield is much more upright and significantly further from the driver than today’s aero-sedan norm. As a result, the view forward from the driver’s seat again recalls a fortress—or the view from inside the Hummer H2. Seeing traffic lights if you’re first in line can be an issue. I advise stopping further from the light.

I like an airy interior with a lot of glass, yet did not mind the opposite within the 300. It’s at least different, and contributes to the car’s consistent, distinctive character.

The driver’s seat in the Chrysler 300 is better than I recall at the auto show, where I found it large and comfortable but lacking in lateral support. Perhaps some last minute adjustments were made—or was it the thick coat I wore on my test drive? At any rate, in the production car the bolsters are close enough together to provide adequate lateral support in turns. (Though a more aggressive seat should attend the SRT due next year.)

One thing has not been carried over from traditional Detroit iron. You won’t sink deep into soft cushions here. They might be a softer than those in the typical German sedan, but not by much. I took a much longer test drive than usual, and towards the end my lower back felt a bit sore. Adjusting the manual lumbar support seemed to help.

The controls are generally well laid out and easy to operate. One exception: the cruise control is actuated by a small talk behind and above the turn signal. The last time I recall such a stalk for the cruise control in was part of a $99.95 aftermarket kit from Sears. Not the right kind of retro.

The Chrysler 300's rear seat is very roomy, with over 40 inches of legroom. That said, the LHs’ rear seat was a bit more comfortable. Although the 2005's rear seat cushion is higher off the floor than the average sedan’s, another inch or so would be ideal. As is thigh support is good, but not great.

The trunk is large and nicely shaped. The hinges are the non-intrusive type. The rear seat folds 60/40, which can be very useful. More and more $30,000-plus sedans (Acura TL, Infiniti G35) do not have this feature. The glove compartment is at best average in size. The center console storage compartment is thankfully far larger.

On the Road

I drove the Chrysler 300 Touring, which like the Limited is powered by a 250-horsepower 3.5-liter six mated to a four-speed automatic, and the 300C, which is powered by a 340-horsepower 5.7-liter V8 mated to a five-speed automatic. The May 2004 Car & Driver claims the former powertrain is good for a 7.5 second run to 60. It does not feel nearly that fast. I would have guessed nine flat. Whatever the numbers, this engine does not feel as strong as the 195-horse 3.8-liter in my wife’s Olds Intrigue, which is good for a roughly eight second run. Not only does it not feel as strong, but it feels merely adequate throughout its range, from idle up to redline.

I cannot imagine what the base car’s 190-horsepower 2.7-liter feels like. This engine coupled with a four-speed auto geared for efficiency (at 60 the 3.5 turns about 1900 RPM) just won’t cut it in a nearly two-ton sedan. After all, even the 3.5 in the 3500-pound LHs set no one's blood a boiling.

Basically, if you want an engine with even a moderately strong feel you’re going to have to get the 340-horsepower, 390 foot-pound 300C. C&D recorded a 5.3 second sprint to 60. To my backside the car didn't feel quite that fast, but close. The engine feels very strong at all RPM, and the transmission kicks down smoothly and readily.

The engine's sound quality is somewhere between a traditional American V8 and modern DOHC design. I drove the Cadillac CTSv and Pontiac GTO the same day I drove the 300C, and the 5.7-liter in those GM products is much less refined than that in the big Chrysler sedan. People attracted by the 300's styling will like how it sounds--they belong together. While the HEMI will make the car for a good number of people, I suspect that the majority would be best served by something in between the 3.5 and 5.7.

Fuel economy differs less than I expected by engine, in large part because the V8 runs on four cylinders when cruising and is fitted with a five-speed automatic. The EPA ratings for the three are 21/28, 19/27, and 17/25. Premium is recommended for the V8, though.

Even on the regular Chrysler 300 large brake rotors have been fitted. On the 300C the front rotors are an inch larger, for a total diameter of 13.6 inches--at least a couple inches larger than the family sedan norm--and these are squeezed by dual-piston calipers. The last in addition to being more powerful should improve responsiveness and feel, as a fixed caliper can be used. I cannot recall ever seeing dual-piston calipers on a car at this price point before. Add it up, and the 300 stops quickly when this is necessary, especially the V8. Thankfully, though, these large brakes are progressive and avoid feeling touchy, an issue I tend to have with Volvos.

Handling is a mix of classic American character and European capabilities (the latter courtesy of a Mercedes E-Class-based suspension). Combine the large body, bunker-like driving position, and non-sport suspension tuning and the regular 300 is not a car that ever feels agile, or even sporty. The steering is precise, but not very quick. Feedback is better than the mainstream sedan average, but that's not saying much these days. As in just about every car I drive, I'd like more detailed communication of what's going on where the rubber meets the road. The chassis is very balanced. Especially in the V6 car there's moderate understeer, but it does not build with speed, and when pushed the chassis feels nicely balanced. Never in my test drives of the 300 and related Dodge Magnum did the chassis' initial understeer build into a heavy plow towards the curb.

Put it all together and I confidently drove this car like I would old Detroit iron—put a palm on the steering wheel rim and toss it this way and that through the curves. Stress the “confidently.” This car is very balanced and easy to drive fast, a huge advance over any traditional Detroit sedan. It lacks the edge that makes a car feel sporty, at least to me, but there’s something to be said for this car’s laid back demeanor. Again, it’s in character.

The Chrysler 300C has the same suspension tuning but with a rear stabilizer bar (the regular 300 is apparently one of the few large sedans to do without one these days) and a thicker front stabilizer bar. As a result, it corners a bit flatter and rides a bit stiffer, especially over the little stuff (large potholes and the like are absorbed with little fuss even in the 300C). Despite the suspension differences, I found the 300C no more agile than the regular 300. It similarly calls for a traditional big car driving style.

Oddly, the steering in the 300C was less satisfying than that in the Touring. I'm not sure how much the systems differ. With more weight over the front wheels and slightly wider rubber, using the same system would have resulted in heavier steering. Since this isn't the case, the 300C's system clearly provides more assist. Road feel seemed reduced, and especially going through some esses at 30-40 MPH the steering felt far too light and, because of the low amount of effort required, too quick. I don't know if the ratios differ; with a 16.1:1 ratio the 300C's steering is objectively quicker than average. In less aggressive driving--such as casual lane changes on the highway--the steering feels more crisp and less darty, even a bit on the slow side.

One bit I really disliked in the Chrysler 300C: the tortoiseshell section of the steering wheel rim just doesn't feel good. It's hard to the touch and the detects on its back are far too large. In aggressive driving I found myself grabbing this portion of the rim in a hurry often, and disliking the experience every time. A wood rim is optional, but I doubt it would be any better. Hopefully the truly sport-tuned SRT model will include an all-leather rim. Any true driver's car should.

Stability control is optional on the base car, standard on the others. If you somehow manage to drive beyond the chassis’ abilities, and this isn’t easy, it will help save your skin. I tested this feature more during my Magnum RT test drive. The salesperson urged me to not brake heading into a curve, as I usually do, but instead to keep speed steady heading into the curve then floor it. I did, and the stability control unobtrusively braked the appropriate rear wheel and feathered the throttle to carve a near-perfect line. Impressive, especially considering how disruptive the killojoy system in the Cadillac CTS is.

There is a button on the 300's dash to turn this system off, but it doesn’t really turn it off. At first I was confused, as I felt this system intervening no matter what I did with the button. It turns out that this button only disables the traction control and delays the intervention of the stability control. The latter cannot be entirely turned off. Unless you want to drive tail-out through every turn like in the those good old car chase movies, not an easy thing to do here at any rate (at least not with the 3.5’s torque—even trying to I could only get the rear end to step out a bit), then this isn’t a bad thing.

A word about tires. The Chrysler 300 Touring is fitted with 215/65-17 Goodyear Integrity tires. Not only are these a bit narrow for the car’s mass, and their sidewalls rather tall, but they’re simply not designed to be high performance tires. In turns they start squealing well before the suspension approaches its limits. Another reason that any enthusiast will have to spring for the top-line 300C, which is fitted with 225/60-18 Continental ContiTouringContacts. Still not a high performance tire, but far better than the Integrities.

The self-sealing tires packaged with the side curtain airbags are also Continental tires; I generally see little value in these, but they might perform better than the Goodyears.

If you want a true sport suspension and performance tires, then you'll either have to go the aftermarket route or wait till the 2006 SRT version.

On the other hand, the Touring's Integrities do contribute to a smooth, quiet ride. I drove the 300 over a road that thoroughly upsets many performance sedans, and it was thoroughly unfazed. Tar strips and uneven pavement could be felt, but the edge was certainly taken off the rough stuff and there was no sign of the loud clomp-clomp that plagues many German cars. It seems that with the V6 models at least Chrysler tuned the suspension for balanced ride and handling, so while it excels at neither it does very well at both. As I've mentioned, the 300C rides just a bit more stiffly.

Car & Driver recorded a sound level of 70 decibels at 70, a middling number these days when the family sedan average is in the high 60s and the luxury sedan average lower still. Well, the car seemed much quieter to me. Cruising along at 40 I thought I heard a slight amount of wind noise, but then the salesperson (who must have read my mind—I didn’t say anything) turned down the HVAC blower. Said blower was not at all loud at a moderate setting, but it turned out to be all I was hearing. With it turned off the car was just about silent. At 80 on the highway the car also seemed as quiet as any $30,000 sedan I’ve driven, and quieter than most. I can only venture that the 300C’s V8 and higher performance tires produce significantly more noise.

All in all, I was impressed by the performance of the new 300. While no sports car, it faithfully recalls the character of traditional American sedans, but with much tighter, much more precise responses when called upon. Though the V6 car won’t appeal to a true enthusiast, but for most sedan buyers it should serve well. The V8's massive thrust is more in tune with the character of the car, and makes it more fun to drive.

That said, this isn't my kind of driving fun. I would prefer greater agility from the chassis, something that might be impossible with a 120-inch wheelbase. Sadly, no short wheelbase version appears to be in the works. If Chrysler were to create a 5-Series-sized car off this platform (perhaps with a 113-inch wheelbase), and make the V8 available with a six-speed manual and tighter steering, I'd be in heaven.

Chrysler 300 and 300C Price Comparisons and Pricing

For quick, up-to-date pricing, and especially user-specified price comparisons, check out the website I created: www.truedelta.com. Why yet another vehicle pricing website? Well, I personally lacked the patience to keep using the others. They were too slow and required too much effort, especially when trying to compare prices. So I taught myself some programming and created a site where there is no need to dig through option packages, prerequisites, and the like one by one -- the TrueDelta algorithm figures these out for you in one swift pass.

The following price information is from when this review was originally written.

Of the $3,100 difference between the Limited and the 300C, at most $2,000 is accounted for by the V8 engine, fifth transmission ratio, and larger, higher performance tires. This is a bargain considering what the import brands charge for their uplevel engines. The only problem: you have to buy an almost fully loaded car to get this engine. The Dodge is a little better in this regard, as the V8 model starts around $30,000.

As with more and more cars, features are bundled in a way that will not appeal to many people. For example, to get heated seats you must get the Limited or C, both of which have chrome wheels standard.

The Touring I drove with a large $895 sunroof, $125 adjustable pedals, and $895 Boston Acoustics sound system listed for $29,310. The $590 curtain airbags, which I’d personally want (though I wish they came alone, without the self-sealing tires), would have taken the price to just under thirty. This is a good amount of car for that price. The size of the typical dealer discount remains to be seen. I suspect it will be larger on the V6 cars than on the V8.

Since it's going to take the V8 to make this car, that's the one to analyze. With sunroof, curtain airbags ($840 in the 300C's case because rear obstacle detection is added to the package), $650 xenon lamps, and $535 sound system upgrade (including CD changer) the list is $35,915. Again, the size of dealer discounts is not yet clear.

Mercury tried to sell a similar concept at this price, and failed. But the Marauder was vastly inferior to the 300C in just about every way, beginning with much slower acceleration.

What exactly can the 300C be compared to? As American cars often are, it's significantly larger than similarly priced imported sedans like the Infiniti G35 and Acura TL. Sticker to sticker these are about $3,000 less than the Chrysler. The Infiniti tends to be more heavily discounted.

The closest V8-powered competitors are the Infiniti M45 and Lincoln LS, both of which tend to be heavily discounted. (Edmunds suggests that the former sells at sticker. Maybe because sales are so limited they lack data?). I'm ignoring the $35,000 Mercury Marauder despite its similar concept because it has never sold well and will soon be leaving us.

The M45 with Premium Package lists for $46,040, about ten grand more than the Chrysler. Its styling is similarly blocky, but because it was designed for the ultra-conservative Japanese executive car market, not to recapture the flavor of Detroit iron. Hence it lacks the pure character of the Chrysler. It simply looks dated and, with excessive rear overhang, ungainly. It has a significantly tighter rear seat and trunk, but with a richer interior does feel significantly more luxurious. Neither ride nor handling are as good as the Chrysler’s.

Equipped like the others the Lincoln lists for $44,585. The typical dealer discount reduces this to about $41,400. It takes about a second more than the others to get to sixty. On the other hand, it has a cushier, more posh feel, even with the V8’s sportier suspension tuning. The last time I drove an LS understeer was heavier than I expected. The car’s worst fault, though, is an unclear character. It tries to be many things, too many things, and ultimately lacks a clear identity.

Other large sedans with similar performance cost $60,000 and up.

Ultimately, the 300C provides the most bang for the buck among large sedans. The question is whether this will move units. The new Pontiac GTO offers similar performance at a similar price in coupe form. As far as I can tell it hasn’t taken the market by storm. In its favor, the 300C is a more distinctive car with a more coherent identity. So it should have a better chance.

Final Words

The new Chrysler 300’s fate rests on three attributes: styling, performance, and character.

The exterior styling is truly love it or hate it. It’s not the look I’d personally be going for, but I admire its distinctiveness and coherence. Heck, the more I look at it the more I like it. I like it despite not wanting to. The interior is more of an issue. It has also sought to recapture the flavor of old Detroit, and does so, but unfortunately this flavor tastes more than a bit plain and cheap.

The performance of the 3.5 is merely competent. Okay, maybe even very competent. But if you’re seeking a thrilling driving experience, the 300C is the only way to go—at least until the higher performance tighter handling SRT arrives next year. With a 340-horsepower V8 the 300C offers a huge bang for the buck.

Character is probably the most important element of all. The styling, performance, and feel of these car form a coherent whole, which I always like to see. Chrysler’s German management sought to recapture the spirit of old Detroit iron, and has succeeded not only in doing so but doing so in a nicely updated way. The 300C feels big and brawny, but never sloppy.

With the V6 this character is of a tightened-up traditional large American sedan. You know, the kind your parents or grandparents used to drive. Is there still a market for this sort of car? Quite possibly. First of all, many of those parents and grandparents are still around. But this car is just good enough to win over a new generation to the cause.

With the V8 the 300 becomes a different animal, with bold power to back up the bold styling. Far more than the 300M, the 300C recaptures the spirit of the Chrysler 300s of the 1950s, luxurious and brutishly powerful. This is truly the winning combination, and no doubt will see the strongest demand.

Sure, many people will still prefer the richer interiors, more conventionally attractive exteriors, and more nimble handling of the midsize imports. I don’t see sales of the Acura TL and Infiniti G35 drying up now that the 300C has arrived. But this is a growing segment, and there’s always a market for the biggest, quickest, and, well, "coolest." How does one say "most phat?" Phattest? Some other way that sounds better? However it's said, that's what this car is. It's the un-Camry.

Currently the V8 is only available with all the bells and whistles. Police departments and taxi fleets have been seeking an alternative to the Ford Crown Victoria ever since the Caprice departed, but they won’t be buying the car with a V6 or with all the do-dads. Make the base 300 available with the V8, though, and you can kiss the Crown Vic goodbye. The car seems tailor-made for this application.

I give the 300 Touring four stars, and the 300C five. Although the latter still has a few faults, most notably the steering and steering wheel, it's a steal.

A Note on Chrysler 300 and 300C Reliability

I cannot practically cover reliability within the context of this review. However, many people are interested in such information, so I've started collecting my own data. Results, once they are available, will be posted to my site, www.truedelta.com, with updates every three months.

Unlike other sources, TrueDelta will clearly identify what difference it will make if you buy a 300 or 300C rather than another vehicle by providing "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats (among others). You will be able to specify the number of years, annual miles, and types of repairs to include in Chrysler 300 and 300C reliability comparisons.

Before I can report results, I need reliability data on all cars--not just the 300 and 300C--from people like you. To encourage participation, those who help provide the data will receive free access to the site's reliability information. Non-participants will have to pay an access fee.

For the details, and to sign up, visit www.truedelta.com.

A link to this website and alphabetized links to my other vehicle reviews can be found on my profile page.

Some of my reviews of related vehicles:
Acura TL review
BMW 5-Series review
Cadillac CTS review
Chrysler 300M review
Ford Five Hundred review
Infiniti M45 review
Lincoln LS review
Mercedes E-Class review
Infiniti G35 review
Toyota Avalon review
Amount Paid (US$): 33000
Model and Options: Touring, 300C