2000 vs 2001+ 300M

[Lloyd Parker]

Were side air bags added in 2001? Also sometimes a minor change can
make all the difference in the world safety wise.

I think also that only one model is crashed. As any scientist knows, you
always want replicates since one measurement can have faulty data in it. I
realize cars are too expensive for NHTSA or IIHS to crash more than one of
each model, but still this kind of variation seems to indicate the data from
just one crash may not be too reliable.

 

[khobar]

Hi folks,

I'm considering a pre-owned Chrysler 300M/LHS and would like some info. I'm
looking at the safety numbers and see the 2001 is vastly superior in the
crash tests to the 2000. Could someone please explain to me what's different
between the 2000 and 2001+ models that would make such a difference?

Also, can anyone compare a 2000+ 300M to a 2000+ Bonneville in terms of ride
quality/handling and comfort? Thanks.

Paul Nixon

 

[Art Begun]

Were side air bags added in 2001? Also sometimes a minor change can
make all the difference in the world safety wise.

 

[khobar]

Were side air bags added in 2001? Also sometimes a minor change can
make all the difference in the world safety wise.

Thanks for the input Art.

I'm not sure. I saw a reference where SAB's were added as an option, but all
of the cars crash-tested with side air bags had that noted. I thought
perhaps that was what made the big difference when comparing the 300M/LHS
against the Bonneville.

I also came across a note that the airbags were modified in some way between
2000 and 2001 to affect their deployment.

I'm concerned about structural integrity. I've got three young children who
would ride in the back in car seats and if that's the only thing taken into
account then the Buick LeSabre is the vehicle of choice though I'd prefer
something a little different.

The Bonneville also ranks quite high but it's expensive when getting an SLE
(don't want an SSEi) and I'm not sure I care for the interior. The 300M
seems to fit the bill exactly as far as
bells/whistles/performance/size/etc., but I want to try to be sure it's a
good idea.

Paul Nixon

 

[khobar]

I think also that only one model is crashed. As any scientist knows, you
always want replicates since one measurement can have faulty data in it. I
realize cars are too expensive for NHTSA or IIHS to crash more than one of
each model, but still this kind of variation seems to indicate the data from
just one crash may not be too reliable.

I am not sure. I saw some mention of the airbags being modified between 2000
and 2001, and I have seen some mention of SAB's as an option at least.
However, the tests typically indicate when SAB's are equipped.

The 300M just looks like it would fit my needs to a "t", but since I have
young children that would be riding in back I want to be sure. There's quite
a difference in price between the 2000's and 2001's which if fine if it
makes that much difference in real terms as far as safety is concerned.

Paul

 

[Art Begun]

By the way, check the tires. The later model may have Michelins. The
earlier the original Goodyears which are terrible after 1 year of use
based on my experience with 2 sets. I'm talking of the standard model
with 17 inch wheels. Make sure your purchase comes with Michelins or
figure on replacements soon after the purchase unless Goodyear has
fixed their 17 inch tire problem.

As I remember it the insurance institute also tested a 300M or one of
its cousins when it first came out and it did not do well because the
airbag launched later than it should have. Chrysler faulted the test
which used an initial block of foam in front of the brick wall to
simulate a collapsing frontend. Chrysler said it was too soft and
stated that when they tested in a more realistic manner the car did
very well (crashing into another car).