300 reliability

Discussion in 'Chrysler 300' started by j.lef, Jul 26, 2004.

  1. j.lef

    j.lef Guest

    Looking for a new car, and test drove all the competition. The car
    I liked the best overall was the cady cts, but will not buy it, because of
    the long term reliability reports and poor resale value.
    So it has come down to a accura tl and the 300c. 300c with options
    to match the tl will cost almost 4000 more dollars. I like the extra room
    that the 300 has, plus the rear wheel drive. The accura is a beautiful
    refined car, and I know what to expect for the next five years down the
    road, as far as reliability and resale.
    Since the 300c is new, and I have not read any long term or higher
    mileage reviews yet, I was wondering to myself what will be the reliability
    factor when these cars start having 20,000 plus miles.
    Everyday reliability is a big plus for me, since I use the car to
    get to work and have a type of job, that I can not afford to be late ever
    for any reason. So I need a vehicle, that will start and perform everytime.
    But I am on the tall side and like the extra room of the 300c.
    Any opinions on what the longterm reliabilty on this vehicle
    might be?
    Thanks .
     
    j.lef, Jul 26, 2004
    #1
  2. I was down to the same choices as you. I opted for the 300C once I
    got behind the wheel and felt the adrenaline rush when I mashed the
    accelerator. You won't get that in any Acura. However, reliability
    is another issue and thus far Acura has it all over Chrysler. My
    previous experience with Chrysler was not good ('95 Neon) but the 300C
    is a whole new ballgame. It has the benefit of the Daimler-Chrysler
    merger and the build and ride quality seem to bear that out. The car
    is only a few months old and has only 3,400 miles on it but they've
    been great miles!
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Jul 26, 2004
    #2
  3. j.lef

    j.lef Guest

    Just one thing. The Daimler-Chrsyler merge....I
    dont think it did too much for mercedes. Everyone of their cars has a big
    reliability problem these days. Even consumer reports, black lists them on
    reliability. A lot of people who collect mercedes look at them at the pre
    merge and post merge, and wouldnt touch the post merge. So with that in
    mind, I wonder if the merge factor will be fruitfull for chrysler. Also some
    of the suppossedly great technology put into the 300c from mererdes, is no
    longer being used by mercedes. I wonder what that is trying to tell us if
    anything. It gets kind of complex after a while.
    I am going to go test drive both vehicles again next
    week, one after the other, since both driving experiences will be close in
    my mind, and then a decision must be made. I do like the caddy, but I dont
    want to spend close to 40,000 and have a bucket of bolts on my hands in
    three years, and I do hope the first year 300c,s dont start falling into
    that category.
    How do you think the rearward visibility is on the
    300c when driving in heavy traffic(if you have heavy traffic where you are,
    LOL ).


    Thanks Jerry
     
    j.lef, Jul 26, 2004
    #3
  4. Consumer Reports has big black balls next to all of the Mercedes. In the
    last JD Powers survey the biggest embarasment for Daimler was not just
    that the reliablity of Mercedes had gotten so poor but that Chryslers
    ranked higher in reliablity than Mercedes. Historically Chrysler hasn't
    been known for their quality. On the other hand I have 120,000 miles on my
    94 Concorde and it's still running. It has a lot of little things failing
    but it's major components are hanging in there so I can't say I'm
    disappointed in the quality of the car.

    As for resale value, Chrysler's have never fared well there and there is
    no way they can turn that around in less than a generation (human not
    auto). If Chrysler was to become as reliable as Toyota it would take 15 or
    20 years before their resale value caught up. On the other hand if you do
    what I do, which is to buy a car and drive it until something really
    important falls off, then resale value doesn't matter.
     
    General Schvantzkoph, Jul 26, 2004
    #4
  5. j.lef

    GABOY Guest

    Hands down ....Acura ! Best PROVEN resale, best reliable car you can buy!

    My twenty something son has one he has driven the living hell out of & it
    STILL beats his mothers Olds with half the miles, my Chrysler with low
    miles, & he just keeps on driving with only oil changes & tires closing in
    on 200,000 miles, I'm going to buy one the next time!
     
    GABOY, Jul 27, 2004
    #5
  6. j.lef

    Matt Whiting Guest

    What kind of tires does Acura use? I've never heard of tires lasting
    200,000 miles. :)

    Matt
     
    Matt Whiting, Jul 27, 2004
    #6
  7. j.lef

    Art Guest

    Chrysler 300M has been very reliable for us. We have a 99. Power windows
    were only significant problem. All failed and Chrysler had to change
    motors, weatherstrips and regulators. Hard to say whether you can predict
    anything from this because 300C is a completely different car but we had a
    94 LHS and the 99 was much better quality wise so that shows a promising
    trend. We also have a TOyota Avalon which is supposed to be in the same
    class as a Acura and would not buy it again. Will buy a chyrsler first.
    Much better designed features than the Toyota. Little things like
    defroster, heated seats, auto climate control etc all are better on the
    Chrysler. Reliability isn't everything. You have to like the car too. THe
    current Chrylser products are all pretty reliable... look up the PTCruiser
    for example in Consumer Reports reliability chart.
     
    Art, Jul 27, 2004
    #7
  8. j.lef

    Jack Baruth Guest

    Are you *sure* you know what to expect? Check the Acura TL discussion
    boards. These cars are Ohio-built and engineered down to a price
    nowadays, and they have had problems ranging from the significant
    (transmission failures are increasingly common) to the merely silly
    (the new TL suffers from weak leather in the seats which
    "butt-prints").

    Also, Acuras are not necessarily resale-value stars. Like BMWs, only the
    small cars really hold their value.
     
    Jack Baruth, Jul 27, 2004
    #8
  9. j.lef

    Steve Guest

    The only thing I might worry about is the stupid over-complicated
    Mercedes-built transmission in the 300C. The engine is all Chrysler, and
    Chrysler has very, VERY rarely "missed it" with an engine since the
    1930s. The 2.0/2.4 Neon engine and the 2.7L v6 are the only ones in all
    those years that had any hint of problems. The 5.7 Hemi should have a
    record pretty much like the last V8 Chrysler introduced- the 4.7L SOHC.
    Flawless.

    As for an Acura- I won't pay for a Honda at Honda prices, so why pay
    premium for a re-badged Honda?
     
    Steve, Jul 27, 2004
    #9
  10. j.lef

    Steve Guest

    Bullfeathers. Chrysler has LONG been known for superior engineering, and
    cars that last forever. Can you say "slant six?" How about "318" or
    "2.2?" And more recently, "3.5" or "4.7?" If you factor out minivans and
    their over-worked under-sized transmissions, Chrysler has a far better
    record of avoiding lemons than just about any other company.

    Mercedes, on the other hand, ALWAYS built over-complicated
    high-maintenance cars. Very nice and rugged ones, but still not exactly
    in the category of ultra-reliable cheap-to-maintain.
     
    Steve, Jul 27, 2004
    #10
  11. Not so. W123 200D one of the best all time cars in reliability, is one
    example. If they were so bad they would not be the No. 1 choice for taxi
    drivers all over Europe, Middle East etc.

    Maybe they sent only the cars you describe to the US...

    DAS
     
    Dori A Schmetterling, Jul 27, 2004
    #11
  12. The slant 6 was a very long time ago. You are right that it had a
    reputation as being indestructable but that was 40 years ago. For the past
    15 years most of the vehicles that Chrysler has sold have been minivans
    and Jeeps, and the lousy reliablity of the minivans has tainted the brand.
    Of all the people that I know I'm the only one who would consider buying a
    Chrysler again and that's because I'm driving a Concorde with a 3.5 not a
    van or truck. Also I've been excessively tollerant of it's reliablity
    problems because I like the look and feel of the car so much.
    Around 50K miles I had to replace the head gaskets, which also failed on
    my previous Chrysler (an 86 LeBaron GTS turbo). The air conditioner has
    failed three times, the first couple was under warranty so I had it fixed,
    it failed again two years ago and I haven't bothered to have it fixed
    because after 100K miles my attitude is to just to run it as long as I can
    without putting major money into it, I have minor but necessary things
    repaired like the brake lights and the windshield wiper motor but not
    anything expensive. The transmission also has a problem engaging when I
    first start the car in cold weather and it's jerky changing gears at
    around 30MPH, bit it works well enough that I haven't had it replaced. I'm
    counting on the transmission failing altogether so that I'll have an
    excuse to buy a new car, which like the OP on this thread will be either
    an Acura TL or a 300C. The Concorde has gone 120,000 miles so I feel that
    I've gotton my money's worth but there is no chance that it could go
    200K which is not uncommon on Japanese cars. I have a friend that had a
    Mercedes that went 450K miles, that could never happen with a Chrysler. On
    the other hand you can buy two 300Cs or three bottom of the line 300s for
    the price of an E class Mercedes so they don't need to last 400K miles.
     
    General Schvantzkoph, Jul 27, 2004
    #12
  13. j.lef

    Art Guest

    People find Chrysler minivans unreliable and won't by another Chrysler
    product? So why do so many of my neighbors have 2 in the driveway.
     
    Art, Jul 27, 2004
    #13
  14. j.lef

    Steve Guest

    General Schvantzkoph wrote:

    The 3.5 and 4.7 are currently in production, and have the same
    reputation. Its not uncommon for a 3.5 to see >200,000 miles without
    having the valve covers off, let alone the heads or any other major
    components. Mine, in fact, still doesn't burn oil at 211,000 miles and
    when I did replace the valve cover gaskets recently, it looked as clean
    as a new engine under there.

    Likewise, the 5.2 (318) and 5.9 (360) engines, as well as the Jeep 4.0L
    inline six were all in production up until a couple of years ago (the
    4.0 is still coming out in Grand Cherokees and Wranglers), and are well
    known as "last forever" engines.

    I agree that minivans have "tainted" the reputation of the whole
    company. But "tainting" is a fiction- what happens to minivans doesn't
    happen to cars or trucks. The fact is that the cars and trucks (aside
    from the minivans) are extremely reliable.
     
    Steve, Jul 27, 2004
    #14
  15. Precisely. All cars have problems, even Mercs in the eighties...and many
    brands give good service.

    What is wrought by Man is imperfect...

    DAS
    --
    For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
    ---

    [....]
     
    Dori A Schmetterling, Jul 27, 2004
    #15
  16. j.lef

    jdoe Guest

    The mini vans are too. Most of the "issues" realted to the trans were due to
    improper troubleshooting, programming etc. Very few had actual "hard"
    failures. My mini vans have been among the most reliable products I've ever
    seen or owned and very safe too. Only one I hated had the mitsushitti V6 oil
    fogger. 3.3/3.8's AND their drivelines have been near bulletproof for me.
    Larry
     
    jdoe, Jul 27, 2004
    #16
  17. | People find Chrysler minivans unreliable and won't by another Chrysler
    | product? So why do so many of my neighbors have 2 in the driveway.
    |

    Most of the Chrysler minivans on my street (and there are several) have 100,000
    to 200,000 miles on them. So I personally don't know what you're talking about.
    We had a '87 that ran forever for us...sold it to friends in 1997 when we
    bought our 1997 Caravan and they ran it another 5 years and our 1997 has been
    flawless to date too. We are not apprehensive one bit to take that 7 (almost 8
    year old) Caravan on long trips. Shoot, I may buy a 3rd one, frankly.
     
    James C. Reeves, Jul 28, 2004
    #17
  18. | The mini vans are too. Most of the "issues" realted to the trans were due to
    | improper troubleshooting, programming etc. Very few had actual "hard"
    | failures. My mini vans have been among the most reliable products I've ever
    | seen or owned and very safe too. Only one I hated had the mitsushitti V6 oil
    | fogger. 3.3/3.8's AND their drivelines have been near bulletproof for me.
    | Larry

    Me too...been flawless for me over 18 years owning them (so far, at least).
     
    James C. Reeves, Jul 28, 2004
    #18
  19. | Looking for a new car, and test drove all the competition. The car
    | I liked the best overall was the cady cts, but will not buy it, because of
    | the long term reliability reports and poor resale value.
    | So it has come down to a accura tl and the 300c. 300c with options
    | to match the tl will cost almost 4000 more dollars. I like the extra room
    | that the 300 has, plus the rear wheel drive. The accura is a beautiful
    | refined car, and I know what to expect for the next five years down the
    | road, as far as reliability and resale.
    | Since the 300c is new, and I have not read any long term or higher
    | mileage reviews yet, I was wondering to myself what will be the reliability
    | factor when these cars start having 20,000 plus miles.
    | Everyday reliability is a big plus for me, since I use the car to
    | get to work and have a type of job, that I can not afford to be late ever
    | for any reason. So I need a vehicle, that will start and perform everytime.
    | But I am on the tall side and like the extra room of the 300c.
    | Any opinions on what the longterm reliabilty on this vehicle
    | might be?
    | Thanks .
    |
    |

    I'd wait a year or two. But that's just me...I have a personal policy of never
    purchasing 1st year model runs...statistically they have the greatest number of
    problems (on average).
     
    James C. Reeves, Jul 28, 2004
    #19
  20. |
    | | | People find Chrysler minivans unreliable and won't by another Chrysler
    | | product? So why do so many of my neighbors have 2 in the driveway.
    | |
    |
    | Most of the Chrysler minivans on my street (and there are several) have
    100,000
    | to 200,000 miles on them. So I personally don't know what you're talking
    about.
    | We had a '87 that ran forever for us...sold it to friends in 1997 when we
    | bought our 1997 Caravan and they ran it another 5 years and our 1997 has been
    | flawless to date too. We are not apprehensive one bit to take that 7 (almost
    8
    | year old) Caravan on long trips. Shoot, I may buy a 3rd one, frankly.
    |
    |

    I forgot, a couple of people at the office have well into the 100K miles on
    their Chrysler minivan's too. Not sure where the bad press is coming from.
    The only problem I'm aware of in dozens of minivan owners I know is my brother
    had his tranny go out at 98,000 miles on his 1997 Grand. But, I don't think he
    did all the tranny service that is called for, so that was the likely
    contributing factor to his failure.
     
    James C. Reeves, Jul 28, 2004
    #20
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.