What Bugs Me About the 300

[Greg Beaulieu]

It isn't so much the styling, although I can't say I like the looks much.
To me the grille is too in-your-face, and the high beltline I find to be
particularly objectionable. It might be one of those things that grow on
you though, so I won't dismiss it permanently like I did with truly ugly
cars like the Aztek.

What really bugs me is the way D-C is beating this "Hemi" nonsense to
death. Yeah, so the engine has hemisperical heads. So did the K-car's
engine and hosts of other cars. That doesn't mean it's the fabled Hemi of
yore. It isn't a pushrod V-8 of 426 cubes with twin 4-bbl carbs and
stump-pulling power. It's just another modern engine that may or may not
stand the test of time. I would think a lot more of D-C if they didn't
undertake this attempt at fooling consumers who may have heard of the old
Hemi but are short on specifics.

 

[Bill 2]

It isn't so much the styling, although I can't say I like the looks much.
To me the grille is too in-your-face, and the high beltline I find to be
particularly objectionable. It might be one of those things that grow on
you though, so I won't dismiss it permanently like I did with truly ugly
cars like the Aztek.

What really bugs me is the way D-C is beating this "Hemi" nonsense to
death. Yeah, so the engine has hemisperical heads. So did the K-car's
engine and hosts of other cars. That doesn't mean it's the fabled Hemi of
yore. It isn't a pushrod V-8 of 426 cubes with twin 4-bbl carbs and
stump-pulling power. It's just another modern engine that may or may not
stand the test of time. I would think a lot more of D-C if they didn't
undertake this attempt at fooling consumers who may have heard of the old
Hemi but are short on specifics.

Only one K-car engine was a Hemi. It was in the early 80s, the 2.6L
Mitsushitty engine. Unfortunately the engine was terrible.

I think the whole Hemi foolishness is just trying for the retro thing that
all the car makers seem to be going after (PT cruiser, T-bird). Although I
would tend to agree that the Hemi badging should be reserved for the higher
performance engines, eg: SRT-X.

I know someone that rented a Dodge Ram 1500 with a Hemi. He said it had a
fair bit of power, but nothing jaw-dropping. And he actually had people say
"Hey, does that thing got a Hemi?"

The high beltline is the major visual flaw I have with the 300. Although
personally I like the styling of the Magnum wagon. Plus I'm kind of a wagon
fan.

These two cars should be rather interesting, as they are something
different. They have low price base models that can compete price wise with
Taurus, Impala, Camry, etc. so they have the affordable family car covered,
yet they offer higher end models for people looking for a luxury car. I'll
have to take one out for a drive for a better opinion, and hopefully they
will have good reliability.

 

[Rick Blaine]

It isn't so much the styling, although I can't say I like the looks much.
To me the grille is too in-your-face, and the high beltline I find to be
particularly objectionable. It might be one of those things that grow on
you though, so I won't dismiss it permanently like I did with truly ugly
cars like the Aztek.

What really bugs me is the way D-C is beating this "Hemi" nonsense to
death. Yeah, so the engine has hemisperical heads. So did the K-car's
engine and hosts of other cars. That doesn't mean it's the fabled Hemi of
yore. It isn't a pushrod V-8 of 426 cubes with twin 4-bbl carbs and
stump-pulling power. It's just another modern engine that may or may not
stand the test of time. I would think a lot more of D-C if they didn't
undertake this attempt at fooling consumers who may have heard of the old
Hemi but are short on specifics.

The new Hemi may not have the power of the old, but it aint bad. The 300c
will do 13.9 in the quarter and it weighs more than 2 tons. That certainly
compares favorably with a loaded b-body with the old Hemi.

 

[Steve]

What really bugs me is the way D-C is beating this "Hemi" nonsense to
death. Yeah, so the engine has hemisperical heads. So did the K-car's
engine and hosts of other cars. That doesn't mean it's the fabled Hemi of
yore. It isn't a pushrod V-8 of 426 cubes with twin 4-bbl carbs and
stump-pulling power.

Well, it IS a pushrod v8, and it DOES have (relative to other modern
engines) pretty good stump-pulling torque.


So, did you get "bugged" in 1964 when Chrysler made a big deal about the
426 Hemi being a Hemi? After all, it wasn't "really" a Hemi since it had
a tilted combustion chamber, unlike the REAL Hemi from the 50s. And the
426 Hemi was built using an RB engine block originally designed for
wedge heads, not a block made for Hemi heads, it even had to have a
goofy "up from below" head bolt in order to mount Hemi heads on the
block. And what's with all that goofed-up plumbing it had to have just
to get heat up to the carb area? REAL Hemis didn't need THAT stuff!. And
after all, REAL hemis are no bigger than 392 cubic inches.

<sarcasm mode off...>

;-)

 

[Bob]

It isn't so much the styling, although I can't say I like the looks much.

To me the grille is too in-your-face, and the high beltline I find to be
particularly objectionable. It might be one of those things that grow on
you though, so I won't dismiss it permanently like I did with truly ugly
cars like the Aztek.

What really bugs me is the way D-C is beating this "Hemi" nonsense to
death. Yeah, so the engine has hemisperical heads. So did the K-car's
engine and hosts of other cars. That doesn't mean it's the fabled Hemi of
yore. It isn't a pushrod V-8 of 426 cubes with twin 4-bbl carbs and
stump-pulling power. It's just another modern engine that may or may not
stand the test of time. I would think a lot more of D-C if they didn't
undertake this attempt at fooling consumers who may have heard of the old
Hemi but are short on specifics.

The first time I saw the 300 I thought someone misplaced a pickup
truck grill. It's looks started to grow on me but I still didn't care
much for it until I got behind the wheel. The car is comfortable, easy
to drive, and the acceleration is amazing. Does it compare to a built
426 Hemi, not a chance, but then again the 426 didn't get 20 mpg and
idle so quietly and smoothly that you couldn't tell it was running. In
any case I wouldn't kick either one out of my garage.

Bob

 

[Patrick]

What really bugs me is the way D-C is beating this "Hemi" nonsense to
death. Yeah, so the engine has hemisperical heads. So did the K-car's
engine and hosts of other cars. That doesn't mean it's the fabled Hemi of
yore.

No, it's not... thank God! The 426 had single digit fuel economy and
just one of those old motors emitted more pollutants than a few
hundred modern Hemis.

It isn't a pushrod V-8 of 426 cubes with twin 4-bbl carbs and stump-pulling > power.

340 _NET_ horsepower and 390 foot pounds of twist isn't stump pulling?
And these numbers are just for a big sedan. Wait until you see the
new Hemi's numbers when DC drops it into a performance car/SRT
product.

It's just another modern engine that may or may not stand the test of time.

Get out of the 60s; come into the 21st Century. Modern engines are
designed SO much better than the old 60's stuff. (Couple of examples:
Other than a resto guy, know anyone with a 60's motor who'd use an
old grind cam, or opt for old performance heads instead of modern
stuff?)

I would think a lot more of D-C if they didn't undertake this attempt at
fooling consumers who may have heard of the old Hemi but are short on
specifics.

Huh? It's exactly what they say it is... a Hemi.

I don't know what you're complaining about. The new hemi is the best
V8 to ever come out of Detroit. (Note: The previous best was GM's
LS1/LS6. We'll have to wait and see how their LS2 shapes up.)

Patrick

 

[Dori A Schmetterling]

Slight tangent:-

The 300C gets a rather mixed review in last Sunday's Sunday Times (UK's
leading quality Sunday with a circulation of about 1.3m -- pop. 55m).

Technically -- incl performance on the road -- not up to equivalent-engined
BMWs. Audis and Mercs, nor is the interior.

But for the money GBP 30K, at least GBP 10K cheaper than the named rivals,
well worth it. If offered as a company car, the reviewer would be delighted
(note that company cars are still quite widespread in the UK, even among
people for whom it is a perk, rather than a necessary work tool).

One point made is that the 300C is a new large car in an area largely
abandoned by other manufacturers because of the introduction of SUVs.

To me the most significant info was that this car type was finally being
offered in the UK. Maybe this means we will now see the whole Chrysler
range offered here.

DAS

 

[Steve]

Get out of the 60s; come into the 21st Century. Modern engines are
designed SO much better than the old 60's stuff.

In a few ways, such as cam grind, air-flow efficiency, and fuel
management. In MOST ways- such as assembly quality, materials, and
long-term ruggedness, they're decidedly inferior.

I've been doing some pretty extensive 200,000 mile maintenance on my
wife's modern engine (1993 3.5L v6). Its a great motor, for the most
part, but its not going to last half as long as my 1973 318 (430,000
miles and still going), my 1966 383, or my 1969 440 Magnum. Too many
design weaknesses. Plastic fuel rails that fail (in spite of the design
change) and are now up to $317 for replacements and will probably be
NS-1 in another 4 years. Lower intake manifold gaskets that fail (mine
did last 200k, so I'm not really complaining, just pointing out that the
design is weak) and are essentially a maintenance item- but that forces
you to loosen and re-torque large bolts into aluminum threads, which
will only take that process maybe 2 or 3 times before failing. The oil
pump rotor seals against the front surface of the block, so when wear
gets too great the ENGINE BLOCK has to be replaced.

I love that 3.5 and I love the Eagle Vision it came in because its
light-years ahead of foreign crap like Toyota and Honda, but is it
"designed SO much better than 60's stuff?" Not even CLOSE to as good,
let alone "better."

My ideal engine would be one with 50's era assembly precision (the
first-gen Hemis were basically blueprinted from the factory according to
machinists I know who have torn them down and measured them) 60's era
attention to materials, replaceable wear items, and long-term durability
but with modern EFI and emission controls. Oh wait... that would be a
5.2 or 5.9 Magnum... too bad they just went out of production...guess
I'll have to settle for a 4.0 in a Jeep Wrangler .... but wait, it goes
out of production in another year or so... :-( That just leaves the
Cummins diesel, I guess.

 

[Rick Blaine]

Slight tangent:-
Technically -- incl performance on the road -- not up to equivalent-engined
BMWs. Audis and Mercs, nor is the interior.

What "equivalent" engined BMW's etc., are you referring to? The 300 is
quicker than the 5 and 7 series V8's. And makes more power.

 

[MartianSand]

yah sure is ugly like K-Kar mark IV the product of too much k-kar technology

looks like a jazzed up kcar

 

[Patrick]

Patrick wrote:

In a few ways, such as cam grind, air-flow efficiency, and fuel
management. In MOST ways- such as assembly quality, materials, and
long-term ruggedness, they're decidedly inferior.

Steve,

Your memory and expirences are quite different from mine. I remember
growing up in the early 70's when it was milestone for any car to
reach 100,000 miles. I remember my friend who lived down the road
whose family was big on Chryslers and owned a number of hemi cars.
Within a couple years all the hemi car were traded in because they
kept blowing up. I remember my Dodge 360 needed to be rebuild after
it hit 70,000 miles. My oldest brother's '72 Chevy 350 was shot after
just rolling over 90,000. And my other brother's '69 Chevy 307 was
puffing blue in about 80,000, and his '74 AMC 304 needed new lifters
about the time it hit 60,000. Yes, my expirences and memory recall
the lifespan of engines in the 60's-70's being significantly shorter
than the engines in the modern fuel-injected era.

I've been doing some pretty extensive 200,000 mile maintenance on my
wife's modern engine (1993 3.5L v6). Its a great motor, for the most
part, but its not going to last half as long as my 1973 318 (430,000
miles and still going), my 1966 383, or my 1969 440 Magnum. Too many
design weaknesses. Plastic fuel rails that fail (in spite of the design
change)

Carter Thermoquads, Holley two-barrels, ballast resistors, water
pumps, starters, and voltage regulators are just a few things I
remember always failing on old Chryslers.

and are now up to $317 for replacements and will probably be
NS-1 in another 4 years. Lower intake manifold gaskets that fail (mine
did last 200k, so I'm not really complaining, just pointing out that the
design is weak) and are essentially a maintenance item- but that forces
you to loosen and re-torque large bolts into aluminum threads, which
will only take that process maybe 2 or 3 times before failing. The oil
pump rotor seals against the front surface of the block, so when wear
gets too great the ENGINE BLOCK has to be replaced.

I love that 3.5 and I love the Eagle Vision it came in because its
light-years ahead of foreign crap like Toyota and Honda,

"Crap like Toyota" Huh? Toyota is, and has been for years, the
automotive gold standard.

but is it
"designed SO much better than 60's stuff?" Not even CLOSE to as good,
let alone "better."

60's engine design was hit or miss, at best. Trial and error was the
rule. In contrast, today's engineers using computer design can find
an engine's weakness before they even build one.

My ideal engine would be one with 50's era assembly precision (the
first-gen Hemis were basically blueprinted from the factory according to
machinists I know who have torn them down and measured them) 60's era
attention to materials,

Attention to material? Like the cheap vinyl they used in the
interiors? Like the cheap chrome trim that peeled and/or pitted?
Hopefully, the engine material they used WAS better than that, and
much better than their atrocious attention to build quality.

replaceable wear items, and long-term durability
but with modern EFI and emission controls. Oh wait... that would be a
5.2 or 5.9 Magnum...

The 318 was okay, but the 360 never impressed me. The 360 had a big
sloppy crank, a weak cam, and crappy heads. Chrysler's best small
block WAS the 340.

too bad they just went out of production...guess
I'll have to settle for a 4.0 in a Jeep Wrangler .... but wait, it goes
out of production in another year or so... :-(

Because they're all obsolete.

That just leaves the Cummins diesel, I guess.

A diesel... ick!

Patrick

 

[Fruit Pie the Magician]

Technically -- incl performance on the road -- not up to equivalent-engined
BMWs. Audis and Mercs, nor is the interior.

What "equivalent" engined BMW's etc., are you referring to? The 300 is
quicker than the 5 and 7 series V8's. And makes more power.[/QUOTE]

I agree. Which models are they talking about?

The only cars off the top of my head that cost what the HEMI model costs
are pretty much base models. What's $30,000 USD get you in a BMW? (a
decontented 3-Series), an Audi (A small A4 base model, maybe with AWD
but no S4), Mercedes? (A vanilla C-Class 4-cyl turbo?)

While I like all of these cars, they're NOT "equivalent" price-wise --
especially with a V8 option.

-FPtM "Really hating the USD <-> GBP <-> Euro conversion rates.

 

[Bill Putney]

60's engine design was hit or miss, at best. Trial and error was the
rule. In contrast, today's engineers using computer design can find
an engine's weakness before they even build one.

That has its pro's and con's. On the one hand, you don't end up with
one area way overdesigned and another area way underdesigned, so that
things tend more to be moving towards wearout end-of-life converging to
the same point in time, so maximum use of materials, minimum weight,
etc.

On the other hand, it allows whatever design safety factor is now
considered "unnecessary" (i.e., in the past, intentionally put in to
cover the grey unknowns and unpredictable interactions) to be trimmed
out resulting in lack of general robustness - i.e., any abuse or
out-of-the-norm anomalies (i.e., water hose busts and it overheats
causing major damage; a water pump failing can take out the timing chain
and other components so that what used to be a $75 expense turns into
several hundreds if not a couple of grand; everything is so compacted
and integrated that the simplest of tasks in the "old days" is now very
time consuming and expensive, i.e., a $10 gasket failure costs several
times more than a corresponding failure on an "old school" engine due to
disassembly/reassembly labor; etc.; etc.; etc.) resulting in costs
approaching or exceeding the value of the vehicle, i.e., after 5 years,
you're one otherwise minor failure away from scrapping the vehicle. If
nothing happens, you're good for many years, but if certain otherwise
minor component failures occur, the vehicle may be scrapped, or at least
a significant part of its worth will be spent on repairs.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

[Dori A Schmetterling]

I said equivalent-engined (meaning engine size), so yes, the other cars are
dearer by at least GBP 10 000 (USD 17 000) in the UK, where car prices are
somewhat higher than in the US. BMW 545 and Merc E500 were named as the
chief opposition.

Fortunately I just found the review online:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2105-1092860,00.html

In Europe, especially in the UK with its many winding roads, we have a
particular interest in road-holding, cornering etc. Simple high
acceleration is not itself sufficient to make a car well-performing. In any
case, even 1.4-liter cars can go at 100 mph.

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

What "equivalent" engined BMW's etc., are you referring to? The 300 is
quicker than the 5 and 7 series V8's. And makes more power.

I agree. Which models are they talking about?

The only cars off the top of my head that cost what the HEMI model costs
are pretty much base models. What's $30,000 USD get you in a BMW? (a
decontented 3-Series), an Audi (A small A4 base model, maybe with AWD
but no S4), Mercedes? (A vanilla C-Class 4-cyl turbo?)

While I like all of these cars, they're NOT "equivalent" price-wise --
especially with a V8 option.

-FPtM "Really hating the USD <-> GBP <-> Euro conversion rates.[/QUOTE]

 

[MoPar Man]

in the UK, where car prices are somewhat higher than in the US.

How much is the "average" car (or the 300C specifically) in the UK as
expressed by the number of days that a person earning the "average"
wage must work in order to buy the car?

Or more specifically, what is the ratio of the cost of a 300C in the
UK and USA and what is the ratio of the average wage in the UK and
USA?

Fortunately I just found the review online:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2105-1092860,00.html

Please cut and past that article here. A subscription is required to
view it from that link.

In Europe, especially in the UK with its many winding roads,

I take it the 300M was an extreme rarity in the UK, as opposed to
Europe in general (or Germany, Holland, etc). I've always seen a few
300M's in my European travels in the past few years (once in Amsterdam
where it was a taxi).

Daimler, IMO, never had a good explanation as to why they didn't give
Chrysler vehicles more exposure or marketing (or distribution?) in
Europe (where cab-forward styling would give the owner some visual
distinction among the visual banality of most cars). The 300M is a
very distinct-looking car in Europe.

 

[Steve]

Steve,

Your memory and expirences are quite different from mine. I remember
growing up in the early 70's when it was milestone for any car to
reach 100,000 miles.

No Chrysler engine that I, my parents, or my grandparents owned between
1949 and today lasted LESS than 150,000 miles with one exception: the
piece of VW junk in a '78 Horizon. Even the 1949 Plymouth Coupe that I
own (originally my grandfather's car) has over 200,000 miles, albeit
with an engine rebuild in 1964 (I have his receipts). Of course that
engine doesn't even have a full-flow oil filter. Of those 20-odd cars
owned, I can think of the following that exceeded 200,000 miles, plus a
few Fords that will go un-named:

1) 1963 Valiant station wagon- slant six, wouldn't surprise me if its
still out there running somewhere
2) 1966 Plymouth Satellite, 361 engine. May have only had about 190k
when sold in the fall of '72 in trade for #4 below.
3) 1966 Dodge Polara (I still own it) 268,000 miles on a 383
4) 1973 Satellite with a 318 (I still drive it daily) 430,000 miles on a
318, minor overhaul at 200k miles.
5) 1983 Gran Fury (Dad's car, bought used from the highway patrol)
210,000 miles when traded in on:
6) 1992 Dakota (Dad's farm truck, 5.2L Magnum engine) 200,000 miles and
(despite my bitching) he's never bothered to change the transmission
fluid. Still plugging away.
7) 1993 Eagle Vison- 210,000 miles on a 3.5L v6, but will likely never
see 300k.

Yes, my expirences and memory recall
the lifespan of engines in the 60's-70's being significantly shorter
than the engines in the modern fuel-injected era.

The more important difference was 1960s era OIL. Take a '66 383, rebuild
it BONE STOCK, and it'll run a half million miles when fed modern oils.
And to a degree you are right that fuel injection is easier on an engine
than a carb, especially in cold/enriched conditions where a carb can
wash oil off cylinder walls. But I did already acknowledge the advantage
of EFI.

Carter Thermoquads, Holley two-barrels, ballast resistors, water
pumps, starters, and voltage regulators are just a few things I
remember always failing on old Chryslers.

Sorry, some of that is just dead wrong, and I should know because I
drive a '73 EVERY DAY. I've replaced precisely ONE ballast resistor on
my '73 since 1980, and maybe 2 voltage regulators (at a whopping $15
each). And the Carter Thermoquad I put on it 5 years ago hasn't been off
of it since. And yes, Thermoquads ARE maintenance hogs- the Carter AFB
it had before the TQ has never had to be opened AT ALL and would work
perfectly if I bolted it back on the car today. I'm running the TQ just
for grins, and it does give about 3 mpg more than the AFB.

Besides- the most expensive thing you named (starter) is still under
$150, compared to >$300 for crummy plastic fuel rails on a modern car..

"Crap like Toyota" Huh? Toyota is, and has been for years, the
automotive gold standard.

For "disposable cars" that is true. You can buy a Toyota or Honda and be
almost 100% assured of getting 3-5 years and 100k miles out of it
(although a Toyota may well need a new engine at 80k miles these days
due to oiling failure). Try to keep it 20 years and >200k miles though,
and its a lost cause. Massive organ failure at ~150k miles is a
certainty. Planned obsolescence at its best.

60's engine design was hit or miss, at best. Trial and error was the
rule. In contrast, today's engineers using computer design can find
an engine's weakness before they even build one.

Just because '60s engineers used slide-rules instead of laptops and 3D
CAD workstations doesn't mean they couldn't predict and eliminate
weaknesses. Its been my observation that heavy reliance on CAD has
resulted in MORE lemon designs (2.0 head gaskets, Toyota
sludge-monsters, head-destroying Ford 5.4L Tritons, GM oil/antifreeze
mixing v6es, etc. etc.) than EVER happened in the 60s. Go ahead- NAME me
a '60s engine that made it out the doors with a huge reliability problem
like the Toyota sludgers...

Attention to material? Like the cheap vinyl they used in the
interiors?

For one thing, what engine parts are made of vinyl (since that's what
we're talking about)?

And for a reality check, the vinyl on my '66 looks almost as new as it
did nearly 40 years ago. Its the cheap interior plastic on the 93 that
is already falling apart.

Like the cheap chrome trim that peeled and/or pitted?

In whose dreams?? 60s chrome actually contained CHROME! In measurable
thicknesses!

The 318 was okay, but the 360 never impressed me. The 360 had a big
sloppy crank, a weak cam, and crappy heads. Chrysler's best small
block WAS the 340.

Your credibility is beginning to falter. The 360 has the SAME cam as the
318. And it used the SAME EXACT head casting as the late-production 340.
And yes the 340 was by far the most POWERFUL Chrysler small-block, but
it also used exactly the same forged 3.31" stroke crankshaft as the
4-bbl 273 and truck version of the 318. The 360 crank "sloppy?" In what
way? It was built as a pseudo-big-block, and so it has a longer stroke
and bigger main bearings than a 318 or 340, but how does that make it
"sloppy?" It gives it more low-end torque than a 383, but hardly "sloppy".

Because they're all obsolete.

Reliability is never obsolete.

 

[Steve]

I said equivalent-engined (meaning engine size),

There IS no equivalent to a Chrysler Hemi...

 

[Rick Blaine]

yah sure is ugly like K-Kar mark IV the product of too much k-kar technology

looks like a jazzed up kcar

Go back to sleep.

 

[Rick Blaine]

I said equivalent-engined (meaning engine size), so yes, the other cars are
dearer by at least GBP 10 000 (USD 17 000) in the UK, where car prices are
somewhat higher than in the US. BMW 545 and Merc E500 were named as the
chief opposition.

Fortunately I just found the review online:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2105-1092860,00.html

In Europe, especially in the UK with its many winding roads, we have a
particular interest in road-holding, cornering etc. Simple high
acceleration is not itself sufficient to make a car well-performing. In any
case, even 1.4-liter cars can go at 100 mph.

DAS
--

You sound like you're talking about a 60's car. From what I've read the 300
is an excellent handling car. And if it's not the equivalent to Mercedes
why not? It has an awful lot in common with them. By the way we actually
have winding roads in N. America, go figure. I'd still like to know what
engines you consider equivalent to the Hemi.

 

[Dori A Schmetterling]

"Excellent handling" is also relative. Maybe not excellent in the eyes of
the reviewer compared to other European (maybe some Japanese?) cars. I'll
cut and paste the article in reply to another poster.

I have driven 'cross-country' in parts of the US and noticed some gentle
curves in the 4-lane highway...
I admit that was in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, i.e. densely populated
areas where there were no remote regions with miles and miles of narrow
roads occasioned by little traffic. And I don't think I'd like to test
performance in Valley Forge...

Why should a Chrysler be equivalent to a Merc? DC hasn't owned Chrysler for
long and, anyway, there would, I am sure, be much opposition to wholesale
changes done very quickly. Although I don't think these NGs are an accurate
reflection of the general populace it is still instructive to observe the
comments made about Chrysler changes and about Merc. It seems to me that
there is a lot of criticism about many of the changes introduced by the
current management. There are issues of how people (Americans in
particular) perceive Chrysler as was or is, and what DC is doing to it. I
feel for some in this NG their opinions are influenced by 'nationalism',
i.e. this great American company has been taken over by those blasted
foreigners, German no less.

As regards the value of the 'Hemi', I am not an expert but I would have
thought that the discussion about that earlier in this thread was quite
informative. There was something in a similar vein in the BMW NG recently.
I don't think many really care what the engine is called or what its shape
is, so long as it accelerates well, especially from 50 - 70 mph, makes an
attractive sound (or is quiet, personal taste) and the gearbox (manual or
auto) performs satisfactorily. Oh, and fuel consumption is an issue for
many Europeans (hence popularity of diesel).

DAS