...and I was very shocked and disappointed. Disappointed to the point where I think I am going to go to another dealership for another test drive because I am still in shock a day later by what seemed like a total lack of performance. I was also shocked by the very poor seating position - I am only 5'4" and felt like my head of just a few inches from the ceiling - and that was just so I could see over the high hood. I was a lot closer to the steering wheel when I would ever want to be - and that was just to reach the gas and the brake peddle. The car never let its tires slip, nor did it ever shove me back in the seat, even when I really got on it. It felt heavy and very civil. It was a shocking driving experience, and left me speechless - hell I thought going from a Kia Sephia to a Mach 1 there would be a world of a difference - but I didn't feel anything.

This week I plan on test driving a Audi TT 3.2 - maybe that'll be a better experence.

Cars I plan on test driving:
- Audi TT 3.2
- Mazda RX-8
- Subaru WRX
- Chysler 300C
- Pontiac GTO
- maybe another run in a Mach 1 somewhere else


- Mike

 

During and after your testing all these, drop back and tell us what you feel and did, gosh knows everone here loves a good car comparison have fun :D !

 

Why would you not drive the Cobra over the Mach 1? Why do I get this feeling you drove an auto as well, plus I think your butt dyno needs a calibration :p

 

I agree. Did you push the gas pedal? :D

 

Yeah, that mach1 is a torque monster, should have put you in the trunk.

 

All mustangs have terrible seating positions, ergonomics, feel, and build quality. If you were actually driving a Mach 1 then you would feel that it was fast. Machs don't come in auto, only 5-speed. Its a $30,000 car whose only selling point is that it is fast in a straight line. Either you didn't press on the gas or it was a base model or gt that you drove and not a real Mach.

 

isnt the 300c the new rolls royce looking sedan?

post a review when you drive the gto. id like to hear how it performs.

 

whoa the 300c is like in a different category isnt it?

 

Mach 1's have automatics as an option ($845 extra for it). I am guessing that a) because it was very humid and warm b) the car only had 2.6 miles on it and c) I never outright floored it and started getting on it around 50 mph - I managed to get to easily get it up to well over 80 (I won't say the actual speed :D ) - just my butt dyno did register much. Hopefully when I take it out again it'll feel better, but my first drive in it was a bit disappointing.

- Mike

 

because that's what I drove - the auto


maybe it was off that day :p. The dealership I went to was 40 miles away, mostly highway driving to get there, and being as excited as I was to finally test it out, the speed limit that day was close to the century mark for me to get there

I forgot to say that a Mach 1 breaks very very well. Revving a Mach is fun - they roar like no tomorrow. It is quick, it just didn't feel that quick (the speedo was registering some crazy speeds on the test drive).

- Mike

 

The funny thing is the 300C is the fastest car in that bunch--they were able to get a 0-60 time best of 5.3s. Its got 345HP. Super Sleeper

 

Not only fastest- also ugliest.

If you buy one be sure to get the optional net that goes under the car to catch the pieces as they fall off.:D

 

Well that is only if you buy the Hemi, and for that price I would rather take an M3, which is faster, can go around corners, and is much less ugly.

 

300c is a love or hate car. With plenty of engine. I am not a fan of chrysler and have hated every driving expirence i have had in one.

Also an STI would be top choice in a list like that. Or an EVO....even though we don't have them here up north.

 

which M3 can you get for 30k? one of the car mags i looked at over the weekend had a test of various luxo sedans and the spoke very highly of the 300c. i think they tested 6 cars and it came 4th above a jag and soemthing else. sorry i am not being to clear here. i remember one quote said something like " a very refined chassis that is nearly perfect." they also liked the interior very much and were very pleased with the car especially with the price of entry when compared to the others in the test.

 

You can get a used M3 for 30k, someone I work with did that. You could probably get the same lifespan out of a used M3 that you could out of a new 300C.

Also I saw an article where the as tested price was about 47k (they had options of course), so that would be around a new M3. I've heard that the dealers are really marking up the 300C over the MSRP

 

I hate it when people say stuff like well you could get a used M3, or some other higher dollar german car. The maintenance costs on those things are outrageous as are the insurance costs.

You're also 10k off with the price as tested, with every option the Hemi 300C comes in at 37K not 47K and the Hemi starts out at $32,900.

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1

 

Ike , you got that right.
I bailed from a 1999 BMW once I realised how much repairs were going to cost me. I looked at third party warranty, and the cost came close to making me swallow my tongue

 

I think it was a different article than the C&D, it was in our paper, so they probably mis-printed it. Anyways if you don't think that the maintenace of a Chrystler is outrageous than you haven't owned one :p. My coworker hasn't had any problems with his M3 so far and he's had it for shortly over a year.

Of course if I thought a used M3 for 30k was better than the Rx8 then I wouldn't have an Rx8 would I :p. I was just stating that I would rather have it for that price than the 300C, that is if you are looking for an unreliable car for around that price. Oh an for the love of god the 300C only pulled .77g on the skidpad. For perspective a Prius pulls .76g