Ask the Car People.SM


Chrysler 300 or Nissan Maxima?

35 messages,  Last post on Mar 17, 2009 at 6:13 AM

You are in the Chrysler 300/300C/300C SRT-8 Forum.

What is this discussion about? Chrysler 300, Nissan Maxima, Sedan

Messages Page 4 of 4

#26 of 35 Re: It's now 2008! [xtec] by shipo

Apr 02, 2008 (5:56 pm)

Replying to: xtec (Apr 02, 2008 3:14 pm)
"...,fast car."
 
I've often described that setup as a car in which it's illegal to flex your right foot.
 
Best Regards,
Shipo

#27 of 35 Re: It's now 2008! [shipo] by xtec

Apr 03, 2008 (9:48 am)

Replying to: shipo (Apr 02, 2008 5:56 pm)
I didn't do much flexing,when I dragged someone I left my foot to the floor until the race was done,or I missed a shift.

#28 of 35 Re: It's now 2008! [shipo] by albook

May 29, 2008 (12:42 pm)

Replying to: shipo (Mar 25, 2008 9:46 am)
I guess that was a long way of suggesting that you probably rented a 2.7 liter Charger, a car that very few individuals would buy.
 
No, No. There is only one V6 in the Charger. Chrysler did not put the 2.7l in the Charger because it is more sport oriented.

#29 of 35 Re: It's now 2008! [albook] by shipo

May 29, 2008 (2:30 pm)

Replying to: albook (May 29, 2008 12:42 pm)
Funny that this thread is coming back around right now. I was on a trip a couple of weeks back and due to a mechanical failure/canceled flight/very late arrival, the car I reserved was no longer available and they gave me a "free upgrade" to a Charger. Guess what, it had a 2.7 liter engine in it, and yes, it was gutless.
 
Your post had me wondering if the rental agencies had el-cheapo special editions made just for them so I checked the Dodge web site. Guess what? They do list a 2.7 liter version of the Charger. Both the Charger SE "C" Package and the Charger SE "D" Package come with the 2.7 liter V6, however, everything from the Charger SE Plus and higher either comes with the 3.5 liter V6 or some version of a Hemi.
 
Best Regards,
Shipo

#30 of 35 Re: It's now 2008! [shipo] by albook

May 31, 2008 (8:21 am)

Replying to: shipo (May 29, 2008 2:30 pm)
Well that's new, because they certainly didn't offer the 2.7 when the Charger debuted. It's probably a gas saving move.
 
It is funny this thread has been revived, seeing that there is a new Maxima-again. But now, as the new one has decreased so much in size, the 300 wouldn't be a good comparison. But the Pontiac G8 would.

#31 of 35 Re: It's now 2008! [shipo] by coolrunning

Jun 11, 2008 (1:41 am)

Replying to: shipo (May 29, 2008 2:30 pm)
The 2.7L engine serves only to give Chrysler a black eye every time they install in a vehicle. It has never been a comparable engine to any Japanese small engine of similar displacement, and it really spoils the cars. I wish they would just stop cursing their entry level vehicles with this lame engine and contract another engine manufacturer to build some efficient, stronger small engines for them. Some people are looking for just fuel economy, but there isn't that much difference between the 2.7L and the 3.5L. The smaller (underpowered) engine works a lot harder all the time, and the larger engine (more powerful) doesn't have to work so hard to get the job done. I have driven some Toyotas with a 2.4L engine that ran circles around the Chrysler 2.7L and got 34 mpg while doing it. Why can't Chrysler do it? Also, I noticed in the 2008 brochure for the 300C they mentioned "up to 11% more fuel efficiency is possible with the MDS system on the 5.7L HEMI". If it periodically unloads 50% of the cylinders, why isn't it 50% better fuel efficiency?

#32 of 35 Re: It's now 2008! [coolrunning] by shipo

Jun 11, 2008 (4:37 am)

Replying to: coolrunning (Jun 11, 2008 1:41 am)
"If it periodically unloads 50% of the cylinders, why isn't it 50% better fuel efficiency?"
 
Look at it this way, if the engine was being called upon to deliver say 32 hp to sustain say 65 mph (just an educated/non-scientific guess that probably isn't far off the mark), then each cylinder needs to be fed enough gas and air to develop 4 hp. Since the engine is designed to put out 42.5 hp per cylinder at WOT, running the engine at less than a tenth of that power is not terribly efficient.
 
When the ECU shuts off half of the cylinders, the power requirement of 32 hp to sustain the speed doesn't drop one bit, and as such, each of the 4 remaining cylinders must now be called upon to produce 8 hp. Even though the 8 hp isn't likely to be as efficient at burning fuel as whatever the engine's most efficient point is, it's still more efficient than asking 8 cylinders to produce 4 hp each, hence the 11% bump in fuel economy.
 
Make sense?
 
Best Regards,
Shipo

#33 of 35 Re: It's now 2008! [coolrunning] by xtec

Jun 11, 2008 (10:54 am)

Replying to: coolrunning (Jun 11, 2008 1:41 am)
I agree with you that the 2.7 isn't the best engine that Chrysler made.The good news is the new engines in 2010,the Phoenix engines will be more power with better FE.These will be Mercedes and Chrysler design.

#34 of 35 Re: It's now 2008! [xtec] by smithed

Nov 26, 2008 (7:10 am)

Replying to: xtec (Jun 11, 2008 10:54 am)
If Chrysler (GM or Ford) exists then. Sorry to say.

#35 of 35 price of SRT design??? by rrosell

Mar 17, 2009 (6:13 am)

List $45,270, buy for $29,999. 2008 SRT, group2 sound gropup, sunroof, engine block heater, MYGIG, backseat TV. Good deal???

Messages Page 4 of 4

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement