- #22 of 35
-
Re: It's now 2008! [coolrunning]
by shipo
-
Apr 01, 2008 (4:55 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: coolrunning (Apr 01, 2008 2:53 pm)
Yup, the Heritage is a nice setup. My biggest beef with the 300C is that it cannot be had with three pedals under the dash, and that is one of the biggest things keeping the 300C off of my short list.
Best Regards,
Shipo
|
- #23 of 35
-
Re: It's now 2008! [shipo]
by xtec
-
Apr 01, 2008 (9:35 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: shipo (Apr 01, 2008 4:55 pm)
You can get the Challenger with a 6 speed.Same platform as the 300.Plus 375 horses with the 5.7 Hemi
|
- #24 of 35
-
Re: It's now 2008! [xtec]
by shipo
-
Apr 02, 2008 (2:51 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: xtec (Apr 01, 2008 9:35 pm)
As a proud owner (errr, former owner) of a 1970 Challenger, I an very much looking forward to the new Challenger, unfortunately I'm now hearing rumors that the 6-Speed manual has been scrubbed, and if that's the case, I'll not be buying. 
Best Regards,
Shipo
|
- #25 of 35
-
Re: It's now 2008! [shipo]
by xtec
-
Apr 02, 2008 (2:14 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: shipo (Apr 02, 2008 2:51 am)
The latest news I read was there will be a 6 speed 5.7,and the 6.1 without MDS.I was a proud owner of a '68 Road Runner,with a 383 Magnum and a Hemi four speed transmission,fast car.
|
- #26 of 35
-
Re: It's now 2008! [xtec]
by shipo
-
Apr 02, 2008 (4:56 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: xtec (Apr 02, 2008 2:14 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 (8:48 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: shipo (Apr 02, 2008 4:56 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 (11:42 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: shipo (Mar 25, 2008 8:46 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 (1:30 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: albook (May 29, 2008 11:42 am)
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 (7:21 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: shipo (May 29, 2008 1:30 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 (12:41 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: shipo (May 29, 2008 1:30 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?
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans 
