- #6 of 35
-
V6?
by kevm14
-
Oct 05, 2005 (3:47 am)
-
|
|
So you'd be considering the V6 300? Like a Touring or Limited? It has been my opinion (of course without driving any) that if you're shopping V6s, the 300 loses some of its charm. No offense to happy 300 V6 owners. I will say the Maxima will be faster than the 3.5L 300, for sure. If it's an SE, more performance oriented all around. If it's an SL, who knows.
|
- #7 of 35
-
Re: Chrysler 300 or Nissan Maxima? [retroeric]
by pat HOST
-
Oct 05, 2005 (3:56 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: retroeric (Oct 04, 2005 4:56 pm)
Be sure to look through the individual discussions on each of these vehicles as well as check out the Vehicle Detail Pages on Edmunds.com. This will give you additional information to process while we have this conversation here.
|
- #8 of 35
-
Re: Chrysler 300 or Nissan Maxima? [retroeric]
by 300lover
-
Oct 05, 2005 (1:50 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: retroeric (Oct 03, 2005 8:55 pm)
Considering no one has answered your question, let me put in my 2 cents worth. I don't know much about the Nissan Maxima, so most of my comments will focus on the 300 because I own one. I currently have a Cool Vanilla 300 Touring (but with all of the packages available that make it the equivalent of a limited, including the wheels) that I purchased in mid July here in Canada. Style - For distinctiveness, nothing in the price range will turn someones head faster. I would think that most would agree, the 300 beats the Maxima (and many other cars on the road today) in the style category. Power - considering the Maxima is a little lighter and available with a similar sized engine, I'd give the edge to the Maxima. BUT, you won't be dissapointed with the power available in the 300. Quick acceleration that pulls all the way up to 100km/h, and beyond. Mileage - above average. In Canada, it's rated at 35 miles per imperial gallon highway (which is a little larger than a US gallon). I'm usually getting 32 mpg, and almost all (95%) of my mileage is highway. Close enough, considering how unrealistic these fuel economy tests are. Comfort - amazing. I have driven 4.5 hrs nonstop (450 km or 270 miles) and I was still comfortable. Lots of legroom, soft touch materials, etc...It is quiet, especially at speed on the highway, although the Goodyear Integrity tires that came with it are somewhat loud, but thats the tire, not the car. Longevity - this car isn't due for a re-design/freshening until 2009 or 2010, according to Chrysler. I'm not knocking the Nissan. It's a good car. I just think, for me, the 300 is better. Anyway, thats my opinion.But as others have said, you'll need to test drive them both to be able to make an informed decision.
|
- #9 of 35
-
Re: Chrysler 300 or Nissan Maxima? [retroeric]
by abe
-
Oct 08, 2005 (3:33 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: retroeric (Oct 03, 2005 8:55 pm)
if you're comparing the v6 version of the 300 vs the maxima then for size and comfort go for the chrysler. if performance is important go for the maxima.
|
- #10 of 35
-
Re: Chrysler 300 or Nissan Maxima? [300lover]
by beaug
-
Oct 30, 2005 (8:14 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: 300lover (Oct 05, 2005 1:50 pm)
Advise you to look up the Shimmy Issue with 2004-2005 Maxima SE - Nissan Buying back my 2004... Great looks, poor execution. Looking at the 300c myself once i surrender my car to nissan an the buy back is done.
|
- #12 of 35
-
Re: Chrysler 300 or Nissan Maxima? [retroeric]
by jerrymax
-
Mar 22, 2008 (4:23 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: retroeric (Oct 03, 2005 8:55 pm)
My viewpoint may not be that helpfull because I've never driven the newest addition of the Maxima. But I have owned a 1997 Maxima for many years and a couple of years ago I spent a week in Florida driving a rented 2006 Chrysler 300 touring edition so I can make a comparison between these two cars. I enjoyed the Chrysler very much. It had the 3.5 litre 250 hp V6 [250 lb ft of torque also] and despite the sheer bulk of the car it did not feel under-powered. My Maxima is quicker and more nimble, more like a sports car, but the Chrysler 300 was quite fast for its size and easy to control under all circumstances. The braking power, for instance, was very impressive. I'm sure the eight cylinder models are very fast. It was cavernous inside with plenty of room both front and back and the leather seats were very comfortable. I liked the way the dashboard was laid out and of course the car has drop-dead gorgeous good looks; it's a real head turner. At one point I passed a black Bentley at an intersection in a gaited community and you could hardly tell the two cars apart. I can attest to the durability of the Nissan Maxima---I've got 154,500 miles on mine and it runs like it's new---and I sense that this Chrysler 300 is tank solid also. If I buy another car, the 300 will be high on my list. I've never much cared for the styling of the current Maxima model, which debuted in 2004, which is why I've never bothered to drive one yet but I'm sure the quality is very high.
|
- #13 of 35
-
It's now 2008!
by johnmarco
-
Mar 25, 2008 (6:41 am)
-
|
Wow; that took me a second. This post was started in October, 2005. I was wondering why you thought the Maxima was good for a few more years still, considering all the news of the updated 09 model. Anyways, you've probably long-since checked out of this forum, but I wonder what car you ended up choosing and how that worked out for you?
I recently rented a V6 Charger, twin of the 300. Actually enjoyed driving it, but the engine was very underpowered for a car this size. It literally struggled to get up a steep hill with me and two normal-sized passengers.
I've been a fan of the Maxima for years and years; that would get my vote easily. But the style has been just luke warm for me.
|
- #14 of 35
-
Re: It's now 2008! [johnmarco]
by shipo
-
Mar 25, 2008 (8:46 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: johnmarco (Mar 25, 2008 6:41 am)
Keep in mind that there are two different V6 engines available with the Charger (i.e. the 190 hp 2.7 liter engine and the 250 hp 3.5). Also keep in mind that a great many of the Chargers in the rental fleets have the smaller of the two engines.
While I haven't driven a 2.7 liter version, I have driven the 3.5 liter 5-Speed AWD version as well as RWD Hemi. Needless to say the Hemi was by far the faster car, however, the 3.5 was no slouch and very much up to the task of climbing the hills around here in southern New Hampshire.
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.
Best Regards,
Shipo
|
- #15 of 35
-
Re: It's now 2008! [shipo]
by coolrunning
-
Mar 25, 2008 (11:40 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: shipo (Mar 25, 2008 8:46 am)
Good point Shipo. I owned two 300M's (1999 and a 2004 Special), both of which were equipped with the 255 HP 3.5L High Performance V6. This is the same engine you will find in the better equipped Chargers. It is a great engine! Chrysler should never have put the 2.7L V6 in anything bigger than a Sebring. Having said that, one of the main reason for buyiong my 300C was the 340 HP 5.7L MDS HEMI V8 and the Mercedes 5 speed autostick transmission. This combination is available in both the Chrysler 300C and the Dodge Charger R/T. The Daytona Charger also has the same engine, but it has a better exhause system that yields ten more horses bringing it up to 350HP. If I could not afford or justify buying the HEMI, I would absolutely buy the 3.5L V6 again. 
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans 
