300 reliability

Looking for a new car, and test drove all the competition. The car I liked the best overall was the cady cts, but will not buy it, because of the long term reliability reports and poor resale value. So it has come down to a accura tl and the 300c. 300c with options to match the tl will cost almost 4000 more dollars. I like the extra room that the 300 has, plus the rear wheel drive. The accura is a beautiful refined car, and I know what to expect for the next five years down the road, as far as reliability and resale. Since the 300c is new, and I have not read any long term or higher mileage reviews yet, I was wondering to myself what will be the reliability factor when these cars start having 20,000 plus miles. Everyday reliability is a big plus for me, since I use the car to get to work and have a type of job, that I can not afford to be late ever for any reason. So I need a vehicle, that will start and perform everytime. But I am on the tall side and like the extra room of the 300c. Any opinions on what the longterm reliabilty on this vehicle might be? Thanks .

Reply to
j.lef
Loading thread data ...

because of

beautiful

reliability

vehicle

I was down to the same choices as you. I opted for the 300C once I got behind the wheel and felt the adrenaline rush when I mashed the accelerator. You won't get that in any Acura. However, reliability is another issue and thus far Acura has it all over Chrysler. My previous experience with Chrysler was not good ('95 Neon) but the 300C is a whole new ballgame. It has the benefit of the Daimler-Chrysler merger and the build and ride quality seem to bear that out. The car is only a few months old and has only 3,400 miles on it but they've been great miles!

Reply to
Peter A. Stavrakoglou

Just one thing. The Daimler-Chrsyler merge....I dont think it did too much for mercedes. Everyone of their cars has a big reliability problem these days. Even consumer reports, black lists them on reliability. A lot of people who collect mercedes look at them at the pre merge and post merge, and wouldnt touch the post merge. So with that in mind, I wonder if the merge factor will be fruitfull for chrysler. Also some of the suppossedly great technology put into the 300c from mererdes, is no longer being used by mercedes. I wonder what that is trying to tell us if anything. It gets kind of complex after a while. I am going to go test drive both vehicles again next week, one after the other, since both driving experiences will be close in my mind, and then a decision must be made. I do like the caddy, but I dont want to spend close to 40,000 and have a bucket of bolts on my hands in three years, and I do hope the first year 300c,s dont start falling into that category. How do you think the rearward visibility is on the

300c when driving in heavy traffic(if you have heavy traffic where you are, LOL ).

Thanks Jerry

Reply to
j.lef

Consumer Reports has big black balls next to all of the Mercedes. In the last JD Powers survey the biggest embarasment for Daimler was not just that the reliablity of Mercedes had gotten so poor but that Chryslers ranked higher in reliablity than Mercedes. Historically Chrysler hasn't been known for their quality. On the other hand I have 120,000 miles on my

94 Concorde and it's still running. It has a lot of little things failing but it's major components are hanging in there so I can't say I'm disappointed in the quality of the car.

As for resale value, Chrysler's have never fared well there and there is no way they can turn that around in less than a generation (human not auto). If Chrysler was to become as reliable as Toyota it would take 15 or

20 years before their resale value caught up. On the other hand if you do what I do, which is to buy a car and drive it until something really important falls off, then resale value doesn't matter.
Reply to
General Schvantzkoph

Hands down ....Acura ! Best PROVEN resale, best reliable car you can buy!

My twenty something son has one he has driven the living hell out of & it STILL beats his mothers Olds with half the miles, my Chrysler with low miles, & he just keeps on driving with only oil changes & tires closing in on 200,000 miles, I'm going to buy one the next time!

Reply to
GABOY

What kind of tires does Acura use? I've never heard of tires lasting

200,000 miles. :-)

Matt

Reply to
Matt Whiting

Chrysler 300M has been very reliable for us. We have a 99. Power windows were only significant problem. All failed and Chrysler had to change motors, weatherstrips and regulators. Hard to say whether you can predict anything from this because 300C is a completely different car but we had a

94 LHS and the 99 was much better quality wise so that shows a promising trend. We also have a TOyota Avalon which is supposed to be in the same class as a Acura and would not buy it again. Will buy a chyrsler first. Much better designed features than the Toyota. Little things like defroster, heated seats, auto climate control etc all are better on the Chrysler. Reliability isn't everything. You have to like the car too. THe current Chrylser products are all pretty reliable... look up the PTCruiser for example in Consumer Reports reliability chart.

reliability

Reply to
Art

Are you *sure* you know what to expect? Check the Acura TL discussion boards. These cars are Ohio-built and engineered down to a price nowadays, and they have had problems ranging from the significant (transmission failures are increasingly common) to the merely silly (the new TL suffers from weak leather in the seats which "butt-prints").

Also, Acuras are not necessarily resale-value stars. Like BMWs, only the small cars really hold their value.

Reply to
Jack Baruth

The only thing I might worry about is the stupid over-complicated Mercedes-built transmission in the 300C. The engine is all Chrysler, and Chrysler has very, VERY rarely "missed it" with an engine since the

1930s. The 2.0/2.4 Neon engine and the 2.7L v6 are the only ones in all those years that had any hint of problems. The 5.7 Hemi should have a record pretty much like the last V8 Chrysler introduced- the 4.7L SOHC. Flawless.

As for an Acura- I won't pay for a Honda at Honda prices, so why pay premium for a re-badged Honda?

j.lef wrote:

Reply to
Steve

Bullfeathers. Chrysler has LONG been known for superior engineering, and cars that last forever. Can you say "slant six?" How about "318" or "2.2?" And more recently, "3.5" or "4.7?" If you factor out minivans and their over-worked under-sized transmissions, Chrysler has a far better record of avoiding lemons than just about any other company.

Mercedes, on the other hand, ALWAYS built over-complicated high-maintenance cars. Very nice and rugged ones, but still not exactly in the category of ultra-reliable cheap-to-maintain.

Reply to
Steve

Not so. W123 200D one of the best all time cars in reliability, is one example. If they were so bad they would not be the No. 1 choice for taxi drivers all over Europe, Middle East etc.

Maybe they sent only the cars you describe to the US...

DAS

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling

The slant 6 was a very long time ago. You are right that it had a reputation as being indestructable but that was 40 years ago. For the past

15 years most of the vehicles that Chrysler has sold have been minivans and Jeeps, and the lousy reliablity of the minivans has tainted the brand. Of all the people that I know I'm the only one who would consider buying a Chrysler again and that's because I'm driving a Concorde with a 3.5 not a van or truck. Also I've been excessively tollerant of it's reliablity problems because I like the look and feel of the car so much. Around 50K miles I had to replace the head gaskets, which also failed on my previous Chrysler (an 86 LeBaron GTS turbo). The air conditioner has failed three times, the first couple was under warranty so I had it fixed, it failed again two years ago and I haven't bothered to have it fixed because after 100K miles my attitude is to just to run it as long as I can without putting major money into it, I have minor but necessary things repaired like the brake lights and the windshield wiper motor but not anything expensive. The transmission also has a problem engaging when I first start the car in cold weather and it's jerky changing gears at around 30MPH, bit it works well enough that I haven't had it replaced. I'm counting on the transmission failing altogether so that I'll have an excuse to buy a new car, which like the OP on this thread will be either an Acura TL or a 300C. The Concorde has gone 120,000 miles so I feel that I've gotton my money's worth but there is no chance that it could go 200K which is not uncommon on Japanese cars. I have a friend that had a Mercedes that went 450K miles, that could never happen with a Chrysler. On the other hand you can buy two 300Cs or three bottom of the line 300s for the price of an E class Mercedes so they don't need to last 400K miles.
Reply to
General Schvantzkoph

People find Chrysler minivans unreliable and won't by another Chrysler product? So why do so many of my neighbors have 2 in the driveway.

Reply to
Art

The 3.5 and 4.7 are currently in production, and have the same reputation. Its not uncommon for a 3.5 to see >200,000 miles without having the valve covers off, let alone the heads or any other major components. Mine, in fact, still doesn't burn oil at 211,000 miles and when I did replace the valve cover gaskets recently, it looked as clean as a new engine under there.

Likewise, the 5.2 (318) and 5.9 (360) engines, as well as the Jeep 4.0L inline six were all in production up until a couple of years ago (the

4.0 is still coming out in Grand Cherokees and Wranglers), and are well known as "last forever" engines.

I agree that minivans have "tainted" the reputation of the whole company. But "tainting" is a fiction- what happens to minivans doesn't happen to cars or trucks. The fact is that the cars and trucks (aside from the minivans) are extremely reliable.

Reply to
Steve

Precisely. All cars have problems, even Mercs in the eighties...and many brands give good service.

What is wrought by Man is imperfect...

DAS

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling

Reply to
jdoe

Most of the Chrysler minivans on my street (and there are several) have 100,000 to 200,000 miles on them. So I personally don't know what you're talking about. We had a '87 that ran forever for us...sold it to friends in 1997 when we bought our 1997 Caravan and they ran it another 5 years and our 1997 has been flawless to date too. We are not apprehensive one bit to take that 7 (almost 8 year old) Caravan on long trips. Shoot, I may buy a 3rd one, frankly.

Reply to
James C. Reeves

Me too...been flawless for me over 18 years owning them (so far, at least).

Reply to
James C. Reeves

I'd wait a year or two. But that's just me...I have a personal policy of never purchasing 1st year model runs...statistically they have the greatest number of problems (on average).

Reply to
James C. Reeves
100,000 | to 200,000 miles on them. So I personally don't know what you're talking about. | We had a '87 that ran forever for us...sold it to friends in 1997 when we | bought our 1997 Caravan and they ran it another 5 years and our 1997 has been | flawless to date too. We are not apprehensive one bit to take that 7 (almost 8 | year old) Caravan on long trips. Shoot, I may buy a 3rd one, frankly. | |

I forgot, a couple of people at the office have well into the 100K miles on their Chrysler minivan's too. Not sure where the bad press is coming from. The only problem I'm aware of in dozens of minivan owners I know is my brother had his tranny go out at 98,000 miles on his 1997 Grand. But, I don't think he did all the tranny service that is called for, so that was the likely contributing factor to his failure.

Reply to
James C. Reeves

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.