I take it all back

I hoped so. But it looks exactly as on pictures; a kit car inspired from a Rolls from the eighties for senile folks. Just ugly.

To some, yes - to others, no. The 300 is already starting to get praises from some of the auto mags......... and a Rolls from the 80's - no way. there is a history to the design but I am not going to go into that again.

RP

The auto mags are already starting to get advertising dollars for the 300.

DS

Oh give it a f*ckin' rest, Dan!

Do you dispute that the auto mags are running ads for the Chrysler 300C, and that DaimlerChrysler is paying the magazines for that advertising?

DS

Definitely not - but I take BIG issue with your implication that because of this the reviews are going to be slanted. If that wasn't your implication then why was your response worded the way it was?

RP

But there isn't a lot of space for the ads / reviews because the pages are being used up for "reviews" on Echo Hatchback and Honda Element. Two of the most wretchedly ugly cars in existence.

5> The 300 is already starting to get praises from some of the auto mags.

4> The auto mags are already starting to get advertising dollars for the

4> 300.

3> Oh give it a f*ckin' rest, Dan!

2> Do you dispute that the auto mags are running ads for the Chrysler 2> 300C, and that DaimlerChrysler is paying the magazines for that 2> advertising?

Manish tanah halailah hazeh? (Why is this night different to all other nights?)

It's an effort, but I'm going to assume for discussion that you're really, actually as naive as you're making yourself out to be, and that you're not just playing silly Usenet games.

Commercially published magazines exist for one reason only: To sell advertising. The articles and pretty pictures are there to attract you to the ads.

Think about it for a moment or two: You're in charge of North American advertising and promotion for Nippon Kogaku, Japan Optics, the manufacturer of Nikon cameras. You place very expensive multiple-page, fold-out, full-color ads for your cameras in "Popular Photography", "Petersen's Photographic", "Modern Imaging" and "Graphic Design".

Now, let's say Popular Photography one month has a 4-page in-depth long-term-test report on one of your cameras. It's not a hack-and-slash rip job, but they do conclude that your camera isn't as good as Canon's competing camera. Two months later, they test another one of your cameras, and report that it worked OK but had an annoying habit of freezing or "locking up" randomly, which could only be solved by removing the battery, waiting 45 seconds and reinstalling the battery, which would have been dismissed as a fluke but the warranty replacement camera did it, too.

Meanwhile, the other three magazines are giving your cameras glowing reviews. Not a thing wrong with 'em. Great products, much better than their predecessors, and with lots of neat features. Definitely worth buying.

Now think hard, Randy: One of these mags is not like the others, one of these mags does not quite belong. With which of these four magazines do you NOT spend further advertising dollars?

I have difficulty believing you really think auto magazines are guardian bastions of truth and objectivity, that they'll gladly bite the hand that feeds them if it means bringing Truth to their readers. It's not quite as bad nowtimes as it was in the '80s and earlier, when the mags were overt mouthpieces for the makers -- Motor Trend's "Car of the Year" was widely known to be for sale to the highest bidder, and if you don't believe me go take a tour of COTY issues from '91ish and earlier and explain to me the Plymouth Volare and the Peugeot 404 -- but even in these "enlightened" modern times, the auto rags print what will get them a steady diet of crunchy, delicious ad dollars.

DS (in the late '80s, Nikons really did freeze up that way, one of the magazines really did squawk about it, and that same magazine was promptly driven to bankruptcy and absorbed by its competitor when Nikon pulled all their ads. QED.)

I agree with you, but they're selling a shit-ton of the Elements. Not to the twentysomethings they thought would buy them, either, but to 40 and 50 year olds who want a big box on wheels that doesn't guzzle gas and can be hosed out when dirty.

GM, on the other hand, had to resort to silly crapola like giving their employees Azteks to drive around in to create the illusion of market acceptance.

And the new Prius, while it still has a stupid name, is a heck of an interesting-looking car.

DS

Around here they are selling a lot of Echo Hatchbacks, but I don't see a lot of Elements. Although the fact that there are 3 universities in town probably helps. I don't get the hatchback. You practically pay the same price as the sedan, and get something without a trunk.

The thing the car manufactures don't understand is that Element and Aztek are way too expensive for people just getting into the market. Echo Hatchback and Daewoo Aveo have the advantage here.

Although I'd rather stick with an SX 2.0 / Neon.

Oh come now, Dan, everybody knows you can believe EVERYTHING you read printed by the media, in every format.

Uh, well, um, OK, maybe only idiots believe that.

Well, I also saw one "up close and personal" last week at the open house our local Chrysler dealer had (I think this may have been a nationwide event, but I'm not sure). Had some nice munchies and looked over several of the new vehicles. The wife and I really like the new van with the fold into the floor seats. I was amazed that the floor line appears to not be all that much higher than our 03 and the ground clearance not all that much less. I really wonder how the spare tire works though. It is between the front seats and the salesman said something about dropping it to the ground and then backing up to get at it. I didn't think at the time to ask him how you get it back up under there! I'm guessing you'd need to put the van on a lift, but maybe they thought of some clever way to stow the flat tire and wheel back up under there.

I thought the 300 was as ugly in person as in the pictures. I don't care for the truck-like grill and the high belt-line is butt ugly and makes one feel claustrophobic when sitting inside ... and I'm 6' tall. I can't imagine a 5' woman driving that thing, unless the seat raises up REAL high. I think Chrysler birthed a toad with this one, but time will tell. I thought the Crossfire was also ugly up close and you'd need to be a gymnast to get into and out of that thing on a regular basis.

The convertible PT Cruiser was cool. That and the minivan are the only two vehicles in the showroom that I'd be seen in.

Matt

And was yours worded the way it was because you lack sufficient vocabulary to express yourself any other way?

Of course reviews are slanted with advertising dollars are at stake. Only someone very naive would think otherwise.

Matt

I'm ambivalent about it. It's not the ugliest car I've ever seen, but it sure doesn't make my top-40 list of nice looking cars. Grill doesn't bother me as much as that high beltline, which just doesn't work for me.

Oh, I can, believe me. My grandmother was a little under 5' tall and drove ENORMOUS cars her whole life. A '70 Cadillac DeVille or Calais, an '86 Stinkoln Town Car, a '95 DeVille Concours. Glancing into her car, one saw a whisp of white hair. She looked through the top 1/4 of the steering wheel. Scary as hell.

Grandpa, who was about 5'9", drove a '72 Dart.

DS

No, Daniel, I actually think YOU are the guardian and bastion of truth and objectivity. I mean that's what you have tried to make all of us think for all these years. Okay everyone, bow down to the illustrious lighting expert who knows all there is to know about everything and, oh great one, forgive this mortal being for ever disputing your sacred word.

Have you ever seen Car and driver's parody of MT's COTY? circa 1989 or so? I've got it around here somewhere. Funniest thing from a car magazine I've seen. ;)

Thanks for the reply, Daniel Stern, Jr. ......... and, as long as you wish to be critical about expressing oneself correctly, go back and read what YOU wrote in that last sentence..................."with advertising dollars are at stake". Oh, I AM sorry - I am too naive to question you on your use of the word "with" when the word "when" is what you meant............. or did I read your post improperly as I am so naive and that really isn't what you posted?????

Pregnant pause...

8^)

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

........awaiting the birth!