America's love affair with light-truck-based chassis vehicles depends upon where you live. In the expanding place called "Home Depot Land", they come in very handy for more bulky project items, including hauling the mulch, fertilizer, pavestones, cinder blocks, 4x8 sheets of plywood, and other things associated with new or remodeling construction activities which you don't pay others to do.
By the same token, an LH car (as the 300M) that has a fold-down rear seat (rather than the "ski slot" hole behind the center armrest in the rear seat) can do a good job of hauling 6' or 8' lumber (with appropriate care to keep the boards from sliding around and damaging the interior leather). Been there, done that!
I've clocked every 2nd gen LH car I've driven (with the 3.5L V-6) at
30-31mpg at 60mph (flat level road, with the cruise doing the throttle--on the onboard trip computer). On the 300M, that will drop to
27mpg at 90mph (only 700rpm greater engine speed) . . . from my own observations of doing that Cars were from the Thrifty or Dollar rental fleets.
There are LOTS of 30mpg cars on the used car lots of America (highway mpg). The Chrysler LH cars are the "incognito" economy cars, as are the last-gen Buick LeSabres with the 3800 V-6. No need to give up luxury and size for a few mpg or less than 6 cylinders.
Many light-duty trucks can get good fuel economy on the road . . . but usually ONLY if the road is flat and level. Cylinder deactivation only happens in those conditions and only accounts for about 8% fuel economy gain in those conditions. Many of the earlier Dodge Cummins diesels would usually break 20mpg on trips (not pulling anything).
As fuel economy has generally improved, the term "gas guzzler" has become a moveable point of reference. 30mpg compared to 40mpg could be termed "gas guzzler", just as 18mpg compared to 25mpg would be similar. It USED to mean something like 12mpg (or less) when other similar cars would get 20mpg, but not anymore.
And then were the 454 and 460 V-8 one-ton duallys that got 6mpg on a good day, running down the road with a trailer on the back.
I believe that Chrysler went a little backward with their squared/boxy styling as it cost them several "on the road" mpgs on the 300s. Plus the additional WEIGHT of the cars made the 3.5L V-6s work harder. The new 300s look great, but that fuel economy penalty is something that has not endeared them to many buyers. But the 5.7L HEMI V-8 in those cars has the same EPA Highway mpg as a Mustang V-6, so that puts a different reference point on things.
One thing lost with the LH to LX transition was the "light on its feet" handling feel of the LH cars. By comparison, the LX cars feel bulky and heavy, to me (even with the later versions of the LX cars getting a firmer rear suspension calibration!) . . . more like a GM car than a Chrysler.
There are many people now driving light truck chassis vehicles that don't really need them -- maybe it's the rwd platform? V-8 power? "Testosterone" associations? Better visibility due to the higher ride height? But there are also many who do need a truck-based vehicle to carry their "stuff" around, whether it's people stuff or people AND their stuff or home improvement items.
Problem with modern pickup trucks is that they are too high off of the ground (2wd versions) for anybody less than 6' tall to be able to use comfortably. That additional ride height has to have some penalty in fuel economy, too, I suspect.
Just some thoughts and observations . . .
C-BODY