Why is the 300 so heavy?

Jun 28, 2004 69 Replies

Ah, but I would argue that it *is* the point. The OP is saying that he would consider a Taurus over the 300C for snow traction. My reponse was that proper tires render that concern moot. Yes snow tires mean additional expense and hassle... but surely $800 and an hour of effort twice a year, at most, is better than buying an inferior car!

Now to consider the traction issue. From a standing start, FWD is better, but as you accelerate weight comes off the front tires anyway.

M+S are not snow tires. I have M+S Wranglers on my Disco. They are crap in the dry and they are crap when it snows.

Certainly, but what we are talking about here is probably the difference between a 65/35 Concorde and a 55/45 300c (note I made those numbers up; but I bet the real ones are close), not a minivan with its engine over the drive axles and a pickup with an empty bed.

I don't understand why someone would buy a car they like less to save eight hundred bucks, when we are discussing $25-35K cars. Better to put the snows on and get the car you want!

But you must also consider the fact that with FWD, the available traction must be shared between steering and driving forces, not so with RWD........Jim

Name one with worse visibility then the Magnum?

Drove a 71 Dodge Dart Swinger in Rochester NY for serveral years. Bought snow tires. Still sucked on snow.

Should have added that a few years ago we had a surprise 2 feet of snow in Raleigh NC. My cul d'sac never got plowed. Temp never went above freezing. After about 5 days, running out of food, we decided to venture out in our 94 LHS. Had original tires with lots of miles on them. There were ruts from my neighbors 4WD SUV's. No bare spots. Tons of snow on the road. The FWD LHS did great.

The Magnum has excellent visibility, as I said before. The windows may be small, but when you drive one you discover that they're all in EXACTLY the right places.

Art wrote:

Not a wagon, but my Brother's 96 Mustang, and my 69 Mach 1 have far worse visibility than my 2005 Magnum RT Wagon. I have driven both for extended period now, and the Stangs are far worse! I can name a lot more.

The Magnum is actually top on my list of best visibility in all direction, except it's kind a long.

I agree that there are lots of cars with worse visiblity then the Magnum.... the debate was about naming a wagon. Actually I saw a candidate yesterday on the road but I cannot remember what it was..... problem with passing the big 50.

Yeah, I'm not 50 yet and my nerves are not what they used to be. I just can't perform the way I use to. (I'm not talking about in the bedroom of course!)

But with good tires on the Taurus, it will run better than the 300C with good tires. I wouldn't buy a Taurus, but winter traction has nothing to do with that decision! Having driven one for a week in FL as a vacation rental convinced me that a Taurus was never in my future.

You can't accelerate fast enough on snow or ice to transfer enough weight to make a difference. Climbing a hill makes more difference, but even then FWD wins pretty much all the time.

The tires I have are quite good in snow, but not much when dry. They have very heavy lugs and are loud and squirm on dry pavement.

If you think that 65% on the drive wheels vs. 45% on the drive wheels doesn't make a difference, then you are fooling yourself. This is a huge difference on snow.

I agree, IF that is the only reason to buy the one car vs. the other.

Matt

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required