300M or Lincoln LS?

My wife is about to buy a new car.
the choice is down to a Chrylser 300M or the Lincoln LS
300M is a 2004 model, 3.9 interest
LS is a 2003 with o% interest 60 months
Both are the same money - $25K
To me it's a tossup - The 300M is probably more fun and slightly roomier, the LS
is classier and I like the looks a little better.
Anybody else got an opinion or in-use experience with either?
Rex in Fort Worth
Reply to
Rex B
I'd go with the 300M. But it's a personal preference thing, really.
| | My wife is about to buy a new car. | | the choice is down to a Chrylser 300M or the Lincoln LS | | 300M is a 2004 model, 3.9 interest | LS is a 2003 with o% interest 60 months | | Both are the same money - $25K | | To me it's a tossup - The 300M is probably more fun and slightly roomier, the LS | is classier and I like the looks a little better. | | Anybody else got an opinion or in-use experience with either? | | | Rex in Fort Worth
Reply to
James C. Reeves
I would buy the LS, the Chrysler is not even in the same league. I have owned two, a 2000 and a 2002, after three Lexus' and I love the car. The RWD LS will out handle the 300M as well. The 3.9% will add thousands of dollars in interest to your drive home price.
mike hunt
Reply to
MikeHunt
Approximately 8/22/03 15:40, Rex B uttered for posterity:
Have you tried driving them? Not a lot in common between the two.
If this were *next* years Chrysler 300 with the promised Hemi and suspension by Mercedes, I'd be very inclined to pick it. The current 300M is nice, looks nice inside, but isn't in the same class as a long distance tourer as the Lincoln. However, it is a new car, not a leftover....
The LS has a very nice V8 and a suspension that compares very favorably with a Jaguar... for good reason. The downside is that it already depreciated one year as soon as you drive it off the lot. May not matter if you keep it over 5 years. Except for the new Corvette based Cadillac, the LS is as close to a euro coupe as you'll find on an american lot.
Reply to
Lon Stowell
in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.txol.net:
I think you will be happier with the Modular motor in the Lincoln. Both are good engines, but from my experience, the mod motor is hard to beat for reliability and power. It gets good mileage too, comparable to the V- 6 in the 300. The one I put many miles on got 22 around town and 26-28 out on the road in a crown vic, not bad for a lead sled.....
Reply to
Anthony
The Chrysler has the reliability, power, and styling, but the draw of the LS is that its rear-drive.
But bottom line, rear-drive is about the ONLY thing the LS has going for it.
I'd wait for a 300N, then I could have everything the 300M has, plus RWD AND a Hemi v8 :-)
Reply to
Steve
That is FAR from a common appraisal of the Ford Modular v8. Weak bottom end, high oil consumption on a lot of versions, bad head castings on other versions... its had a ton of problems. Its basically a low-cost light-duty v8 design that's been pressed into service in trucks SUVS and large cars it was never designed to handle. Ford has done a very good job of improving it over the years and finally getting some grunt out of the 5.4L in trucks, but I still don't trust it to be bulletproof like I did the 302 and 351 it replaced.
In fact, one reason I'd RECOMMEND the 300M in this case is because the Chrysler 3.5L v6 is about as bulletproof an engine as you can find today.
Reply to
Steve
The LS does not use a version of the 4.6 V8. The smaller LS V6 will run rings are the Chrysler let alone comparing it to the V8. As to the Ford 4.6 V8 v the 302, from what I have seen over the years of the two in our fleet service business, the 4.6 is a far superior engine in terms of reliability and years of service. 500k is easily accomplished with just normal maintenance on the 4.6.
mike hunt
> > > > > > I think you will be happier with the Modular motor in the Lincoln. Both > > are good engines, but from my experience, the mod motor is hard to beat > > for reliability and power. > > That is FAR from a common appraisal of the Ford Modular v8. Weak bottom > end, high oil consumption on a lot of versions, bad head castings on > other versions... its had a ton of problems. Its basically a low-cost > light-duty v8 design that's been pressed into service in trucks SUVS and > large cars it was never designed to handle. Ford has done a very good > job of improving it over the years and finally getting some grunt out of > the 5.4L in trucks, but I still don't trust it to be bulletproof like I > did the 302 and 351 it replaced. > > In fact, one reason I'd RECOMMEND the 300M in this case is because the > Chrysler 3.5L v6 is about as bulletproof an engine as you can find today.
Reply to
BigJohnson
I wouldn't buy either one, I don't think, and I don't have the best of reasons.
I don't trust Ford due to their economic condition, but reason tells me that they won't go bankrupt and leave me in the lurch. Secondly, I would have to drive the Lincoln to make sure it didn't shake and shimmy as Ford's so frequently have done in the past (the so-called Ford trademark squarewheel ride. I tried to buy a new Thunderbird around 1990, and after having driven 5-6 of them right off the new car lot, I gave up. They shook and wallowed like a dog with the heaves.
The only thing Ford makes that I have a perverse attraction to is the new Thunderbird.
My feelings about Chrysler are a bit clouded by quality concerns too.
In America, I would normally choose to drive a GM automobile, but their misadventures with the some of the V6 engines' quality and durability would make me avoid that too until they get their act together.
Which leaves me with nothing except possibly Japanese or German cars, for the moment.
Reply to
Larry Smith
I thought the Lincoln LS V8 version was near a 3.9 or 4.0 liter model with about a 7k redline. Shows how out of touch I am :) I didn't know they were putting the 4.6 V8 in them. I guess I was very fortunate to get rid of my 2001 Mustang GT with the 4.6 -- sounds like it would have been a totally waisted engine by now.
Reply to
Arch
The discussion actually went off-topic. The modular doesn't go in the LS, but another poster brought up the modular and (strangely) proclaimed it as a virtue when most see it as a vice.
But I still think the Chrysler 3.5 is the best domestic v6 (probably the best v6 in this price category PERIOD).
Reply to
Steve
The V-8 in the LS is completely unrelated to the modualr V-8 family.
So far, my family has had experience with 5 modular V-8s. Three in cars (4.6L - 2 Grand Marquis, 1 Mustang) and two in trucks (5.4L Expeditions). They have all been great motors. The Mustang did have a very minor oil leak related to a machining problem, but the dealer fixed that under warranty. The 5.4L have been excellent. One passed 149,000 miles without a hitch (well there was one bad coil pack related to a heater hose leak). The other only has 30,000 miles, but it has been completely trouble free.
I see tons of Crown Vic taxis riding around my area and they all have the 4.6L V-8. I never seem them smoking. How many Chrysler can you say that about (i.e., what percentage of Chrysler mini vans don't smoke with high miles)?
Regards,
Ed White
> > > > > > I think you will be happier with the Modular motor in the Lincoln. Both > > are good engines, but from my experience, the mod motor is hard to beat > > for reliability and power. > > That is FAR from a common appraisal of the Ford Modular v8. Weak bottom > end, high oil consumption on a lot of versions, bad head castings on > other versions... its had a ton of problems. Its basically a low-cost > light-duty v8 design that's been pressed into service in trucks SUVS and > large cars it was never designed to handle. Ford has done a very good > job of improving it over the years and finally getting some grunt out of > the 5.4L in trucks, but I still don't trust it to be bulletproof like I > did the 302 and 351 it replaced. > > In fact, one reason I'd RECOMMEND the 300M in this case is because the > Chrysler 3.5L v6 is about as bulletproof an engine as you can find today.
Reply to
C. E. White
If reliability is a concern, then you should stay away from German cars. In most surveys they rate worse than American cars, which are only slightly behind Japanese cars.
Ed
Reply to
C. E. White
The 5.4L is the blue-smoker (inadequate piston skirt and ring package). The 4.6 is passable, and the DOHC version (really nothing in common) is a wonderful engine.
And NO Chrysler minivans with CHRYSLER engines smoke. The blue-huffers all have the Mitsubishi 3.0, which has exactly the same piston and ring problem as the 5.4L Ford plus it had a bad habit of dropping the valve guides out of the heads.
Reply to
Steve
Most of the cabs in my area are repainted used HP Cars. It is rare to see one smoke, but some of them look like they have been used to clear off the local building lots.
At 149,000 mile my 5.4L Expedition used no oil between changes, never smoked, and ran great. Average fuel economy was the same at 149,000 miles as at 10,000 miles (not that it was ever "good"). The old Dodge truck we have on the farm (318 V-8) has 2/3 as many miles but has needed new bearings to cure a knock and new heads because of exhaust side cracks - but it does still run. So I guess that is another win for Chrysler. I've already owned my last Chrysler product. It was the only vehicle that I owned that allowed me to know the mechanics at the dealership on a first name basis. Great guys, lousy car.
It is not uncommon to see relatively new Chrysler mini-vans smoking on the way to work (at least the ones that aren't parked on the side of the road because of a blown transmission). I can't tell what engine they have, but they all share the Chrysler family logos. My SO's van ('98) is a rolling piece of junk. She's going back to a Toyota in the near future (she has already crossed GM, Ford, and Nissan vehicles off her list of acceptable cars - she had a bad one of each).
Funny, in my immediate family, we have owned 5 Fords with Modular V-8s and only one has required a "major" repair to the basic engine (my Mustang had a minor oil leak - fixed under warranty) We have also had to have a couple of minor fixes to the auxiliary equipment (a coil pack replaced on a 5.4L and the IAC Motor cleaned on a 4.6L in a CV). I guess we are just lucky. On the other hand, we are 0 for forever (5 tries) when it comes to buying a decent Chrysler product. So I guess we are lucky in Fords (and Hondas) and unlucky in Chryslers (and especially VWs). I know different people have different experiences and there are lots of people that love Chryslers, but I've tried them and I can't see buying another any time soon.
Regards,
Ed White
Reply to
C. E. White
The final determinate factor of who buys what, price. The most often heard question when I was in retail, when one was making their final decision before signing on the dotted line....."How much is my monthly payment?' LOL
By the way did you happen to look at your total interest cost for the loan on the Chrysler? I'll bet it was more than the $2,000 extra price for the LS ;)
mike hunt
Reply to
MikeHunt
********The Ford commonality was the point of my post. I guess I just don't like them, in general.
********Not unexpected, I guess, considering Ford's economic position. Heard an offer the other day for a new Bird, both hard and soft top, complete with everything except a flushing toilet, for $29,950. That's a far cry from the original published asking price.
Reply to
Larry Smith
Approximately 8/28/03 06:24, Larry Smith uttered for posterity:
Yeek. Local Ford dealer had one for sale in November 2001 and had all sorts of bogus markups. Nice looking, bright "arrest me" red, fancy wheels, etc. etc. but the sticker price was just over $54K, with a straight face yet.
Reply to
Lon Stowell
A 2003 T-Bird with every option is under 45K, nowhere near 54K. The 2001 was even less.
mike hunt
Reply to
BenDover

Site Timeline Threads

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.