Omega Owners Forum

Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Essex_Andy on 31 August 2007, 17:57:34

Title: Chrysler 300C's
Post by: Essex_Andy on 31 August 2007, 17:57:34
Does anyone know if there is, or maybe in the near future, a manual version?

If my new job comes about in the next few months I might give the omega to the wife, sell her car and get myself a 300C
Title: Re: Chrysler 300C's
Post by: omegaman2 on 31 August 2007, 18:00:23
do yank tanks come in manuals :question
Title: Re: Chrysler 300C's
Post by: Andy B on 31 August 2007, 18:02:13
Quote
Does anyone know if there is, or maybe in the near future, a manual version?

 .......

Why?  ;)  ;)  ;)
Manually put the transmission into [size=12]D[/size]

I can feel an Auto vs manual debate ................
Title: Re: Chrysler 300C's
Post by: A380 Elite on 31 August 2007, 18:05:48
300c you lucky toad. :(

Hope things are better on the 300c.
Top gear at the time didn't like it compared to the Holden and Jag.

I would if i could still have one.

Good Luck.
 :y
Title: Re: Chrysler 300C's
Post by: markrl on 31 August 2007, 18:14:59
I think they look quite striking but they have a poor reputation in the US and Chrysler is another US car manufacturer in big trouble. If the Americans dont want to buy them unless it was a real knockdown I think I would stay well clear.
Title: Re: Chrysler 300C's
Post by: Andy B on 31 August 2007, 18:18:27
Quote
I think they look quite striking but they have a poor reputation in the US and Chrysler is another US car manufacturer in big trouble. If the Americans dont want to buy them unless it was a real knockdown I think I would stay well clear.

I saw quite a few Dodge Magnums (http://www.dodge.com/en/2007/magnum/) the other year.
Title: Re: Chrysler 300C's
Post by: Danny on 31 August 2007, 18:45:25
the dodge magnum looks strikingly similar to the 300C estate, it's the estate version of the new dodge charger, the saloons aren't that much similar, and the presence of the 300C saloon is so much better than the charger IMO

i'll be the most jealous person if you get a 300C since i'll probably never have one!!!

there's one on trader thats allegedly manual, but no interior photos to confirm, and its £28k
Title: Re: Chrysler 300C's
Post by: Danny on 31 August 2007, 18:52:57
CHRYSLER 300 C SALOON
(http://www.auto.co.yu/img/download/Chrysler-300C.jpg)

300C ESTATE
(http://upload.moldova.org/auto/News/chrysler%20300c%20srt8%20touring/2006_Chrysler_300C_SRT8_Touring_800x600_01.jpg)

DODGE CHARGER

(http://www.automedia.com/NewCarBuyersGuide2007/photos/2007/Dodge/Charger/Sedan/2007_Dodge_Charger_ext_1.jpg)

DODGE MAGNUM

(http://www.1stoprimshop.com/images/gallery/detata_profiler_dodge_magnum_1.jpg)
Title: Re: Chrysler 300C's
Post by: Martin_1962 on 31 August 2007, 19:01:25
Quote
Quote
I saw quite a few Dodge Magnums (http://www.dodge.com/en/2007/magnum/) the other year.

I like the Walls version
Title: Re: Chrysler 300C's
Post by: Essex_Andy on 31 August 2007, 19:05:00
I would only go for the diesel and I'll only get one newly new if I get lucky with the right people re lorry driving.

I like the look and would prefer a manual...had autos before and I find impossible to properly drive an auto where a manual you can drive the car...its obviously possible to hold a gear and balance a manual where you cant an auto.

If you're an NPT instructor you'll know what I mean

No offence meant or taken :y
Title: Re: Chrysler 300C's
Post by: Paul M on 31 August 2007, 19:34:13
Quote
Quote
Does anyone know if there is, or maybe in the near future, a manual version?

 .......

Why?  ;)  ;)  ;)
Manually put the transmission into [size=12]D[/size]

I can feel an Auto vs manual debate ................

Go stand in the corner and wear the D hat....

If you enjoy driving, you want a manual... autos are simply a way for "non-drivers" to get closer to being a passenger when you have the misfortune of actually having to drive :D

Oh and I've driven 3 different cars in the US, all brand new and all quite high spec (between 3.5 and 4.something engines) made by both Ford and GM.... needless to say they were all slushboxes -- it's nigh on impossible to hire a manual car there other than very expensive sports cars, and believe me I tried. If those three cars are anything to go by what american slushboxes are like, it'll always be in the wrong gear on twisty sections, and will shift at times I wouldn't even think doing so -- such as near the limit of traction on long bends when I'd quite like to keep the power consistently applied thanks :o anyone who actually pushes the envelope now and again will know what a nuisance these goddam gayboxes are!

I've only once driven a slushbox in the UK -- it was a BMW "Steptronic" version which is sometimes touted as semi-automatic. Utter crap, still had the same rubber band effect from the torque converter, still felt slow as hell despite having 230 or so BHP, and had a huge delay between pressing the button to shift, and it actually shifting! Never again... not even close to what SMG and DSG (proper race style semi-auto transmissions) can offer.

My 2 cents on why the original poster is VERY justified in wanting a 300C with a proper gearbox :P
Title: Re: Chrysler 300C's
Post by: STMO123 on 31 August 2007, 19:39:26
Quote
Quote
Quote
Does anyone know if there is, or maybe in the near future, a manual version?

 .......

Why?  ;)  ;)  ;)
Manually put the transmission into [size=12]D[/size]

I can feel an Auto vs manual debate ................

Go stand in the corner and wear the D hat....

If you enjoy driving, you want a manual... autos are simply a way for "non-drivers" to get closer to being a passenger when you have the misfortune of actually having to drive :D

Oh and I've driven 3 different cars in the US, all brand new and all quite high spec (between 3.5 and 4.something engines) made by both Ford and GM.... needless to say they were all slushboxes -- it's nigh on impossible to hire a manual car there other than very expensive sports cars, and believe me I tried. If those three cars are anything to go by what american slushboxes are like, it'll always be in the wrong gear on twisty sections, and will shift at times I wouldn't even think doing so -- such as near the limit of traction on long bends when I'd quite like to keep the power consistently applied thanks :o anyone who actually pushes the envelope now and again will know what a nuisance these goddam gayboxes are!

I've only once driven a slushbox in the UK -- it was a BMW "Steptronic" version which is sometimes touted as semi-automatic. Utter crap, still had the same rubber band effect from the torque converter, still felt slow as hell despite having 230 or so BHP, and had a huge delay between pressing the button to shift, and it actually shifting! Never again... not even close to what SMG and DSG (proper race style semi-auto transmissions) can offer.

My 2 cents on why the original poster is VERY justified in wanting a 300C with a proper gearbox :P

Why dont you just say what you mean and stop beating about the bush? ::)
Title: Re: Chrysler 300C's
Post by: Andy B on 31 August 2007, 19:54:00
Quote
Quote
Quote
I saw quite a few Dodge Magnums (http://www.dodge.com/en/2007/magnum/) the other year.

I like the Walls version

Tesco's version is better! They're called Mmm and they're a quid for a box  of 31  ;D  ;D
Title: Re: Chrysler 300C's
Post by: Andy B on 31 August 2007, 19:59:31
Quote
Quote
.......

My 2 cents on why the original poster is VERY justified in wanting a 300C with a proper gearbox :P

I think got another nibble from the youngster at the back!!!  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;)
Title: Re: Chrysler 300C's
Post by: smoothomega on 31 August 2007, 20:10:24
Do modern day autos only have the "D" position? Mine has a 1,2,3 position too. I know it aint a manual box but with a little practice you can get a whole lot more out of an auto than simply dropping it in "D" and driving. Just my thoughts on the issue. At the end of the day the 300 aint a raceing machine to be hammerd round the lanes and needs the auto box. By the same token a 911 is made for driving and needs the manual box if you get my drift. As said only my opinion and we are all allowed one  ;D
Title: Re: Chrysler 300C's
Post by: Danny on 31 August 2007, 20:46:37
mine has 1,2,3

as does my brother's lexus
Title: Re: Chrysler 300C's
Post by: Essex_Andy on 31 August 2007, 21:16:16
1, 2 and 3

Is for when going down hill when towing

It is supposed to stop the towing vehicle and trailer accelerating out of control

1 will keep you in 1st gear

2 will let you move through 1st and only as far as 2nd gear only

3 will let you go through 1st, 2nd and only as far as 3rd
Title: Re: Chrysler 300C's
Post by: Danny on 31 August 2007, 21:34:31
i found 3 helps beautifully to keep me at 30mph down hill when approaching a cartain speed camera :y near my regular pub
Title: Re: Chrysler 300C's
Post by: Paul M on 31 August 2007, 22:45:17
Quote

Why dont you just say what you mean and stop beating about the bush? ::)

I like beating about the bush... as long as it's a pretty bush  ;D
Title: Re: Chrysler 300C's
Post by: Paul M on 31 August 2007, 22:50:48
Quote
Quote
Quote
.......

My 2 cents on why the original poster is VERY justified in wanting a 300C with a proper gearbox :P

I think got another nibble from the youngster at the back!!!  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;)

lol I had a fair idea it was a trolling post, but hey I don't wanna miss an opportunity to state the facts in case there are some lesser educated in here actually believe a computer can make better decisions than they can, when given a fraction of the information you have ;) :D
Title: Re: Chrysler 300C's
Post by: Paul M on 31 August 2007, 23:01:31
Quote
Do modern day autos only have the "D" position? Mine has a 1,2,3 position too. I know it aint a manual box but with a little practice you can get a whole lot more out of an auto than simply dropping it in "D" and driving. Just my thoughts on the issue. At the end of the day the 300 aint a raceing machine to be hammerd round the lanes and needs the auto box. By the same token a 911 is made for driving and needs the manual box if you get my drift. As said only my opinion and we are all allowed one  ;D

They all have 1,2,3 etc as far as I know, but those are a very poor substitute for the control you get with a manual. I think they're primarily for going down long hills etc as stated by another poster. Even the ones with "manual control" of the gears are pretty crap, cos they're too slow to change, and still have the dreaded torque converter. Which is the very reason why the likes of Ferrari, BMW and now Audi have developed sequential manual gearboxes with hydraulically activated clutch and shift operations -- all the advantages of a traditional clutched manual, but it can shift quicker than a human can.

Fair enough in that you say the 300C is better off with a slushbox.... it might be, I've read reviews saying it really does drive like a yank tank in which case I don't want one either way. I think some big cars, such as the Omega, are surprisingly good fun on B roads and as such really show what they can do with a manual box, but many people write them off as big boats on wheels hence the "big cars might as well be slushies" etc... Depends what you want it for really, but I love taking advantage of the RWD and surprisingly compliant chassis (even if it does weigh as much as a small country) to throw it around and do a little drifting when conditions allow.

The concerning thing is that even the Porsche 911 you mention sells a lot of automatics, maybe not as many as manuals but not a huge difference, which seems to me that a lot of people are buying them for the poser factor rather than the sports car credentials. Even the turbo model comes as a slushy, which seems insane to me! The raw race-derived GT2 and GT3 are manual only of course.

I might buy a slush-o when I'm 90.... but hopefully I'll have lived fast enough to die younger than 90 :D
Title: Re: Chrysler 300C's
Post by: Martin_1962 on 01 September 2007, 10:44:27
Quote
Quote
Do modern day autos only have the "D" position? Mine has a 1,2,3 position too. I know it aint a manual box but with a little practice you can get a whole lot more out of an auto than simply dropping it in "D" and driving. Just my thoughts on the issue. At the end of the day the 300 aint a raceing machine to be hammerd round the lanes and needs the auto box. By the same token a 911 is made for driving and needs the manual box if you get my drift. As said only my opinion and we are all allowed one  ;D

They all have 1,2,3 etc as far as I know, but those are a very poor substitute for the control you get with a manual. I think they're primarily for going down long hills etc as stated by another poster. Even the ones with "manual control" of the gears are pretty crap, cos they're too slow to change, and still have the dreaded torque converter. Which is the very reason why the likes of Ferrari, BMW and now Audi have developed sequential manual gearboxes with hydraulically activated clutch and shift operations -- all the advantages of a traditional clutched manual, but it can shift quicker than a human can.

Fair enough in that you say the 300C is better off with a slushbox.... it might be, I've read reviews saying it really does drive like a yank tank in which case I don't want one either way. I think some big cars, such as the Omega, are surprisingly good fun on B roads and as such really show what they can do with a manual box, but many people write them off as big boats on wheels hence the "big cars might as well be slushies" etc... Depends what you want it for really, but I love taking advantage of the RWD and surprisingly compliant chassis (even if it does weigh as much as a small country) to throw it around and do a little drifting when conditions allow.

The concerning thing is that even the Porsche 911 you mention sells a lot of automatics, maybe not as many as manuals but not a huge difference, which seems to me that a lot of people are buying them for the poser factor rather than the sports car credentials. Even the turbo model comes as a slushy, which seems insane to me! The raw race-derived GT2 and GT3 are manual only of course.

I might buy a slush-o when I'm 90.... but hopefully I'll have lived fast enough to die younger than 90 :D

You are still young and have a bike for town. When you are older the ease makes a long trip a lot easier - but you need a good auto and to be honest most autos are crap!
Title: Re: Chrysler 300C's
Post by: bertiecbx550 on 01 September 2007, 13:09:24
we had the 300c touring version when we went to florida two years ago and both me and my best mate fell in love with em...its just that neaither of could afford to buy the top of the line model  :(  :(
Title: Re: Chrysler 300C's
Post by: davlad22 on 01 September 2007, 13:42:14
Quote
Never again... not even close to what SMG and DSG (proper race style semi-auto transmissions) can offer.

Found the SMG to be very jerky.
Title: Re: Chrysler 300C's
Post by: Paul M on 01 September 2007, 15:58:21
Quote
Quote
Never again... not even close to what SMG and DSG (proper race style semi-auto transmissions) can offer.

Found the SMG to be very jerky.

I haven't driven one, but there are six different modes that change how quickly it shifts. Faster for better performance, slower for smoother shifts. It's unlikely to ever be as smooth as a slushomatic, but that's due to the torque converter and it's "rubber-band" effect which allows the engine speed to change somewhat independently of the roadwheel speed. The price you pay for that is the disconnection between throttle and driven wheels, making it much less controllable on the limit.