Chrsyler 300M vs Acura 3.2TL

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: Panakk

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: Panakk
I test drove a 2004 Chrsyler 300M last night and i loved the car. Was comparing it to an Acura 3.2 TL since it's my ultimate favorite car and i have realised what a rip off the Acura can be.. A 2003 Acura 3.2 TL with 20K miles is around 23K while the 2004 Chrysler 300M with the same mileage is around 18K.. More horses i think..


Edit
Cliff notes:
For much less you get more in the Chrysler 300M than the Acura 3.2TL

I'm sorry but you're an idiot

2004 Chrysler 300M MSRP for base: $29,185. That's a 39% depreciation in less than one year.
2003 Acura 3.2TL MSRP for base: $31,710. That's a 28% depreciation in less than two years.

Yep, the Acura is a huge rip-off. :roll:

You're the idiot. I was talking about a used car. Not to mention MSRP is not the price you buy cars at.. You get huge discounts on these cars..

Um, did you even fvcking read? I know you're talking about a used car. The MSRP on a brand new one is what I quoted - the depreciation is based off the used car's value in comparison to the new car's value.

 

[shuan24]

Originally posted by: Panakk

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: BullyCanadian
well, think about it, you sepdn 23 k now compared to 18k on a chrysler, later on in the chrysler's life your gonna need some major repairs depending on how long you wanna keep it, but the acura on the other hand shouldnt have too much problems later on

Over both of their lives, there is NO WAY that you will spend $5000 more in repairs on the 300M than on the Acura. You are absolutely retarded if you believe this.

I agree with this. How will you spend more than 5K in repairs on a Chrysler compared to a Acura.. Absurd isn't it..

I'm no Japanese car lover or a American car hater, but some american cars are just a bang for your buck. Wish they were built in the US though.. More jobs for us.

Dude, it is ultimately your car, your money, your decision. Nobody said Chryslers are crap cars, and nobody said Acuras are the best in the world.

The point is, you asked specifically which was better between the 300M and the TL, and I told you that the TL is more reliable. There may be other features you like better in the 300M that nobody can sway you otherwise (like looks, feel, etc..).

I'm not going to argue that TL looks better, because thats an opinion. The fact is, Acuras in general are more reliable, so as a result, they are going to be more expensive since they have a higher resell value.

 

[Panakk]

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: Panakk

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: Panakk
I test drove a 2004 Chrsyler 300M last night and i loved the car. Was comparing it to an Acura 3.2 TL since it's my ultimate favorite car and i have realised what a rip off the Acura can be.. A 2003 Acura 3.2 TL with 20K miles is around 23K while the 2004 Chrysler 300M with the same mileage is around 18K.. More horses i think..


Edit
Cliff notes:
For much less you get more in the Chrysler 300M than the Acura 3.2TL

I'm sorry but you're an idiot

2004 Chrysler 300M MSRP for base: $29,185. That's a 39% depreciation in less than one year.
2003 Acura 3.2TL MSRP for base: $31,710. That's a 28% depreciation in less than two years.

Yep, the Acura is a huge rip-off. :roll:

You're the idiot. I was talking about a used car. Not to mention MSRP is not the price you buy cars at.. You get huge discounts on these cars..

Um, did you even fvcking read? I know you're talking about a used car. The MSRP on a brand new one is what I quoted - the depreciation is based off the used car's value in comparison to the new car's value.

So what's your fvcking point. I'm talking about value for money, comparing two used cars..

 

[Panakk]

Originally posted by: shuan24

Originally posted by: Panakk

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: BullyCanadian
well, think about it, you sepdn 23 k now compared to 18k on a chrysler, later on in the chrysler's life your gonna need some major repairs depending on how long you wanna keep it, but the acura on the other hand shouldnt have too much problems later on

Over both of their lives, there is NO WAY that you will spend $5000 more in repairs on the 300M than on the Acura. You are absolutely retarded if you believe this.

I agree with this. How will you spend more than 5K in repairs on a Chrysler compared to a Acura.. Absurd isn't it..

I'm no Japanese car lover or a American car hater, but some american cars are just a bang for your buck. Wish they were built in the US though.. More jobs for us.

Dude, it is ultimately your car, your money, your decision. Nobody said Chryslers are crap cars, and nobody said Acuras are the best in the world.

The point is, you asked specifically which was better between the 300M and the TL, and I told you that the TL is more reliable. There may be other features you like better in the 300M that nobody can sway you otherwise (like looks, feel, etc..).

I'm not going to argue that TL looks better, because thats an opinion. The fact is, Acuras in general are more reliable, so as a result, they are going to be more expensive since they have a higher resell value.

I agree that it's a personal choice and i think the Acura looks awesome.. I've always wanted one. The reason this thread popped up was because i found that they're similar cars.

Subjectively everyone talks about Acura's being more reliable than Honda. I tend to wonder, is it because most American cars are fleet cars and they don't take care of them.. I'm just trying to listen to everyones opinions..

 

[isekii]

what's ironic is that the TL is probably more American than the 300M

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: Panakk

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: Panakk

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: Panakk
I test drove a 2004 Chrsyler 300M last night and i loved the car. Was comparing it to an Acura 3.2 TL since it's my ultimate favorite car and i have realised what a rip off the Acura can be.. A 2003 Acura 3.2 TL with 20K miles is around 23K while the 2004 Chrysler 300M with the same mileage is around 18K.. More horses i think..


Edit
Cliff notes:
For much less you get more in the Chrysler 300M than the Acura 3.2TL

I'm sorry but you're an idiot

2004 Chrysler 300M MSRP for base: $29,185. That's a 39% depreciation in less than one year.
2003 Acura 3.2TL MSRP for base: $31,710. That's a 28% depreciation in less than two years.

Yep, the Acura is a huge rip-off. :roll:

You're the idiot. I was talking about a used car. Not to mention MSRP is not the price you buy cars at.. You get huge discounts on these cars..

Um, did you even fvcking read? I know you're talking about a used car. The MSRP on a brand new one is what I quoted - the depreciation is based off the used car's value in comparison to the new car's value.

So what's your fvcking point. I'm talking about value for money, comparing two used cars..

I'm not the fvcking idiot who said the TL was a ripoff because one car is $5K cheaper.

 

[shuan24]

Acuras are not more reliable than Honda. Did you mean Chrysler? The reason why, I would assume is, that Japanese cars (namely Acura-Honda, Toyato-Lexus, Nissan-Infinity) seem to have a better design for their motors. Although that is totally an opinion, there is no better reason that I can see why the same names would pop up on reliability charts over and over again.

You should ask yourself what car you really want first, then value.

 

[Panakk]

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: Panakk

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: Panakk

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: Panakk
I test drove a 2004 Chrsyler 300M last night and i loved the car. Was comparing it to an Acura 3.2 TL since it's my ultimate favorite car and i have realised what a rip off the Acura can be.. A 2003 Acura 3.2 TL with 20K miles is around 23K while the 2004 Chrysler 300M with the same mileage is around 18K.. More horses i think..


Edit
Cliff notes:
For much less you get more in the Chrysler 300M than the Acura 3.2TL

I'm sorry but you're an idiot

2004 Chrysler 300M MSRP for base: $29,185. That's a 39% depreciation in less than one year.
2003 Acura 3.2TL MSRP for base: $31,710. That's a 28% depreciation in less than two years.

Yep, the Acura is a huge rip-off. :roll:

You're the idiot. I was talking about a used car. Not to mention MSRP is not the price you buy cars at.. You get huge discounts on these cars..

Um, did you even fvcking read? I know you're talking about a used car. The MSRP on a brand new one is what I quoted - the depreciation is based off the used car's value in comparison to the new car's value.

So what's your fvcking point. I'm talking about value for money, comparing two used cars..

I'm not the fvcking idiot who said the TL was a ripoff because one car is $5K cheaper.

Again, comparing two cars.. Chrysler vs Acura. If both cars offer pretty similar, for a more expensive price, isn't that a ripoff?

 

[isekii]

Originally posted by: Panakk

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: Panakk

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: Panakk

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: Panakk
I test drove a 2004 Chrsyler 300M last night and i loved the car. Was comparing it to an Acura 3.2 TL since it's my ultimate favorite car and i have realised what a rip off the Acura can be.. A 2003 Acura 3.2 TL with 20K miles is around 23K while the 2004 Chrysler 300M with the same mileage is around 18K.. More horses i think..


Edit
Cliff notes:
For much less you get more in the Chrysler 300M than the Acura 3.2TL

I'm sorry but you're an idiot

2004 Chrysler 300M MSRP for base: $29,185. That's a 39% depreciation in less than one year.
2003 Acura 3.2TL MSRP for base: $31,710. That's a 28% depreciation in less than two years.

Yep, the Acura is a huge rip-off. :roll:

You're the idiot. I was talking about a used car. Not to mention MSRP is not the price you buy cars at.. You get huge discounts on these cars..

Um, did you even fvcking read? I know you're talking about a used car. The MSRP on a brand new one is what I quoted - the depreciation is based off the used car's value in comparison to the new car's value.

So what's your fvcking point. I'm talking about value for money, comparing two used cars..

I'm not the fvcking idiot who said the TL was a ripoff because one car is $5K cheaper.

Again, comparing two cars.. Chrysler vs Acura. If both cars offer pretty similar, for a more expensive price, isn't that a ripoff?

No cause Acura TL is overall a better car.
Chrysler will probably depreciate till it's worth squat while the TL will hold it's value and be worth something later down the road.

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: Panakk

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: Panakk

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: Panakk

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: Panakk
I test drove a 2004 Chrsyler 300M last night and i loved the car. Was comparing it to an Acura 3.2 TL since it's my ultimate favorite car and i have realised what a rip off the Acura can be.. A 2003 Acura 3.2 TL with 20K miles is around 23K while the 2004 Chrysler 300M with the same mileage is around 18K.. More horses i think..


Edit
Cliff notes:
For much less you get more in the Chrysler 300M than the Acura 3.2TL

I'm sorry but you're an idiot

2004 Chrysler 300M MSRP for base: $29,185. That's a 39% depreciation in less than one year.
2003 Acura 3.2TL MSRP for base: $31,710. That's a 28% depreciation in less than two years.

Yep, the Acura is a huge rip-off. :roll:

You're the idiot. I was talking about a used car. Not to mention MSRP is not the price you buy cars at.. You get huge discounts on these cars..

Um, did you even fvcking read? I know you're talking about a used car. The MSRP on a brand new one is what I quoted - the depreciation is based off the used car's value in comparison to the new car's value.

So what's your fvcking point. I'm talking about value for money, comparing two used cars..

I'm not the fvcking idiot who said the TL was a ripoff because one car is $5K cheaper.

Again, comparing two cars.. Chrysler vs Acura. If both cars offer pretty similar, for a more expensive price, isn't that a ripoff?

Alright I can see what you mean by just the comparison of two cars. It's not as simple as just comparing car A to car B based solely off the price though - long term reliability, resale value, etc all factor into these things. That's the point I was trying to make, sorry if I came off as a dick.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: BullyCanadian
well, think about it, you sepdn 23 k now compared to 18k on a chrysler, later on in the chrysler's life your gonna need some major repairs depending on how long you wanna keep it, but the acura on the other hand shouldnt have too much problems later on

Over both of their lives, there is NO WAY that you will spend $5000 more in repairs on the 300M than on the Acura. You are absolutely retarded if you believe this.

I wouldn't be too quick to say that. I have a friend who's wife had a 300M and the thing was always in the shop.

Acura would be my choice.

 

[Nebor]

Chryslers are crappy cars. It's the truth. You'll spend money keeping that Chrysler going, but the Acura is a Honda at heart.

 

[Black88GTA]

Originally posted by: shuan24
Yeah, thats right, Japanese cars never have any mechanical problems. Nice generalization. Like I said, they are the most reliable cars. Where in that statement does that say Japanese cars have no mechanical problems? You argue like a 5 year-old.

It would be difficult to say where the extra 5k would come from, since it would depend on how long you have your vehicle. The fact that Chryslers are not as reliable as Acuras, one would conclude that more mechanical problems are probable on the Chrysler than on the Acura. EVEN if both cars had the same amount of problems, because IMO Acura parts are alot more accessible than Chryslers, one would assume that the savings would come from both parts and labor when a mechanical problem does happen.

Hmm. Well, the 2004 Lemon List shows Acura/Honda as having 3 vehicles in the top 20, INCLUDING, the TL (#17). Chrysler only has 1 in the top 20. If you look at the whole list, Chrysler and Honda are tied with 4 vehicles each. Chrysler has 3 from 21-25. However, the 300M is nowhere to be found anywhere on the list. So what's that you were saying about "more mechanical problems are probable on the Chrysler than the Acura"?

Granted, Honda/Acura does have a better reputation for quality/longevity. However, not enough of one (IMO, of course) to justify spending $5k more right off the bat just because of that. Think of it this way. Say you plan on keeping the car for 5 years. You have $23k you can spend. You can buy the 300M for $18k and put money into it as needed, up to an average of $1k/year (which you probably wouldn't even come close to), or you can buy the TL for $23k and hope nothing breaks. See my point?

EVEN if both cars had the same amount of problems, because IMO Acura parts are alot more accessible than Chryslers, one would assume that the savings would come from both parts and labor when a mechanical problem does happen

Uhh...Acura parts are a lot more accessible than Chrysler's? How do you figure that? The savings would come from both parts and labor? Correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't know the specifics of each one, but I would think that parts for each would be pretty comparatively priced. I would think labor rates would probably be similar as well.

MODEL COMPLAINT INDEX RATIO
Subaru Impreza 27,952
Infiniti I35 21,372
Audi A4 18,943
Ford Escape 14,441
Ford Focus 13,346
Acura RSX 11,657
Pontiac Aztek 11,537
Ford Excursion 10,277
Mitsubishi Eclipse 9,691
Jeep Liberty 9,450
Chevrolet Corvette 9,214
Chevrolet Blazer 7,938
Suzuki Grand Vitara 7,385
Volkswagen Passat 6,687
Honda Insight 6,496
Volkswagen Jetta 6,152
Acura TL 6,058
Suzuki Vitara 5,913
Land Rover Freelander 5,589
Audi A6 5,571
Dodge Caravan 5,561
Jeep Grand Cherokee 5,235
Honda S2000 5,162
GMC Yukon 5,094
Dodge Neon 5,045

 

[Lvis]

My folks are on their second 300m, and fifth chrysler in a row. They have been happy with them all, especially the 300 m's. They're fine cars.

I would guess everyone of the import fanboys would love the 300m too, if only they didn't have Chrysler written on them. They are a hoot to drive, in-spite of being a rather large car. There is a lot to like about them.

 

[shuan24]

The fallacy in that Lemon List is the assumption that the cars in (or not in) the list are equally distributed among the population. Since they are not, that list doesnt mean jack. For example, although extreme, if there exists only 2 Chrysler 300M in the whole population, and they BOTH are reported to the complaint department, will they show up on that list?? NO, why? Because the list goes by numbers only, not RATIO.

edit: I realize that it is a ratio, however I am confused on what the ratio is comprised of.

"The complaint index is based on a ratio of the number of complaints for each vehicle to the sales of that vehicle. "

Doesnt say how many sales to each complaint, is what I mean.

 

[Black88GTA]

Originally posted by: shuan24
The fallacy in that Lemon List is the assumption that the cars in (or not in) the list are equally distributed among the population. Since they are not, that list doesnt mean jack. For example, although extreme, if there exists only 2 Chrysler 300M in the whole population, and they BOTH are reported to the complaint department, will they show up on that list?? NO, why? Because the list goes by numbers only, not RATIO.

From the site:

Thanks to the efforts of the Center for Auto Safety, we are able to provide you with the vehicle complaints on file with the National Highway for Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Each year, thousands of Americans call their government to register complaints about their vehicles. The federal government collects this information but has never released it to the general public. The complaint index is based on a ratio of the number of complaints for each vehicle to the sales of that vehicle. For more information on the NHTSA consumer complaint database, click here.

Edit: And you CAN'T tell me that you see more TLs on the road than Dodge Caravans, Jeep Grand Cherokees, and Neons...

 

[Dacalo]

I rented 300M for 700 mile round trip and I was not impressed at all.

I would go for the Acura without a heartbeat.

 

[shuan24]

Depends on where you're from.

Also, again the point comes out about how long you keep the car for. Of couse, if you keep the car for one year, then the 300M could be comparable to the TL. On the other hand, 5 years would definately warrant the 5k difference, not only in mechanical savings, but also in resell value as well.

edit: I still dont think that list means jack. Show me a consumer report rating then I will believe.

Edmunds list of lowest cost car to own

Also, the TL made the most wanted consumer car of 2004. No mention of Chrsyler. interesting.

 

[iamwiz82]

My father has worked for DCX for close to 40 years, and as long as I have been alive, he has had at least 20 Chrysler products, and he never once has taken it to the dealer for a major problem. I have had to go to the shop a few times with mine, however they were all justified or understandable. In fact, my foriegn car has actually been to the dealer more (1 time) than any other car I have ever owned, so what does that say?

 

[Jejunum]

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/subaru/legacy/100396937/researchlanding.html?tid=edmunds.n.prices.subnavheader..2.Subaru*

regarding legacy gt

 

[Adul]

So far from what I gather from this thread is

A blowup chrysler is worthless compared to a blown up Acura, though it will cost more to fix the blown up acura then it would to fix the chrysler. 😛

And people in this thread are a bunch of 5 year olds who can not read.

 

[hans007]

chrysler is below average reliability same with benz.


if you are gonna get an american car get a ford, the jd power reliability rankings say they are up there with bmw.