Chrysler 300 engine noise

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
15,116
Location
Illinois
Rented a Chrysler 300 today as the Fusion went in for body repair for hail damage. Was on the interstate today(I 270) and romped her going up sunset hill near Il 157. The engine in the 300 is very nice with normal driving, but hard throtle I noticed the engine had a lot of mechanical noise. Didn't care for that, but all in all the 300 is a nice ride.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Which engine was it? 2.7L? 3.5L? 5.7L? Some engines have a lot of accessory drive noise. (The Malibu with the 2.4L comes to mind)


Sorry, 3.5.
 
Originally Posted By: tig1
Rented a Chrysler 300 today as the Fusion went in for body repair for hail damage. Was on the interstate today(I 270) and romped her going up sunset hill near Il 157. The engine in the 300 is very nice with normal driving, but hard throtle I noticed the engine had a lot of mechanical noise. Didn't care for that, but all in all the 300 is a nice ride.


My wife owned a first-generation 3.5 (iron block) for 260,000 wonderful miles. The auto rags have always claimed that it is "noisy," but at least what we always heard was induction and exhaust noise- nice and throaty when you get on it, silent when just cruising. I've spent relatively little time behind the wheel of the 2nd gen 3.5, but I really liked what I heard and felt. What drives me batty are all these cars I rent now where when you get the RPM up all you can hear is timing chain or belt whine, transmission gear noise, and power steering pump noise.
 
The 5.7 is the only engine that belongs in the 300...A friend has a 07 with the 5.7 and its the perfect engine for it...I have no clue why Chrysler puts the 2.7 in it...Even the 300 rental cars should have at least the 3.5 in it.
 
Originally Posted By: CROWNVIC4LIFE
The 5.7 is the only engine that belongs in the 300...A friend has a 07 with the 5.7 and its the perfect engine for it...I have no clue why Chrysler puts the 2.7 in it...Even the 300 rental cars should have at least the 3.5 in it.


It appears that they did it to be able to compete price-wise in their class.

Considering all base model vehicles with 3.5 liter engines:

Charger - $25995 MSRP
Impala - $24290 MSRP
Taurus - $25170 MSRP

MSRP for the Charger with a 2.7 drops to $25140.

But I agree... when all of your direct competition uses a 3.5 for their base engines... even offering 2.7 is a little odd.

But we are talking about Chrysler.
21.gif
 
Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
Originally Posted By: CROWNVIC4LIFE
The 5.7 is the only engine that belongs in the 300...A friend has a 07 with the 5.7 and its the perfect engine for it...I have no clue why Chrysler puts the 2.7 in it...Even the 300 rental cars should have at least the 3.5 in it.


It appears that they did it to be able to compete price-wise in their class.

Considering all base model vehicles with 3.5 liter engines:

Charger - $25995 MSRP
Impala - $24290 MSRP
Taurus - $25170 MSRP

MSRP for the Charger with a 2.7 drops to $25140.

But I agree... when all of your direct competition uses a 3.5 for their base engines... even offering 2.7 is a little odd.

But we are talking about Chrysler.
21.gif



Your probably right as it keeps the price down...One P.D. got a 2.7 Charger for a unmarked car...The driver of it hated it...Most PD's here get the 3.5 at least.
 
I like the 3.5. drove a ...95-96? LHS for a few months. Dual exh to the muffler, single pipe behind that. dual intakes, each one serving 3 cylinders... that engine was a dream to open up, and had one of the nicest v6 gurgles I've heard.

Belt-driven cams.
 
Last edited:
I agree that the 2.7 really doesn't belong in the LX cars at all. It doesn't even get better fuel economy than the 3.5 because its working so dang hard all the time, and it really sucks to drive. But I don't think the 5.7 is the "only" engine that belongs there (don't forget the 6.1 after all :) Seriously- the 3.5 is the perfect base engine for that car- more than enough power to get out of its way, but better efficiency than the 5.7. Especially if they'd have paired the 3.5 with a 5-speed automatic more often than they did. Then the 3.5 HO is a good low/mid range step up, then the 5.7, and of course the 6.1 for the SRT-8 versions.

I think the offering of the 2.7 was almost entirely geared to fleet (translation: rental car) sales.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top