2015 Chrysler 300 / 300 SRT Spy Photos: The 300 SRT Lives?

What It Is: Two versions of Chrysler’s flagship 300 sedan, both caught rumbling around Detroit with baggy covers on their front fascias, hoods, and rear ends. The camouflage is designed to obscure the changes Chrysler has in store as part of a 2015 model-year refresh. The car wearing light-finished multispoke aluminum wheels is a regular 300—either a 300C or a 300S—and the 300 rolling on dark-colored five-spoke wheels appears to be the high-performance 300 SRT model. READ MORE ››​

Continue reading...

 

You. have. GOT. to. be. kidding? You like this car??
You're a big fan of the 300??

No offense to your liking this particular monstrosity... I mean vehicle, but let me be honest when
I say that few cars, if ANY, have ever aggravated
me as much as the Chrysler 300.
Do you ever listen to Katt Williams? I mean, he has a filthy mouth, but he's kind of funny.
Ever heard his bit about the Chrysler 300, how people say, "I got it because it looks like a Phantom..."??

Ugh. The make of this car irritates me.

 

Okay. Your reasoning is fair. I admire you for the resolve you have in your opinion.
The fact that this car is dubbed the poor mans Bentley irritates me. I don't like most fake stuff. Fake bugs me.
To me, this car is really trying to be a poor mans version of a luxury ride, and it fails miserably if you ask me.
You like this car, and I respect that.

Now, I must admit that some fake stuff is okay, take for instance the thread here on this forum about fake body parts. Those don't bother me at all, not unless someone, when asked, lies and says that their fake stuff is real. A simple "none of your business" will suffice.

 

No, I have not been behind the wheel in one of these cars. You have, and you say they are a sweet ride.
Okay, great. I'm glad they're a sweet ride, and I suppose they should be.

The only thing that you wrote that makes me "like" this car is the 44 miles per gallon. Everything else, the comfort, the power, the size, all of that does not negate the fact that this car seems like it's just a cheap copy of an expensive original. It bugs me. But that's me and how I am.

I'm not a snob about being frugal where money is concerned. Being frugal with money is Wise, and I
know that better than many people because I've had money, and I've also been homeless.
I felt very comfortable in my own skin in both situations.
But...would I feel totally comfortable carrying a fake Gucci bag? No. I would not.

I'm not some diva that only wants the Bentley or nothing, it's just that most fake stuff bugs me. That's me. That's just the way I am.

Would I ride in one of these cars? Sure, if I had to. But it would bug me the whole time.

Let me also say that the fact that someone would build a copy of something in a cheaper price range to specifically cater to people
who can't afford the supposed finer things in life, is highly offensive to me.

 

Flexin, I don't see how you can look at this car and not see for yourself what this company's intentions were/are. Come on.

I'm sorry, but it offends me. Maybe I could be wrong about this, and I stand corrected if that's the case, but from the first time I saw one of these cars, I felt like this car company was trying to cater to a "certain audience", and that offends me.

Oh, and have I mentioned that this car offends me??

 

Close one eye and squint with the other?? Ah, I see you've got jokes.
Rent one and hash out my differences? Even more jokes.
I wish I could think of some sort of witty comeback in response to your humor, but alas, I can think of nothing, so...
moving on.

What I don't get is how you can write something like "...You can get a Rolls grill for them..."
but yet still stick to your story that Chrysler wasn't trying to copy the body type of certain luxury vehicles. Can you get a Rolls grill for a Jeep?
Um, Hello???????

You're just pulling my leg now Flexin', seriously. You're just being stubborn.

I mean, of course the cars aren't going to look exactly alike, after all, one car costs a hundred zillion dollars, the other car costs TWO ($2.00) dollars, so naturally the look isn't going to be exactly the same, but you said yourself people call it the poor man's Bentley.

The pictures that you included of a 2012 Chrysler compared to a Phantom, that Chrysler doesn't even look like a Chrysler 300, it's giving me more of a Hyundai Genesis feel.

Where's the pictures of the 2004 Chrysler 300's? What did they look like?
Show me some 2004's of this car. I need to see earlier versions.

 

Do I like your jokes? Um...No.

I think that you actually DO see the similarities between the two cars, but you're just too stubborn to admit it, and hey, being stubborn is cool with me, especially when I know I'm right.

That is a Beautiful picture of that Rolls.
I agree with you, the Rolls is kind of sexy, but in my opinion, the Rolls has a kind of tackiness to it, in addition to the sexiness of it.

If I had to pick between a Rolls and a Bentley, I'd probably have to pick the Bentley, because to me
it is a little bit more understated than the Rolls.

The grill on the Rolls kind of irritates me. The grill is bordering on tacky,
and it will be tacky if they make it even a half a centimeter longer. Looks like a jail cell .
They need to stop while they're ahead.
I like old-money elegance, not new money "let's-build-a-grill-that-we-can-see-from-space" type of stuff.

I wanted you to show me some pictures of the first model 300's, that way I can see if the company radically changed it's design over
the years. I think that they did change their design.