Chrysler 300C SRT8 and Cadillac STS-V Team Up: American Psycho Sedans

[mystikranger]

Amber waves of tire smoke
By Jason Kavanagh Email | Blog


Date posted: 07-06-2006

Like Dave Chappelle in a Comedy Central office, the Big Three's participation in the mega-power luxury sedan segment has been notable by its absence. The Germans' monopoly on horsepower has been famously one-sided over the past decade, with Mercedes-Benz's AMG and BMW's M divisions spitting molten tire bits into the grilles of the world's performance sedans. That all changed earlier this year with the release of the 2006 Cadillac STS-V and Chrysler 300C SRT8.

As hopped-up versions of the STS and 300C, these American rocket sleds sit at the pinnacle of their respective manufacturers' sedan hierarchy. They measure within an inch and a half of each other in all dimensions, sport exclusive body trimmings, domestic name plates, interiors outfitted a cut above their more pedestrian counterparts, and fully modernized automatic transmissions. These striking similarities made a standoff between the two flagships undeniably attractive, but the clincher was the storming, rear-wheel-churning V8 engine in the well-tailored nose of each one

More Here

[megeebee]

Wow, they actually liked them.

[TuffG929]

When does the STS move to Sigma II. I'm ready for the next step in Caddy's transformation.

[91 s-10baja]

Our tester (Chrysler) was equipped with this clever Rear Seat Entertainment folding DVD screen, a $1,150 option.

Didn't the Malibu have this in 04'? Very Clever Chrysler!

[chadbarb99]

Why is the STS-V slower than the 300C? Has much more power!!!

[MrMax]

The STS-V is heavier and its supercharged. Remember, a naturally aspirated engine is almost always better than forced induction. (Except when comparing a Chrysler to a Cadillac.)Still, the drivers at Edmunds were probably launching the cars wrong. The STS-V is definitely quicker than the SRT-8.

[Slideways]

Originally Posted by MrMax

Remember, a naturally aspirated engine is almost always better than forced induction.

I hope you're kidding. What about diesels, Buick Grand Nationals, Syclones, Typhoons, Sky Red Lines, Solstice GXPs, ect.? And those are just GM examples.

[mgescuro]

Am I the only one who thinks the the STS-V needs better tires than 18/19 Run-flats???
Maybe 19/20... at the very least!!

My 9-5 has a better skidpad than the STS-V!!!!!

[91 s-10baja]

It [STS-V] innocuously oozes "NASDAQ stockbroker," while the SRT8 channels "NASCAR stocker."

Hmmmm?

[kool_zx3]

I want an srt-8 bad..... In black those things turn heads everywhere. I have seen a few around and man, what a machine. It's cheaper, almost just as fast, looks nicer (to me anyway) it's just plain awesome for the price.

[rueben44]

Well I think it should have 19's all around. If I were to get one they would have to replace the front two tires for me as part of the deal. The STS-V is so much more car though. I like the idea of the car being smooth as cream and still having chops when you need it. I do not want a ruff car just so I can post better numbers like say a M5 or AMG Benz.

Oh and the comments about the NASDAQ and NASCAR were to reiterate that one car is very refined and the other more raw and ruff around the edges. An executive will drive a STS-V and a owner of a mechanic shop the 300C.

[Michael_S]

Originally Posted by chadbarb99

Why is the STS-V slower than the 300C? Has much more power!!!

Good question. The SRT-8 has a 100 pound weight advantage, but that shouldn't be enough to offset the difference in horsepower and torque. Not to mention the closer gear spacing in the STS-V's 6 speed automatic.

[usa1]

Originally Posted by Slideways

I hope you're kidding. What about diesels, Buick Grand Nationals, Syclones, Typhoons, Sky Red Lines, Solstice GXPs, ect.? And those are just GM examples.

I'd rather have a normally aspirated engine that produces the same horsepower over a forced induction engine any day. You'd rather have a 260 HP turbo I4 over a 260 HP 4V V6?

Mark

[kool_zx3]

Originally Posted by Michael_S

Good question. The SRT-8 has a 100 pound weight advantage, but that shouldn't be enough to offset the difference in horsepower and torque. Not to mention the closer gear spacing in the STS-V's 6 speed automatic.

Could be tires since run flats are freaking garbage.... Why does GM continue to use these tires? Put some real meat on the cars

[Ultra Magnus]

As much as I love the STS-V you have to give the 300 credit for getting most of the performance and style for almost half the price.