An accountant at the Dept I worked at had a 300 - nice car, but she needed one and a half parking spaces (length wise not width wise) in which to park it.

Still based on an old Mercedes E-class - so perhaps not typically American as it could turn corners.

The 300C is the sort of car that Toad would have driven if The Wind in the Willows wers set in modern times.

Vauxhall Viscount instead?

'There are dozens of identiclone MPVs that are indistinuighable from one another and the 300 is a refreshing change.'

The Chrysler Grand Voyager would be the alternative for people looking at an MPV, not the 300c.

A 300c is great value for scrapyards: lots of metal content.

Apart from that, it's a conspicuous waste of resources on a not very good car best suited to chavs.

The Chrysler Grand Voyager would be the alternative for people looking at an MPV, not the 300c.

I think unthrottled was referring to the fact every car looks exactly the same now, they've all come off the same production line with the same looks with different badges stamped on them that when something different and aggressive like the 300C turns up its a refreshing change. Most carmarkers would be too afraid to make a car like the 300C that they'd go 'oh no lets make a diesel hatchback instead.'

If, in terms of build quality, you consider the 300C no worse than a Vauxhall, buy a Vauxhall. At least doing that will keep some British workers in jobs.

A) I buy cars second hand, so me buying a used Vauxhall wont keep any British manufacturing staff in work

B) Only an idiot buys a car based on who built it :P

unthrottled has a point about the rarity of the reasonably priced rear-drive saloon. Rewind 10 years and you could easily pick up a Vauxhall Omega, Ford Scorpio, Ford Granada etc and they were reasonably priced new, nowadays unless you can afford something German or a Jag you're pretty much stuck with euroboxes and lifeless Korean tin. At least the 300C fills a market, its a market which died long ago but at least its being filled.

Is that from experience or hearsay I have had three e class DBs w210,211 and now a 212 all 220 cdi never had any problems no rust no problems exept the bouncing door lock syndrome which is easily cured and under warranty.I had no problems with my past C class estate 180k or my CLC again 180k they do go wrong like any other car only not so often and the drive experience is second to none.

The addition of Chrysler isnt what damaged Mercedes.

Just been having a look at the new 300C and it seems even Chrysler think it was too brash and aggressive, the new model looks a lot more conservative in its front end styling.

But BMW's cars didnt suffer as a result. Even getting bangle to design them wasnt enough to destroy BMW's sales. You can lump a BMW badge on anything and it'll sell.

Daimler used a previous generation E-class on which to base the 300c, the SLK on which to base the Crossfire, and the Mercedes M-class on which the Jeep Grand Cherokee is still based.

Daimler invested $2 billion in Chrysler. When they 'sold' Chrysler to Cerberus Capital Management in 2007, the purchase price included $5 billion that Cerberus were to invest in Chysler and $1.05 billion in the finance unit. Daimler received $1.35 billion directly from Cerberus, but paid Cerberus $650 million to take Chrysler and other liabilities off its hands. When Chrysler entered bankruptcy protection in 2009, eight plants were closed and 789 dealer contracts were cancelled.

Fiat now own 58% of the 'new', smaller Chrysler.

That is what the figures I've seen suggest. Presumably that would have been 'new' money, and wouldn't have included the costs already invested in the Mercedes models used by Chrysler for the Crossfire, the Grand Cherokee and the 300c.

The formation of Daimler Chrysler in 1998 was a merger rather than one company buying the other, and the merger led to an exchange of shares between the two companies. Lasted 9 years. Compare that to the amount that Toyota has invested in Toyota Manufacturing UK, which, including the latest investment in making Burnaston the European Centre for C-segment hatchbacks (next years Auris replacement), totals £2 billion since 1989 (effectively the car assembly plant at Burnaston and the engine plant at Deeside).

Haven't been able to find the net profit for the full year. For the third quarter their profit was 16% down at $1.9 billion.

For 2006 Chrysler made a loss of $1.5 billion, whereas the merged company Daimler Chrysler made an operating profit of $7.28 billion. Before Chrysler was sold in August 2007 they closed 2 plants as part of a re-structuring exercise.

Presumably Daimler did as BMW did with Rover, and decided to ditch the loss making Chrysler business before the whole group was dragged down.

Yes, I think BMW are still majority owned by the Quandt family - and it was they who became very nervous with Rover, and forced the sale. As with Rover, a number of other companies were approached to buy Chrysler (VW, the Renault/Nissan alliance, PSA, etc) but no-one was interested