Driving automobiles

Renting 300C, Magnum or Charger

How do I rent a 300C, Magnum or Charger? Want to test drive… and,
yes, I know, fleet vehicles are anemically powered, but it’s the rest
of the vehicle I’m interested in.

Want to know which agencies rent them, and how to maximize my chances
of getting one of those three instead of a substitute.

Thank you kindly.

.
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (24)

24 Responses to “Renting 300C, Magnum or Charger”

  1. admin says:

    John Bartley wrote:
    > How do I rent a 300C, Magnum or Charger? Want to test drive… and,
    > yes, I know, fleet vehicles are anemically powered, but it’s the rest
    > of the vehicle I’m interested in.

    > Want to know which agencies rent them, and how to maximize my chances
    > of getting one of those three instead of a substitute.

    > Thank you kindly.

    I’ve gotten Magnums from Dollar Rent-a-Car, one was a nice 3.5-powered
    one, the other was a pathetic 2.7 powered one.  Dollar is a
    mostly-Chrysler fleet. Thrifty has a pretty high percentage of Chryslers
    as well.

  2. admin says:

    I rented a Magnum from Thrifty at Edmonton Airport.
    Dreadful Car, very poor visibility, bad road holding and gulped gas.
    Glad I rented rather than bought.
    Keith
    "John Bartley" <john.bart…@gmail.com> wrote in message

    news:1132350096.846985.222510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com…

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > How do I rent a 300C, Magnum or Charger? Want to test drive… and,
    > yes, I know, fleet vehicles are anemically powered, but it’s the rest
    > of the vehicle I’m interested in.

    > Want to know which agencies rent them, and how to maximize my chances
    > of getting one of those three instead of a substitute.

    > Thank you kindly.

  3. admin says:

    Keith Phillips wrote:
    > I rented a Magnum from Thrifty at Edmonton Airport.
    > Dreadful Car, very poor visibility, bad road holding and gulped gas.
    > Glad I rented rather than bought.

    Not my impression at all. The 2.7 powered one I had was HIDEOUSLY
    underpowered, but got good mileage. The 3.5 had plenty of power for most
    uses, though I’d buy a 5.7 Hemi with MDS to get the acceptable mileage
    and >300 horsepower.  Both of them handled superbly in spite of having
    the smaller wheels than the Hemi version gets. Rear visibility isn’t
    great, but it sin’t terrible either. The windows are small, but well
    placed. If I do get a new car within the next couple of years, it WILL
    be a Magnum. My biggest complaints are that the interior is fairly
    spartan, and I’m not sure the A/C system is adequate for my climate. It
    seemed to take a long time to cool down, and the temps were only in the
    high 90s when I had the 2.7 rental. Neither had auto climate control, so
      maybe the full ATC climate control system has more cooling power.

  4. admin says:

    On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:41:36 -0800, John  Bartley wrote:
    > How do I rent a 300C, Magnum or Charger? Want to test drive… and,
    > yes, I know, fleet vehicles are anemically powered, but it’s the rest
    > of the vehicle I’m interested in.

    > Want to know which agencies rent them, and how to maximize my chances
    > of getting one of those three instead of a substitute.

    > Thank you kindly.

    You’ll have to call the rental agency directly to guarantee that they’ll
    hold a 300C for you. Making a reservation on a website won’t do it. Do a
    Google search for Chrysler 300C Rental to find out who rents them.

    BTW renting a vanilla 300 is pointless. The Hemi is what makes the 300C.
    The performance of the C makes up for the deficiencies of the 300. I
    have the 300C AWD and I love it but if I had a 300 I’m sure I’d hate it.
    The car has awful visibility because of it’s tiny windows. The Nav system
    has a poor user interface and a terrible data base. And the trunk is
    smaller then you would expect on a car this size (although it’s still
    fairly large). However it’s handling is great, the acceleration is
    breathtaking, and it can stop on a dime. The handling and stopping
    features are tied to the C packages so if you get a 6 cylinder 300 all you
    would have is an ordinary car with bad visibility and a small trunk.

  5. admin says:

    Of course it "gulped gas".  What do you expect from a 3.5-litre engine?

    It seems that particularly NAs love big engines (who wouldn’t) but also
    wonder about fuel consumption.

    If the price of petrol were to double tomorrow you’d be singing a different
    tune.

    Small wonder that most cars in Europe are 2 litres or less.

    DAS

    For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

    "Keith Phillips" <ekeithphill…@sympatico.ca> wrote in message

    news:3Lsff.3022$KP5.403591@news20.bellglobal.com…

    >I rented a Magnum from Thrifty at Edmonton Airport.
    > Dreadful Car, very poor visibility, bad road holding and gulped gas.
    > Glad I rented rather than bought.
    > Keith

    [...]

  6. admin says:

    Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
    > Of course it "gulped gas".  What do you expect from a 3.5-litre engine?

    You might be surprised. When my mother had to give up driving last year  I
    bought her Buick with a 3.8 l engine.  I was amazed at its gas mileage, 39 mpg
    on the highway, much better than a lot of small cars. My Honda Civic, which is
    about half the weight and has less than half the power, gets only a little
    better than that.

  7. admin says:

    Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
    > > "Keith Phillips" wrote

    > > I rented a Magnum from Thrifty at Edmonton Airport.
    > > … and gulped gas

    With what engine?  3.5 or 5.2?

    > Of course it "gulped gas".  What do you expect from a 3.5-litre
    > engine? NAs love big engines

    LOL.  You think 3.5 is a large engine?

    You guys in the UK have mostly engines under 2.5L because
    (historically) you were taxed an insane amount based on engine
    displacement, even engine bore, and also you tax automatic trannies
    because your gov’t thinks they’re evil.  If it wasn’t for that, you’d
    have more 3 and 4L engines in cars.

    We also love out automatic transmissions too – but I think that most
    people under 40 (here in USA/Canada) at this point who grew up as
    teenagers driving/owning shit-box 4-cylinders (like VW’s) with manual
    trannys tend to also look for manual trannys in new cars they buy
    now.  People over 40 are more likely to have had only
    automatic-transmission cars at home while they were growing up, and
    tend to not have ever learned how to drive a stick.

    > but also wonder about fuel consumption.

    People with large vehicles justify it because of the friggin kiddies
    (they need the back seat, or the 2 back seats, the baby shit, the
    perception of saftey in their land slugs.  They buy a $40k vehicle so
    they can shlep $300 worth of kid-shit to the cottage or the grand
    parents place for the weekend.

    They need 4 and 5L engines to move those 4500 lb vehicles around.

  8. admin says:

    "John Bartley" <john.bart…@gmail.com> wrote in message

    news:1132350096.846985.222510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com…

    > How do I rent a 300C, Magnum or Charger? Want to test drive… and,
    > yes, I know, fleet vehicles are anemically powered, but it’s the rest
    > of the vehicle I’m interested in.

    > Want to know which agencies rent them, and how to maximize my chances
    > of getting one of those three instead of a substitute.

    > Thank you kindly.

    most dealers will let you rent one for 24-48 hours.. usually for free.. i
    just did that with the Dodge Ram 2500

  9. admin says:

    Having visited London for a couple of weeks last year, I’d hate to see you
    guys driving around with faster cars.  You make NY taxi’s look like careful
    drivers.  By the way you are driving on the wrong side of the street
    although it is convenient for mailmen.

    "Dori A Schmetterling" <n…@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:ePydnTq6VOlApOLenZ2dnUVZ8qCdnZ2d@pipex.net…

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > Of course it "gulped gas".  What do you expect from a 3.5-litre engine?

    > It seems that particularly NAs love big engines (who wouldn’t) but also
    > wonder about fuel consumption.

    > If the price of petrol were to double tomorrow you’d be singing a
    > different tune.

    > Small wonder that most cars in Europe are 2 litres or less.

    > DAS

    > For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
    > —

    > "Keith Phillips" <ekeithphill…@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
    > news:3Lsff.3022$KP5.403591@news20.bellglobal.com…

    >>I rented a Magnum from Thrifty at Edmonton Airport.
    >> Dreadful Car, very poor visibility, bad road holding and gulped gas.
    >> Glad I rented rather than bought.
    >> Keith
    > [...]

  10. admin says:

    Art wrote:
    > Having visited London for a couple of weeks last year, I’d hate to see you
    > guys driving around with faster cars.  You make NY taxi’s look like careful
    > drivers.  By the way you are driving on the wrong side of the street
    > although it is convenient for mailmen.

    Hi…

    Durn, I have to ask…  how can it be (more) convenient for mailmen?

    I agree that they’re driving on the wrong side of the street, but
    the driver also gets in the wrong door…  still ends up away from
    the curb.  (or kerb, as I believe they spell it)

    Ken

  11. admin says:

    Actually I am wrong about the mailmen.  But wrong sided cars, when used in
    the US, are convenient to mailmen in rural areas so they can easily reach
    the mailbox on the right side of the street.

    "Ken Weitzel" <kweit…@shaw.ca> wrote in message

    news:j4Uff.537692$oW2.493987@pd7tw1no…

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > Art wrote:

    >> Having visited London for a couple of weeks last year, I’d hate to see
    >> you guys driving around with faster cars.  You make NY taxi’s look like
    >> careful drivers.  By the way you are driving on the wrong side of the
    >> street although it is convenient for mailmen.

    > Hi…

    > Durn, I have to ask…  how can it be (more) convenient for mailmen?

    > I agree that they’re driving on the wrong side of the street, but
    > the driver also gets in the wrong door…  still ends up away from
    > the curb.  (or kerb, as I believe they spell it)

    > Ken

  12. admin says:

    Art wrote:
    > Actually I am wrong about the mailmen.  But wrong sided cars, when used in
    > the US, are convenient to mailmen in rural areas so they can easily reach
    > the mailbox on the right side of the street.

    The people delivering around here just drive the wrong way down the road.

  13. admin says:

    You don’t expect me to overlook this gratuitous, inaccurate criticism, do
    you?  ;-)

    You raised the subject, not I…

    We drive on the correct side of the road, and have been doing so for 2000
    years, whereas Americans follow the regime imposed by Napoleon on Europe
    when he occupied most of it in the 19th C.  Before then many regions drove
    on the left.

    To this day about one-third of the world still drives on the left, notably
    AU, Japan, the Subcontinent and other chunks of Asia.

    http://www.i18nguy.com/driver-side.html#countrytable

    So, YOU drive on the ‘other’ side which is, of course, correct for you.
    After all, you would not want to drive on the left in NYC, would you, though
    other contributors seem to think that people DO drive on the left in some
    parts of the US?…

    DAS

    For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

    "Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLE…@mindspring.com> wrote in message

    news:p_Tff.3103$N45.767@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net…
    [...]
      By the way you are driving on the wrong side of the street
    > although it is convenient for mailmen.

    [...]

  14. admin says:

    No.  We in Europe and much of the rest of the world have ‘small’ engines
    because of the high price of fuel.  As I indicated in my earlier post.

    I have never heard of taxes on auto gearboxes, neither in UK nor in Germany,
    for example.  Cite your source/s.  I have never heard any member of the UK
    government express any opinion on the type of transmission.  Have you been
    smoking wacky ‘baccy?

    As it happens I personally much prefer automatic.  When I was young I used
    to scoff at auto… until I went to the States when I was 21 and hired a car
    (which, of course, was auto).  Although I have had some manuals I would
    never get one now unless forced.  Haven’t had one for maybe 20 years.
    ‘Course I hire them all the time.  Too dear to hire autos in Europe.  And
    manual reminds why I prefer auto, especially as I live in a metropolis.

    DAS

    For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

    "MoPar Man" <Mo…@Man.com> wrote in message

    news:437F4D6C.E491EE6E@Man.com…
    [...]

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > You guys in the UK have mostly engines under 2.5L because
    > (historically) you were taxed an insane amount based on engine
    > displacement, even engine bore, and also you tax automatic trannies
    > because your gov’t thinks they’re evil.  If it wasn’t for that, you’d
    > have more 3 and 4L engines in cars.

    > We also love out automatic transmissions too – but I think that most
    > people under 40 (here in USA/Canada) at this point who grew up as
    > teenagers driving/owning shit-box 4-cylinders (like VW’s) with manual
    > trannys tend to also look for manual trannys in new cars they buy
    > now.  People over 40 are more likely to have had only
    > automatic-transmission cars at home while they were growing up, and
    > tend to not have ever learned how to drive a stick.

    >> but also wonder about fuel consumption.

    [...]

  15. admin says:

    Dori A Schmetterling, <n…@nospam.co.uk> was motivated to say this in
    rec.autos.driving on Sun, 20 Nov 2005 22:19:38 -0000:

    > So, YOU drive on the ‘other’ side which is, of course, correct for you.
    > After all, you would not want to drive on the left in NYC, would you, though
    > other contributors seem to think that people DO drive on the left in some
    > parts of the US?…

    You are thinking of LLB’s (Left Lane Blockers – or Bandits or
    Bastards…); hypocritical selfrighetous bastards who think it is their
    God given right to drive slowly and well under the flow of traffic in
    the passing lane (the leftmost lane of a highway with two or more lanes
    going in the same direction) of an interstate or other expressway. Not
    sure which lane you guys in the UK use for the passing lane on your
    expressways, but I’m willing to bet you have people with the same LLB
    mentality there…

  16. admin says:

    "Dori A Schmetterling" <n…@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
     After all, you would not want to drive on the left in NYC, would you,
    though other contributors seem to think that people DO drive on the left in
    some  parts of the US?…

    I don’t think anyone wants to drive through NYC ;-)

    Ken

  17. admin says:

    We happen to call them left-lane-dicks. We have plenty of them here in NJ.

    Ken

    "necromancer" <necroman…@kretp.tmy> wrote in message

    news:MPG.1deb1667e858cd139896a3@newsgroups.bellsouth.net…

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > Dori A Schmetterling, <n…@nospam.co.uk> was motivated to say this in
    > rec.autos.driving on Sun, 20 Nov 2005 22:19:38 -0000:
    >> So, YOU drive on the ‘other’ side which is, of course, correct for you.
    >> After all, you would not want to drive on the left in NYC, would you,
    >> though
    >> other contributors seem to think that people DO drive on the left in some
    >> parts of the US?…

    > You are thinking of LLB’s (Left Lane Blockers – or Bandits or
    > Bastards…); hypocritical selfrighetous bastards who think it is their
    > God given right to drive slowly and well under the flow of traffic in
    > the passing lane (the leftmost lane of a highway with two or more lanes
    > going in the same direction) of an interstate or other expressway. Not
    > sure which lane you guys in the UK use for the passing lane on your
    > expressways, but I’m willing to bet you have people with the same LLB
    > mentality there…

  18. admin says:

    I meant postmen & women…  :-)

    (Previous post had alluded to them.)

    Yes, we also have the LLB equivalents.  Of course.  People who don’t go back
    into the left lane when not overtaking and blocking other overtakers are
    known as roadhogs.  Not so serious when we have three lanes each way.

    And we DON’T allow (legally, anyway) overtaking on either side.

    DAS

    For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

    "necromancer" <necroman…@kretp.tmy> wrote in message

    news:MPG.1deb1667e858cd139896a3@newsgroups.bellsouth.net…

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > Dori A Schmetterling, <n…@nospam.co.uk> was motivated to say this in
    > rec.autos.driving on Sun, 20 Nov 2005 22:19:38 -0000:
    >> So, YOU drive on the ‘other’ side which is, of course, correct for you.
    >> After all, you would not want to drive on the left in NYC, would you,
    >> though
    >> other contributors seem to think that people DO drive on the left in some
    >> parts of the US?…

    > You are thinking of LLB’s (Left Lane Blockers – or Bandits or
    > Bastards…); hypocritical selfrighetous bastards who think it is their
    > God given right to drive slowly and well under the flow of traffic in
    > the passing lane (the leftmost lane of a highway with two or more lanes
    > going in the same direction) of an interstate or other expressway. Not
    > sure which lane you guys in the UK use for the passing lane on your
    > expressways, but I’m willing to bet you have people with the same LLB
    > mentality there…

  19. admin says:

    Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
    > Of course it "gulped gas".  What do you expect from a 3.5-litre engine?

    Engine displacement doesn’t correlate to fuel efficiency very strongly
    with modern combustion chamber design and engine control systems. All
    external things being equal (including driving style) a 2-liter and a
    3.5 liter would get within a few percent of each other installed in the
    same vehicle. Case in point, the Magnum with a 2.7 gets barely any
    better milage than a 3.5, and in the real world may get worse mileage
    than a 3.5 because the 2.7 has to be flogged continually. If the Magnum
    has a gas mileage problem, its got more to do with weight and frontal
    area than with engine size. Personally, the gas mileage numbers I’m
    hearing (23-25 highway with the 5.7 Hemi) are great for a car of that size.

  20. admin says:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:35:20 -0600, Steve wrote:
    > Dori A Schmetterling wrote:

    >> Of course it "gulped gas".  What do you expect from a 3.5-litre engine?

    > Engine displacement doesn’t correlate to fuel efficiency very strongly
    > with modern combustion chamber design and engine control systems. All
    > external things being equal (including driving style) a 2-liter and a
    > 3.5 liter would get within a few percent of each other installed in the
    > same vehicle. Case in point, the Magnum with a 2.7 gets barely any
    > better milage than a 3.5, and in the real world may get worse mileage
    > than a 3.5 because the 2.7 has to be flogged continually. If the Magnum
    > has a gas mileage problem, its got more to do with weight and frontal
    > area than with engine size. Personally, the gas mileage numbers I’m
    > hearing (23-25 highway with the 5.7 Hemi) are great for a car of that size.

    23 is the absolute best that I’ve been able to get with my AWD 300C and
    that only happens on very long drives (hundreds of miles of pure highway
    driving). Generally I’m getting 16-17 in everyday driving and highway
    trips usually peak at 21. My old Concorde got 22 in everyday driving and
    29 on the highway. I agree it’s probably not the engine, it’s the weight.
    The 300C is a two ton car with a square nose that can’t possible have
    decent aerodynamics. The Concorde was lighter and much more streamlined.

  21. admin says:

    On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
    > I meant postmen & women…  :-)

    > (Previous post had alluded to them.)

    > Yes, we also have the LLB equivalents.  Of course.  People who don’t go back
    > into the left lane when not overtaking and blocking other overtakers are
    > known as roadhogs.  Not so serious when we have three lanes each way.

    > And we DON’T allow (legally, anyway) overtaking on either side.

    Not strictly true: it is legal to overtake on the left hand side on a
    one-way road.

    I was told by a UK policeman some years back, during a lecture on road
    safety, that there is not an explicit ban on overtaking on the left on a
    motorway. He then pointed out that a motorway is really 2 one-way roads
    side by side. I think if you were to be charged for overtaking on the
    left, it would be for some vague offense such as "dangerous driving",
    "driving without due care and attention", etc..

    I think it is explicitly legal to overtake on the left if there are
    2 or more streams of traffic and the left hand stream is moving faster
    than the right-hand stream.

  22. admin says:

    Yes, in heavy traffic.  And at low speed only, IIRC.  (Don’t ask me what
    mph, I think it is a matter of disgression.)

    Mind you, I’d hate to change lanes when a full motorway-load is moving at c.
    90 mph (which I have experienced more than once).

    DAS

    For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

    "Whoever" <nob…@devnull.none> wrote in message

    news:Pine.LNX.4.64.0511211151270.6848@localhost.localdomain…
    [...]

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > I think it is explicitly legal to overtake on the left if there are 2 or
    > more streams of traffic and the left hand stream is moving faster than the
    > right-hand stream.

  23. admin says:

    Things HAVE improved and I have seen cases where, say, a 2.0 l engine
    consumes as much as or slightly more than a 2.3.

    However, I don’t think a 3.5 will use as little as a 2-litre in a similar
    car.

    DAS

    For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

    "General Schvantzkoph" <schvantzk…@yahoo.com> wrote in message

    news:pan.2005.11.21.15.44.24.339213@yahoo.com…

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:35:20 -0600, Steve wrote:

    >> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:

    >>> Of course it "gulped gas".  What do you expect from a 3.5-litre engine?

    >> Engine displacement doesn’t correlate to fuel efficiency very strongly
    >> with modern combustion chamber design and engine control systems. All
    >> external things being equal (including driving style) a 2-liter and a
    >> 3.5 liter would get within a few percent of each other installed in the
    >> same vehicle. Case in point, the Magnum with a 2.7 gets barely any
    >> better milage than a 3.5, and in the real world may get worse mileage
    >> than a 3.5 because the 2.7 has to be flogged continually. If the Magnum
    >> has a gas mileage problem, its got more to do with weight and frontal
    >> area than with engine size. Personally, the gas mileage numbers I’m
    >> hearing (23-25 highway with the 5.7 Hemi) are great for a car of that
    >> size.

    > 23 is the absolute best that I’ve been able to get with my AWD 300C and
    > that only happens on very long drives (hundreds of miles of pure highway
    > driving). Generally I’m getting 16-17 in everyday driving and highway
    > trips usually peak at 21. My old Concorde got 22 in everyday driving and
    > 29 on the highway. I agree it’s probably not the engine, it’s the weight.
    > The 300C is a two ton car with a square nose that can’t possible have
    > decent aerodynamics. The Concorde was lighter and much more streamlined.

  24. admin says:

    On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
    > Things HAVE improved and I have seen cases where, say, a 2.0 l engine
    > consumes as much as or slightly more than a 2.3.

    > However, I don’t think a 3.5 will use as little as a 2-litre in a similar
    > car.

    I think the problem is that at anything less than wide open throttle,
    there are pumping losses that are inherent in normal gasoline engine
    design. The only way to counter this is to reduce the effective cylinder
    volume (eg. Atkinson cycle or Miller cycle) or remove the throttle (eg.
    diesel engine).