Real fuel consumption and economy logo

Chrysler 300C fuel consumption

Of all Chrysler 300C modifications produced from 2004 to 2020 real fuel consumption according to user ratings is approximately 10% higher compared to advertised consumption. For petrol engines real consumption is in average 9% higher, but for diesel engines is approximately 11% higher. Starting from 2004 Chrysler 300C average difference between actual owner-reported fuel consumption and stated consumption was slightly above industry average, at 2007 it was similar to average, at 2008 difference between owner-reported and advertised fuel economy became less than industry average. Of course, it should be noted that the gap between advertised and actual fuel economy changed quite significantly across the entire automotive industry during this period. For more details, see the table below.

Year-to-year deviations of actual owner-reported average fuel consumption from advertised values

YearGasoline carsDiesel cars
All carmakersChrysler 300CAll carmakersChrysler 300C
2004+7%+10% +9%-
Show all years
2005+8%+11% +10%+11%
2006+9%+11% +11%+11%
2007+11%+11% +12%+11%
2008+12%+11% +13%+11%
2009+14%+11% +14%+11%
2010+16%+11% +16%+11%
2011+19%+11% +19%+11%

See below for the actual consumption of generations and versions of Chrysler 300C.

2004 - 2011

Chrysler 300C 2004 Touring wagon fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines19.3 MPG
12.2 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines18.5 MPG
12.7 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+6%
Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines28.3 MPG
8.3 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for diesel engines25.8 MPG
9.1 l/100km
Average real diesel consumption difference *+10%
ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
2.7 liter petrol engine
Chrysler 300C 2004 Touring 2.7 V6 193 HP automatic 21.4 MPG
11.0 l/100km
3.0 liter diesel engine
Chrysler 300C 2005 Touring 3.0 CRD 218 HP automatic 28.3 MPG
8.3 l/100km
25.8 MPG
9.1 l/100km+10%
3.5 liter petrol engine
Chrysler 300C 2004 Touring 3.5 V6 253 HP automatic 21.4 MPG
11.0 l/100km
21.6 MPG
10.9 l/100km-1%
Chrysler 300C 2004 Touring 3.5 V6 AWD 253 HP automatic 19.6 MPG
12.0 l/100km
19.6 MPG
12.0 l/100km0%
5.7 liter petrol engine
Chrysler 300C 2004 Touring HEMI 5.7 V8 340 HP automatic 19.6 MPG
12.0 l/100km
16.2 MPG
14.5 l/100km+21%
Chrysler 300C 2004 Touring HEMI 5.7 V8 AWD 340 HP automatic 18.1 MPG
13.0 l/100km
16.2 MPG
14.5 l/100km+12%
6.1 liter petrol engine
Chrysler 300C 2006 Touring HEMI 6.1 V8 SRT-8 425 HP automatic 16.8 MPG
14.0 l/100km
2004 - 2011

Chrysler 300C 2004 sedan fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines19.6 MPG
12.0 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines17.9 MPG
13.1 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+11%
Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines29.0 MPG
8.1 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for diesel engines25.8 MPG
9.1 l/100km
Average real diesel consumption difference *+12%
ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
2.7 liter petrol engine
Chrysler 300C 2004 2.7 V6 193 HP automatic 21.4 MPG
11.0 l/100km
3.0 liter diesel engine
Chrysler 300C 2005 3.0 CRD 218 HP automatic 29.0 MPG
8.1 l/100km
25.8 MPG
9.1 l/100km+12%
3.5 liter petrol engine
Chrysler 300C 2004 3.5 V6 253 HP automatic 21.4 MPG
11.0 l/100km
21.6 MPG
10.9 l/100km-1%
Chrysler 300C 2004 3.5 V6 253 HP 4x4 automatic 21.6 MPG
10.9 l/100km
5.7 liter petrol engine
Chrysler 300C 2004 HEMI 5.7 V8 340 HP automatic 19.6 MPG
12.0 l/100km
16.7 MPG
14.1 l/100km+18%
Chrysler 300C 2005 HEMI 5.7 V8 AWD 340 HP automatic 19.4 MPG
12.1 l/100km
16.6 MPG
14.2 l/100km+17%
6.1 liter petrol engine
Chrysler 300C 2006 HEMI 6.1 V8 SRT-8 425 HP automatic 16.8 MPG
14.0 l/100km
15.1 MPG
15.6 l/100km+11%

* - Difference between advertised and user reported fuel economy has been calculated taking into account only those car versions for which information is available both on the fuel consumption specified by the manufacturer and reported by users.

User-reported fuel consumption may not accurately represent all users' experiences due to variables such as driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the vehicle, and other circumstances. Thus, it should not be relied upon as a representative indicator.