My parents looked at the Magnum and chose a Volvo wagon instead. Their complaints were that the wagon did not have enough space, the interior was more like their old Rambler American than a car costing that much, and it felt too stiff and heavy on the road. Mainly it was a matter of space, for a bit more money they got a Volvo that was lower to the ground but had much more cargo space, was far more comfortable, and got better mileage.
That was before Ford bought Volvo, I think. They did get another Volvo after that one -- their Volvos have been very well made and reliable. Funny thing is, the new Volvo's gauge cluster looks as though it’s a revised 300M.
The first gen 300 was heavily fleeted and had a base car that was worthy of....well nothing. Nasty looking cloth seats with a smattering of options. It had a base price of $23.5k The current gen 300 bases at $30k and comes standard with a good array of options (leather / dual HVAC, etc...). I'm willing to bet the profit margins on the current 300 are considerably better then the first gen.
I think on leases, they certainly do have a higher profit, because any decent lease from the first generation would be painfully expensive for Chrysler due to the low resale values. The current one, by making leather standard and the base model more consistent with the C, has much higher residuals and therefore leasing is less costly.
The other thing about the first gen is the 3.5 V6, while a strong engine in the 300M, was not strong enough for all the added weight, esp with the four-speed it had in the first years. My impression with the first generation 300 was that the 300C was the car that had real value -- I wouldn't get a 300. I know others disagree and that's OK, but not until the eight-speed do I think the V6 LX cars were worthwhile. Amusingly the police in my town have switched to the V6 Chargers, -- with the five speeds. But by the time they stop making those for the police, Chrysler will be able to point to reliability and durability among the civvie cars.
