You know, I have been thinking about it a lot, and I have come to the conclusion that Chrysler's own 3.5L V6 is better engineered than the above Mercedes engine.

Sure, the 3.2L has plenty of interesting features such as hollow cams, twin plug heads, and magnesium bits, but all of these features mean the engine is just that much more expensive to build (and price into a new car). But, what does all of that expensive gee-whiz engineering really get you?

Consider that the Chrysler 3.5L makes 250 hp at 6,400 rpm, and 250 lb-ft of torque at 3,900 rpm. Sure, it displaces more than our 3.2L, but for that extra 300 cc, you get 35 more peak hp with the Chrysler mill. Since torque is a function of displacement, the 3.5L is superior in that aspect as well.

Chrysler's 3.5L requires 5 quarts of cheap oil at every change, whereas the Benz engine requires 8.5 quarts of expensive synthetic. Consider too that the Benz mill runs on premium fuel, whereas the Chrysler 3.5L has been calibrated to run on mid-grade. By the way, a 4,066-pound Chrysler 300 with a 3.5L V6 gets 19 city/ 27 hwy. This is better than the 17 city/ 25 highway that the EPA estimates for my significantly lighter 2005 Crossfire coupe. (Shouldn't a less powerful, aerodynamic car do much better on fuel economy than a luxury car that weights a thousand pounds more and is shaped like a brick?)

So, yeah, the Crossfire mill has some exotic features that make for interesting bar room talk. But at the end of the day, compared with the Chrysler mill, you are getting a more expensive, less powerful engine that costs the owner more to operate. Where's the beef?