Chrysler 300 vs Kia Forte: Specs Compared

Running cost over five years: at the EPA's 15,000-mile-a-year assumption the Kia Forte burns about $1,750 of fuel annually against $2,650 for the Chrysler 300. That $900 yearly gap compounds to roughly $4,500 over five years and $7,200 over eight — often more than the price difference between two trims of the same vehicle, and the single largest running-cost line item separating these two.

City and highway economy: the Kia Forte leads in both cycles — 31 mpg city and 41 mpg highway against 19 and 30 mpg — so its fuel-efficiency advantage holds whether you commute in traffic or cover long highway miles.

Powertrain choice: the Chrysler 300 is recorded with 4 distinct engine configurations (3.6, 5.7, 6.4), the Kia Forte with 3 (SIDI, 2.0, 1.8). Across 38 recorded Chrysler 300 configurations and 60 for the Kia Forte, the wider the engine spread the more the real-world fuel efficiency depends on which version you actually buy, so check the specific model year and drivetrain rather than the headline number.

Drivetrain and class: the Chrysler 300 is offered with All-Wheel Drive, Rear-Wheel Drive, the Kia Forte with Front-Wheel Drive. All-wheel drive typically costs one to two mpg combined against the same vehicle in front- or rear-wheel drive, which is worth remembering when the gap between these two is small. The EPA classes them as Large Cars and Midsize Cars respectively — the class drives the interior volume, cargo space and passenger space each one is measured against.

Tailpipe emissions: at their cleanest configurations the Kia Forte emits 256 g/mile of CO2 versus 389 g/mile for the Chrysler 300. Emissions track fuel consumption almost exactly, so the cleaner vehicle here is also the cheaper one to fuel.