Did the D7000 live up to your expectations?

Am I right in assuming the D7000 produces much superior results to the D300

It depends on how you use them both, and what you mean by "much." The D300 still has the superior autofocus system, more externalized controls, and greater frame rate, depending on how you use it. "Better" may depend on these things, for certain kinds of shooting. The D7000, on the other hand, will give you a stop-or-so better high ISO performance, and video.

As a D2x and D200 user, I'm very pleased with the D7000's image quality (naturally). Two drawbacks: the body size is just small enough to become uncomfortable in my hands, compared to the larger models. My big complaint is the small buffer. I've maxed it out shooting raw many times, and even reviewing photos is annoyingly slow while the buffer is clearing.
Other than that, it really is a solid body.

I was very pleased with my former D300 but I am delighted with my D7000. I'm not shooting sport and action so I do not miss the AF and buffer from D300. I like the smaller factor and honestly I enjoy the ergonomics of D7000. I used it up to ISO 6400 and works well if exposed right. For me is a winner.

I'm still learning about mine. I still wish it fit my hands like my F4, but my budget wouldn't stretch far enough for the larger bodies. Other than that, it does what I hoped it would. It meters with my old MF lenses. I can use an old PN-11 close-up extension. It has a better focus confirmation than the D300. > 0 < vs. just a dot which I need for MF lenses. It has a commander mode for the pop-up flash so I can use the Nikon CLS system without getting an SB-800 or newer main flash.I use my SB-600 as the slave and the pop-up in different settings to control it.

I love the image quality my D7000's puts out, I just wish that sensor was in the D300, because I miss its ergonomics, AF system, metal body (I've had one D7000's crushed, one dropped from a high place (in case but it damaged the AF mount because it was attached to a lens), and one had issues from excessive dust exposure. Needless to say I'm one of those people that benefits from weather sealing and an all-magnesium body. The buffer is also very annoying on the D7000, I shoot high school sports and I find it very annoying when I start shooting a playing who just stole the ball and by the time they are to mid-court my buffer is full and I'm lucky to be able to shoot again by the time the player makes it to the basket. Also the the AF system is noticeably slower and is more prone to misses than the D300's. Bottom line, if you are shooting landscapes in an environmentally friendly location, or you need all the low light\resolution performance you can get, and\or video then the D7000 is your camera. If you shoot everyday, all day, or you are shooting sports (or other AF intensive needs), or in hellish environment, I think the D300 is a better choice. However if you have a solid D300 now and a backup, my recommendation is to wait for the D400, as it will likely include all the benefits of the D7000 and D300, albeit naturally for more money ;).

I'm a working pro, I shoot D7000's because I make the majority of my living from film work, commercials, music videos, etc, and the D7000 is Nikon's only decent video DSLR, until February 15th anyways. Once the D4 comes out, as much as I've enjoyed using my D7000's they'll be gone, its not an IQ issue, its ergonomics issue, that is very important to me. Of course the D4's video is superior in every way to any DSLR, plus its AF is going to make the D7000's AF look like a go-cart at the Indie 500 (the D3s already does, and the D4 is supposed to be better).

sorry about your camera .
I Love my D7000, and yes its pass my expectations. I upgraded from a D5000 didn't think it would be that much better, but it was. But if you already have a D300 in good working order , I would wait till there a D300S replacement and have the D300 as a backup.

There wa a silly argument in favor of D7000 autofocus, over D300.
D7000 uses the CAM-4800DX while D300 uses only a CAM-3500DX.
So, naturally, 4800 seems much more them 3500.
....:)
sort of argument like argument in acourt of law, that a bigamist was already punished enough, by having to deal with 2 mother-in-laws.

Apart from consistency of AF when tracking moving subjects, yes, the camera is excellent. But that's not enough.

Actually it exceeded my expectations. For the price, it is probably the best value out there from Nikon. I use mine for sports and don't have any issues with AF, even in less than ideal light (local indoor hockey stadium lighting). With the correct settings and proper ultra high speed memory cards (San Disk Extreme Pro, for example) specially matched to take full advantage of this body's 'turbo' write speed, the 16 RAW image buffer is adequate and clears relatively fast.