Has anyone looked at this car?

http://www.chrysler.com/crossfire/features/lineup/index.html

I mean, the regular Crossfire is OK, I guess if you like its looks, but the SRT6? Look at the price point on it! $46K? For a 330hp supercharged coupe? Who in their right mind, except for DCX execs, would ever buy this car when you can get a Corvette for the same price point?

Their target isn't Corvette buyers, it's more like SL500 buyers.

I like the features listed, besides the 330 hp

200mph speedometer!!! (as if the car can go that fast)
Unique SRT6 BADGES!!!! (can't wait to see them on a neon)
Fixed rear spoiler!! (so? the one that moves up and down is cooler)


So 16,000 dollars gets you a spoiler and 115hp. AND COOL BADGES!!

This car is peculiar--its main selling point is its looks. Its supposedly an excellent autoxer the problem is that even though its fast--its auto only; and the suspension beats you up. So those AMG buyers that want a fast ass car with an auto tranny usually prefer a more comfortable ride-so it misses the mark there; then the hardcore sports car buyers can find so many other offerings (M/T and A/T) that are better for the money. Boxster, SLK350, Corvette, M3, Elise, the list goes on.

I suddenly feel like I'm in last year...

Great Scotts!

I suddenly feel like I'm in last year...
LOL--thats what I was thinking

I didn't know it only came in auto...that's odd.

probably the same reason that the grand nationals only came in auto. with an auto, as long as its set up right, you can have quicker times vs a manual due to the fact that you arent losing boost between shifts, as with a manual you should be closing the throttle when you shift, whereas an auto you can keep your foot planted. plus, with todays technology, you can actually get better shift times out of an auto consistantly.

Autos can, and quite often are, faster on large-engined rear-wheel drive cars, particularly when forced induction is involved. But that doesn't mean that's necessarily what the consumer wants. However I'm sure Chrysler looked at what was selling on the others and determined what they needed to equip on the SRT. It's not like they don't have a lot of well-engineered RWD MTXs and SMGs to pick from in the Mercedes parts bin.

The Cadillac XLR also comes as automatic transmission only.

That car is based on the SL chassis...

Not SL but the SLK--the SLK32 was only available in auto--so hence the SRT8 available in auto only. The entire drivetrain is AMG.

who cares - it's ugly

The convertible is ok and it is fast--but I wouldn't drive one. My mom has an SLK and for me (5'11") I just can't find a really good seating position.

probably the same reason that the grand nationals only came in auto. with an auto, as long as its set up right, you can have quicker times vs a manual due to the fact that you arent losing boost between shifts, as with a manual you should be closing the throttle when you shift, whereas an auto you can keep your foot planted. plus, with todays technology, you can actually get better shift times out of an auto consistantly.Where's Gord to debate this ridiculous point?

Where's Gord to debate this ridiculous point?

It's not ridiculous, when placed in the correct context. Drag racing, for example, when talking about high torque/power vehicles with proper auto transmissions (LS1 + 4L60e, or the GN's turbo 3.8 + 200r4 come to mind)

There was a thread a while back where somebody was saying that the auto 8 is faster than the manual 8 because it shifts faster. Gord explained why that wasn't true...

I forget the reasoning but it sounded like it made sense...

I still think a good manual driver can shift faster than most autos. Plus you can control the RPMs and shift exactly where you want so this makes any time difference in shifting a non-issue.

This car is peculiar--its main selling point is its looks. Its supposedly an excellent autoxer the problem is that even though its fast--its auto only; and the suspension beats you up. So those AMG buyers that want a fast ass car with an auto tranny usually prefer a more comfortable ride-so it misses the mark there; then the hardcore sports car buyers can find so many other offerings (M/T and A/T) that are better for the money. Boxster, SLK350, Corvette, M3, Elise, the list goes on.

That's exactly what I'm thinking... Where does it hit its market without being absolutely killed by a superior vehicle? I'd only consider it competitive if they stripped $5-10K off the price tag. I can't see anyone taking it for any reason other than its looks. I personally don't like the way it looks.... Whenever I see the commercials, I laugh...

"What is inspiration? Can it be stylish at any speed? Yes.
Can a car be as beautiful with the top down as with the top up? Yes.
Can an AWFUL-looking back end completely kill one's interest in a vehicle? Absolutely.

The Chrysler Crossfire. Inspiration comes standard."

I think the "Inspiration comes standard" is the funniest line.

Where's the "inspiration" in raiding the parent company's left over, and archaic, architecture and putting a new skin on it?

Well you're both right and both wrong at the same time... There are certainly cars where the AT is just about as fast as the MT, a C5 vette is a good example. However if driven well the MT will still be faster but it's damn close. If you're talking dedicated drag car with the proper auto and cars that run 10 second or quicker 1/4 miles usually an auto will be faster and it will certainly be more consistent.

If anyone has driven a crossfire, they would know that in addition to upgrading the power, they really should work on the suspension and transmission. I drove an automatic at a "chrysler test fest" event and I could not believe the poor build quality and asthmatic engine. We went out in packs of about 10 cars in a row to do a couple minute street drive and they had walkie talkies routed through the car stereos, so the lead car could tell all the test drivers what's happening on the route. We were coming up to a long straight and the lead car said "Please refrain from holding back and stomping on the gas to test the cars acceleration" I swear I started laughing out loud, it's was just a terrible car all in all, ugly looks, poor performance, cheap, cramped interior.

Well you're both right and both wrong at the same time... There are certainly cars where the AT is just about as fast as the MT, a C5 vette is a good example. However if driven well the MT will still be faster but it's damn close. If you're talking dedicated drag car with the proper auto and cars that run 10 second or quicker 1/4 miles usually an auto will be faster and it will certainly be more consistent.

For high hp vehicles with Forced Induction, I think it comes down to the percentage of drivers that can manually outshift the new high tech auto trannys. I think most cannot. Even with old technology like in the GN. My friend had one years ago, and once moving, there was no break in between shifts, and the car was simply the most amazing auto I drove in at the time. A few years ago I was into the Mitsubishi Starion/ Conquest addiction. I owned three, and one was auto. I beefed up the turbo, exhaust, and raised the boost. Once I put that auto car into the high hp range, it out performed the manual in every aspect including launch, although I blew out tranny because it could not take the power. I realize this is only one example, but for the most part a high hp auto tranny will outdue a driver in manual, if for no other reason that there is no room for error, and the manual driver must be perfect.

who cares - it's ugly

ditto!

That was me! :o

There was a thread a while back where somebody was saying that the auto 8 is faster than the manual 8 because it shifts faster. Gord explained why that wasn't true...

I forget the reasoning but it sounded like it made sense...

I still think a good manual driver can shift faster than most autos. Plus you can control the RPMs and shift exactly where you want so this makes any time difference in shifting a non-issue.

I bet if this car was the same price, with a japanese-brand logo on it, no one would think twice about the pricetag.

This thing is a high 4 sec. car, slaloms 69 mph and up, skidpads @ .90g, and stops as short as 111 ft: in other words, it performs like a Vette for similar money. But of course no one complains about the Vette's pricetag.

with an auto, as long as its set up right, you can have quicker times vs a manual due to the fact that you arent losing boost between shifts...

I'm sorry dude but "boost?" Don't you mean momentum? Yeah, I'm an ass.

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with this thing being an auto. The upper-echelon cars have awesome slushboxes that rival the sticks, like Audi's DSG. There's also Prodrive's NGT (http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/editors/technobabble/0206scc_techno/). The coolest thing is these can be replicated out of the home, with the right tools of course. A Design IV team last year at my school built a CVT. Coolest thing I ever saw.

Like Dre said, this car doesn't seem to fit anywhere. Maybe Chrysler is making an attempt to put it in its own league...of extraordinary gentlemen, which was a shitty movie by the way.

Isn't this car a parts bin nightmare anyways? If I were in Chrysler's shoes, I would just try to give this thing a serious makeover, inside and out. Or you can just kick the engineers in the nuts. Shelling out $43,000 for something that performs below other cars in its price range is foolish IMO. Nevertheless, someone is going to buy this car. I've found similar conclusions to what others have been talking about.

http://info.detnews.com/autosconsumer/autoreviews/index.cfm?id=16694
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=8311&page_number=1
http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=100516

Your right, but because the Vette has lived up to its name for how many years now? Plus the Vette looks sweet, unlike that ugly ass Crossfire.


I bet if this car was the same price, with a japanese-brand logo on it, no one would think twice about the pricetag.

This thing is a high 4 sec. car, slaloms 69 mph and up, skidpads @ .90g, and stops as short as 111 ft: in other words, it performs like a Vette for similar money. But of course no one complains about the Vette's pricetag.

Am I reading this correctly in one of those articles that the steering wheel does not tilt? WTF!

Shelling out $43,000 for something that performs below other cars in its price range is foolish IMO. Nevertheless, someone is going to buy this car. I've found similar conclusions to what others have been talking about.


How about shelling out $25-32K for something that performs below other cars in its price range? Oh wait, that's us :p . People still buy the Rx-8, no reason why the Chrysler won't sell.

true....but our cars are pretty :p

abotu the whoel auto vs. manuel...are we talking generals..or specific trannies..i knwo there are a fwe different ones out there for both...like smg boxes..and those sutos that you can tell it when to shift (but it's still auto)..forogt the name...ah well it's early and i'm at work :p

Well, I was talking about specific transmissions. The 8's auto tranny, and those like it, do give more control of when you can shift. But they don't shift anywhere near as fast and hard as the 4L60E that GM makes (maybe some of the higher end ones, but I haven't driven any of the 600hp Benz's :D). You'd be hard pressed to find someone who could out shift it with a manual. But it only has 4 gears, a 6 speed version with equal gearing to GM's 6 speed would put the auto car ahead in 99% of all acceleration runs against its 6spd counterpart, in my opinion. But you lose the versatility of the MT for road course type competition/driving.

SMG's on the other hand are MT's, most have launch capability, and also will outshift 99+% of regular MT drivers out there. The audi DSG box is damn impressive, and even faster than the rest of the SMG field, from what i've read.

hehe unless it's the smg on the z4..i hear that is horrible

Your right, but because the Vette has lived up to its name for how many years now? Plus the Vette looks sweet, unlike that ugly ass Crossfire.
Let's dont forget beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My uncle says his Crossfire gets way more attention and compliments than his C6.

Am I reading this correctly in one of those articles that the steering wheel does not tilt? WTF!
Roadsters/2 seaters often don't, look at the Miata and RX-7.

But again, I bet that's forgiveable since they're non-domestics. :rolleyes:

How about shelling out $25-32K for something that performs below other cars in its price range? Oh wait, that's us :p . People still buy the Rx-8, no reason why the Chrysler won't sell.

Yeah, but I digressed at the end of my statement, because someone will buy this car. ;)

Yeah, I wouldn't consider the Corvette a "competitor" to the SRT-6. Chrysler is trying to make a fast upscale 2 seat convertible. The competitors should be the AMG SLK 55, BMW Z4, Porsche Boxster, Audi TT 3.2. Obviously all have their strengths & weaknesses (whether it be price or performance, appearance, etc.). If you compare the SRT-6 vs. the AMG SLK 55 it comes in at almost $10K less than the SLK. I think that was where Chrysler tried to be with this car. Personally I would still rather get the V8 SLK.

Also, like somebody re-iterated above. SMG's, Ferrari's F1, & Audi's DSG's are not automatics. They are manuals. Do they perform better than "regular" manuals, yes. In low to mid level torque cars none of the real automatics outperform manuals. Not even the supposed "best" automatic, the Porsche Tiptronic. Our cars just don't have the torque of say the Mustangs & Corvettes where it makes automatic vs. manual shifting a non-factor. A decently driven 6 sp. RX8 will clobber a automatic RX8 95 times out of 100.

hehe unless it's the smg on the z4..i hear that is horrible
It is--I've driven the SMG Z4 2.5 and 3.0 several times--I felt like I was learning to drive a M/T all over again with the harsh shifts.

In San Diego they can't sell those pices of junk so, they're discounting them 6,000

I drove the regular crossfire. What a POS. I hated the car. It's just ugly too, IMHO.

I bet if this car was the same price, with a japanese-brand logo on it, no one would think twice about the pricetag.

This thing is a high 4 sec. car, slaloms 69 mph and up, skidpads @ .90g, and stops as short as 111 ft: in other words, it performs like a Vette for similar money. But of course no one complains about the Vette's pricetag.

Well, Chrysler's website is touting low 5-second 0-60s wheras the Vette runs mid-4 seconds. I think it's safe to say that that gap is pretty huge. Look at the following pages...

Corvette: http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/chevrolet_corvette_coupe_2005/15462/style_performance.html;_ylt=AttfUBT6D8ZSPf.MpX220K 8IxMIF

Crossfire:
http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/chrysler_crossfire_srt6coupe_2005/14728/style_performance.html;_ylt=AttfUBT6D8ZSPf.MpX220K _JfMEF

Quantitatively, it looks like the performance gap is substantial. At best, you might say that the Crossfire brakes better and is quieter. Not only that, the price isn't simply "similar"; it is actually more expensive.

Yeah, I wouldn't consider the Corvette a "competitor" to the SRT-6. Chrysler is trying to make a fast upscale 2 seat convertible. The competitors should be the AMG SLK 55, BMW Z4, Porsche Boxster, Audi TT 3.2. Obviously all have their strengths & weaknesses (whether it be price or performance, appearance, etc.). If you compare the SRT-6 vs. the AMG SLK 55 it comes in at almost $10K less than the SLK. I think that was where Chrysler tried to be with this car. Personally I would still rather get the V8 SLK.


Hmmm, I guess this makes sense... if they're going for a more luxury segment rather than strictly performance. I guess when I see a "performance upgrade" series like the SRTs or the AMGs or the BMW Ms or the Audi Ss I expect them to be pushing more toward performance than luxury.

Although, if you compare the SRT6 to the luxury models is it not still getting killed? The SRT6 Roadster ($50K) pricier than an TT 250 Quattro ($43K), Z4 3.0 ($41K), and SLK 350 ($46K)... It barely outperforms them but doesn't have the major advantages like the SLK's hard top, the TT's AWD or the Z4's $9K. Of course, it certainly is lacking in the cachet department in comparison.

Either way, I guess you answered my question. Thanks!

Well, Chrysler's website is touting low 5-second 0-60s wheras the Vette runs mid-4 seconds.
Right, and it's completely unheard of for manufacturers to be conservative with estimates. Several publications have clocked the SRT to 60 in the high 4's, which is less than low 5's and closer to the Vette.

I think it's safe to say that that gap is pretty huge.
And with a 70 HP gap, one would hope so. :rolleyes:

At best, you might say that the Crossfire brakes better and is quieter. Not only that, the price isn't simply "similar"; it is actually more expensive.
It slaloms better too, depending on the mag, and the price is similar: the vette starts ~$2400 less, and the ones tested are well over 50k.

But it's a Chrysler.

Come on people buy American.

MOPAR

Although, if you compare the SRT6 to the luxury models is it not still getting killed? The SRT6 Roadster ($50K) pricier than an TT 250 Quattro ($43K), Z4 3.0 ($41K), and SLK 350 ($46K)... It barely outperforms them but doesn't have the major advantages like the SLK's hard top, the TT's AWD or the Z4's $9K. Of course, it certainly is lacking in the cachet department in comparison.

Either way, I guess you answered my question. Thanks!

Somewhere in between. It would stomp the Audi TT 3.2, Z4 in performance. Probably accelerate similar to the Boxster S (but not handle as well), and is a bit slower than the SLK 55. Somewhere in between. Not the all out fire breather of an SLK 55, or the all around performer like the Porsche Boxster S. But to compare a Corvette to this car is truly absurd. The interior of a Corvette is still awful. If you want absolute hp then get the Vette, but the Crossfire is about decent luxury & above averge performance. Like I said, personally I would save up some money & pony up for the SLK 55, but to each his own.

why are we freaking about a car which was annonced over a year ago.


Oh my god did you see that new mustang? It looks just like the old one!!! And it has 300 hp!

All this talk..but has anyone ever SAT IN ONE?

It is one of the most god-awful uncomfortable cars I have ever sat in. You have to practically drive with your elbows touching your stomach from the lack of room.

I say, no thanks.

I bet if this car was the same price, with a japanese-brand logo on it, no one would think twice about the pricetag.

This thing is a high 4 sec. car, slaloms 69 mph and up, skidpads @ .90g, and stops as short as 111 ft: in other words, it performs like a Vette for similar money. But of course no one complains about the Vette's pricetag.

I'm sorry but I didn't see these numbers in this thread, teh posted numbers are impressive, where can I find them?

On Motor Trend.com:

0-60 mph, sec 4.9
1/4 mile, sec @ mph 13.3 @ 107.4
Braking, 60-0 mph, ft 111
600-ft slalom, mph 71.4
200-ft skidpad, avg g 0.89

All this talk..but has anyone ever SAT IN ONE?

It is one of the most god-awful uncomfortable cars I have ever sat in. You have to practically drive with your elbows touching your stomach from the lack of room.

I say, no thanks.

I'm driving my mom's SLK this morning--which is nearly identical inside to the Crossfire--and its not too uncomfortable--but its definately not cushy--at least not for my size (I'm 5'11") I'd pass on the Crossfire.