hoffa

so wait wait..our car has 228hp or 251?? im confused

Quick_lude

Not to be a stick in the mud but maybe we should ask the owners of this site if they are ok with posting scans of copyright material. I know other sites (s2ki.com) had problems with that and been told to cease the practice or face a lawsuit. Nice pics though!

DocHolliday

If everyone keeps quiet there is nothing to worry about.

Lensman

It's a UK magazine hoffa.

Broker73

here is from car and driver.......but they did hard launches.......had trouble believing the crossfire was faster, but here is a different take...........this is taken from the article


Speaking of engines, Chrysler claims its version of the 215-hp, 3.2-liter V-6 somehow makes eight more pound-feet of torque (for a total of 229) than Mercedes lists for the SLK. Chrysler engineers say the engine in the SLK320 actually makes 229 pound-feet, too. Mercedes officials say it makes 221. The synergies are apparently not yet fully synergized on that point. Either way, backed by the standard six-speed manual transmission, the Crossfire should get to 60 mph in about 6.8 seconds, same as the SLK320. The Chrysler's standard six-speed manual has the same gearing as the SLK's. This will be a couple steps slower than an Audi TT with the 225-hp turbo four or the new 3.2-liter V-6 (see page 102). The Nissan 350Z and the Mazda RX-8, both potential competitors, will whup the snot out of the Crossfire at the drag strip. Maybe so, but at least the Crossfire will cost more. Chrysler figures one of them will set you back about $35,000 when they go on sale this summer. That's cheap compared with a $45,715 SLK320. You'll notice, though, that the SLK's folding metal top comes down at the push of a button. The other guy—a 225-hp Audi TT Quattro coupe—starts at $36,860, and it has less standard equipment than the Crossfire.

zthang

This is one of the few articles i've read where the writer/reviewer thought that the 8 didn't handle quite as well as the Z. They did mention how the 8's ride quality was smoother, but I would have thought with perfect 50/50 weight distribution, it would have outhandled the Z. Personally, i think they are pretty much equivalent handling-wise, but i'd have to give the edge to the 8 because it weighs less. As a Z owner though, i have to say that it made me very happy to read the last paragraph..."Nothing here beats the 350Z....it costs more but is in a different league from the others. Its the coolest looking, the fastest and the best handling." I know about 99% of this board disagrees, but i didn't say it so you can't flame me. :D However, i have noticed that top gear tends to weigh performance most when ranking cars. Thats probably why they picked the Z as the winner, because i sure as hell know the interior of my car isnt the greatest.

zthang

....And how the hell did the Crossfire beat the 8 in a rolling start? Was the lack of torque that much of a killer? I think theres somthing up with that 8. Maybe it was the drivers...or maybe chrysler isn't telling us something about that crossfire (underated)? Anyone know?

PoLaK

iTrader: (1)

This review was less then what I had hoped but, the UK model has even less power then the US, but one review doesn't negate 20+ others. The 350z does in no way handle like or better then the rx8, as for the crossfire I believe the start was from 5mph I don't feel like rereading, but up until 50-70mph the crossfire will be in front of the rx-8 and I don't believe they mentioned up until what speed they race, but then the 8 will slaughter it from 70-80 to 130+.

mikeb

good point polak

RodsterinFL

hmm. The one handling characteristic that I am surprised about is the town weaving "on highway 10" and that the Z was the best of these. I test drove a Z and it was definitely meaner and torque was better but it was definitely HEAVIER at the wheel. That does not inspire confidence in a driver to me anyway. A vehicle light on its feet that can dart in and out is more apt to instill "dart" driving rather than a heavier car. ANother factor in the Z was the "performance" shifting where the driver has to really work the gears - they call it "meaty shifter in the Z" and how does that give it an advantage in zip-town driving? It doesn't. IMO.

The Z wins hands-down in the speed arena but in other aspects mentioned I would totally disagree on its merits. The article from Edgar Jenkins and AutoWeek seems much more accurate on a comparison as far as the Z and the RX are concerned.

BTW I checked the 6 month rate of insurance on the cars. I have a good driving record and a 24 year old policy in FL (our insurance is higher than many places). Here tis:

Current Policy (RX8) $361
Nissan 350Z $424
Infiniti G35 Coupe $373


even the insurnace is cheaper!!!

Thank you though for sharing.

zthang

The handling thing i don't really agree with but i'm not gonna disagree b/c i haven't driven the 8 yet....i still wanna test drive it.

However,
I thought that they were talking about the 8 when they said the "driver has to really work the gears"....makes sense to me b/c i never have to work the gears in town considering how much torque i have at hand at any given time. The z reaches its max 276 lb/ft of torque close to 3000-4000rpm, so I rarely have to worry about downshifting unless I really wanna pull hard...that is unless by working the gears you mean the way it shifts into gear....if so i don't really think its that hard....the z tranny is definitely no s2000 tranny, but i still think its very good...there was an article in car and driver written about a year ago when the z first came out that said the shifter "snicks satisfyingly through the gates like a bolt action rifle".

RodsterinFL

they refer to the shifter as being meatier than the others in the competition. Compared to the RX 8 it shifts hard to me. What I was trying to say is that the driver has to work harder at driving COMPARED to the RX 8. The RX 8 is seemingly more like a motorcycle with regard to torque due to the way it uses gearing to multiply the pull. The Yamaguchi RX8 book p.35 describes this and then notes that the RX, if calculated out has torque between a Porsche Boxster and Boxter S. People look at the torque and freak at 159 and compare it to a regular piston engine and miss the point of a 10,000 rpm engine vs an engine with torque at 3800 or whatever. IT is almost like Harley to Kawasaki (the example I was given a few nights ago) This RPM also requires possibly more shifting in lower gears but in actual driving I can stay in 3rd and get around if I wanted to AND the RX shifts silky smooth.