You are obviously mentally handicapped, or you don't know as much as you think you do...either way...
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=102679

I was looking into buying an SRT-6, but couldn't justify the high price. Thanks for playing though.

 

BURN........



Anyways, although it looked good, bottom line....... Crossfire sucked. The End.

 

Don't you think it is ironic that you have contempt for Chrysler using a rebadged car from Mercedes, when your Stealth is a rebadged Mitsubishi?

 

All I can say is its about time...perhaps now they can do a sports coupe the right way and perhaps lead the way for the Demon or something like it to appear in the Dodge/Chrysler lineup...

 

OMG...WHO KNEW!!!!

I think you have misinterpeted my post. I have no problem with platform sharing.

 

the crossfire was not luxury. if they claim it was thats just plain sad.

 

This one sure sounds to me like you have a problem with them using Benz tech.

I agree that they made a number of mistakes with the Crossfire. For one thing it wasn't what they claimed it was. What in the Crossfire really was Chrysler, and don't tell me the styling or small electronic parts like power windows engines, that is nothing. The platform wasn't the problem it was the powertrain. It would have been fine if they would have dropped in Chrysler engines. If they would have dropped in the 300M Special spec 3.5L (255hp & 258ft-lbs of torque) for the base engine and possibly either modified it with either a functional cold air intake or added some modern technology such as VVT and/or Direct Injection, it would have been a lot better than that weak MB 3.2L. Heck,a Chrysler 3.2L would have been more powerful than that weak engine and way less expensive. The 253hp & 255ft-lbs version of the 3.5L offered in the Prowler did 0-60 between 5.8-6.2 secs and it only had the 42RLE for the transmission (granted they had to use shorter gearing to accomplish this but no one buys these cars for the sake of fuel economy).

A 3.5L modified like this could rival the VQ offered in the 350Z (even with that technology it would probably still be cheaper than the MB 3.2L). They should have also looked into if they could possibly supercharge the 3.5L and offer that for the SRT-6. That would have been one sweet car if they did that.

 

Doesn't seem so much like contempt for using Mercedes tech to me as contempt for using OLD outdated Mercedes tech. Also not all "rebadgings" are the same, the 3000gt/stealth was and still is an extremely impressive piece of machinery, the crossfire sadly is not. It's too expensive for what it is, and it doesn't have the kind of power it should. It's not the only chrysler vehicle that's underpowered, they've done it to quite a few of them, especially in the past few years. I agree with thestealth, the answer for chrysler doesn't lie in using someone else's old technology, they need to be innovating and creating new technology. Let's face it, the big 3 got lazy for a little while, and the foreign auto companies kept pushing the envelope, that's why they have a technology edge in some areas and Chrysler needs to remedy that if they want to get back on top.

 

So in your eyes the 3000GT/Stealth was an impressive piece of machinary and yet the Crossfire isn't? The fastest times I have seen a stock 3000GT/Stealth run is 0-60 in 5.3 secs with a 6-speed manual, yet a SRT-6 will do it in 5.1 secs with only a 5-speed auto.

Underpowered? The slowest time I saw was 7.1 secs for one of those. It won't rival a Vette, but that isn't necessarily underpowered. Underpowered would be more along the lines of a base model Sebring coupe with a 2.4L.

I agree they should be making their own technology instead of someone elses. I have been saying that for a long time. The use of the Eclipse for the Sebring and Stratus coupes is one example that comes to mind that was a mistake. Would you also accuse the same thing of these cars since the 3.0L Mitsubishi was infact less powerful than the NA version offered in the 3000GT/Stealth twins made about ten years earilier? Wouldn't that also make the 3.0L Mitsubishi "OLD?" The fact that the Stratus/Sebring coupes were slower than the Crossfire even with the 3.0L (which was less powerful than the 3.2L MB), would that be classified as underpowered in your book? They should have made coupe versions of the sedan versions and offered the 3.5L in those as well instead of using that engine that was outdated ten years earlier by the 3000GT/Stealth twins.

I agree that the big three got lazy. Before the merger, Chrysler was on the cutting edge, now they have come to a halt partly because of MB won't let them raise the bar because of their own ultra-low benchmark.

 

You also have to look at what the car was for it's time, and how it stacked up against the competition. The 3000GT/Stealth is still a decently fast car today. It's now an old car by today's standards but it keeps up pretty well. The Crossfire just doesn't stack up to it's competition, I honestly can't understand why anyone would pick a Crossfire over a 350z.

Ok, I'll give you that. I'll just say it's not as powerful as I think it suggests by the looks and how it's been marketed.

Yes, yes, and yes. Making the coupe slower than the sedan makes no sense to me anyway (I'm assuming the sedans were available with 3.5s, my knowledge on the stratus and sebring is limited).

I definitely agree about them coming to a halt, but why do you say MB has an ultra-low benchmark? Last I checked they were developing some pretty amazing technology. Or were you just talking about their benchmark for Chrysler?