LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and there's nothing slow about a 3240 lb, 330 hp car. It will run a mid 13 and go 160 mph. It's not a Viper, but it's not slow.

 

Amazingly...that is about what a Stealth will run...not bad for 2 ton beast.

Edit: But this shouldn't digress into a Stealth vs. Crossfire thread, although, both cars will ultimately share a similar history and demise. Radical styling, competent performance, slow sales, over priced, short life, spurned by die hard Mopar enthusiasts.

 

Depends on which cars you stack up against the Crossfire. If you compare the current SLK and BMW M, it is a bargin (on the SRT-6 package). You get good power for dollar. When you compare it against the 350-Z it also depends on how you look at it. The 350Z-S Tune is slower than the SRT-6, but about $7K less expensive than the SRT-6, which makes it look like a good deal until you look around. The 350Z looks like a rip off in comparison to a MustangGTwhichcosts a lot less and is significantly faster.
That sums up most of Chrysler's models on the base level. The 300 is marketed as being luxurious and being fast, yet the base model with cloth and the 2.7L is the opposite of that.In truth the Crossfire is closer to its marketing at the base level than most of their products.
You misunderstand me. The 3.5 was not offered in the 01-06 Sebring/Stratus in either coupe or sedan. I'm saying that Chrysler should have offered this engines to stay competitve in both models. Making the coupes rebadged Eclipse models was a bad idea.Chrysler needs to put their best foot forward at all times because their competitiondoes and you can't win unless you put in your best effort.
Look at the engines MB has to offer. The3.5L they offer is getting badly beaten by Lexus's 3.5L(a non-performance based luxury), Nissan's & Infinity's versions of the 3.5L VQ, and so forth. If they set a high bench mark they would not defeated quite as easily. Also take a look at the W5A580 which is used in many Chrysler products and varients of MB in comparison to similar models using the 42RLE. It really does not improve fuel mileage, the difference in acceleration is marginal, and it isn't that cheap to build. If Mercedes was a benchmarker, how come they are still using a transmission that hardly better than a 4-speed using technology developed in the late 80s-early 90s. If they were a bench marker, they would have kept improving it. There are other examples mostly in the interior that is actually lower quality than Chrysler's interior in the LH cars. Mercedes is a lazy, envious company that is insignificant at best.

 

Ok KELSO; CALM DOWN!

 

Didn't realize Mercedes stuff was that lackluster compared to their competition. When I said they seemed to be developing some sweet tech I was thinking of an article in Popular Science that showed a prototype car Mercedes was working on which actively adjusted camber to "lean" into corners.

Also why would Chrysler only offer the SRT-6 with a five speed auto? If I was going to buy a car like that it damn well better have a manual or I'm not interested, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

 

Because they were told to by MB. Don't forget Benz' Halo car has a slushbox in it.

 

Well, I'm in the camp of it was cool looking, I thought it made Chrysler aggressive and "younger" which it needed. I too agree it was too little too late. But overall, not a bad buggy for my two cents...

 

How about a better choice of words? Like "Offer a Manual"! Some people can't drive "Manuals" and would like the same fun and speed in sports cars; that some of you "Manual" buffs desire!

 

Wasn't saying an automatic shouldn't be offered, I was just saying that if I was looking to buy one no manual would mean no deal for me. If that came across otherwise that's not how I intended it.

 

[quote]ORIGINAL: 97 3.5 Intrepid

Depends on which cars you stack up against the Crossfire. If you compare the current SLK and BMW M, it is a bargin (on the SRT-6 package). You get good power for dollar. When you compare it against the 350-Z it also depends on how you look at it. The 350Z-S Tune is slower than the SRT-6, but about $7K less expensive than the SRT-6, which makes it look like a good deal until you look around. The 350Z looks like a rip off in comparison to a MustangGTwhichcosts a lot less and is significantly faster.
[quote]

The new 350Z base price is only a few thousand more than a Mustang GT's. For that few grand extra, you get a TRUE sports car that looks way more expensive than a Mustang GT, will completely destroy one around the track or in the twisties, is less common, and is pretty much dead even in straight line acceleration. Actually, it still has a higher top-speed than the GT.

Is the new Mustang GT a good car?? Absolutely, and it's great bang for the buck. The 350Z, however, is a more complete,better all-around sportscar. It doesn't reallymatterthough, it's not like they steal sales from one another. I doubt too many customers end up being torn between buying a 350Z or a GT......