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

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. 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/autosconsume...x.cfm?id=16694
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&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 *** Crossfire.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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/chevr....MpX220K8IxMIF

Crossfire:
http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/chrys....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.

 

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!

 

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.

And with a 70 HP gap, one would hope so.

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

 

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'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

 

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.