Is there anyone out there who could think about buying a Chrysler Crossfire now that we know that it's really an SLK with Chrysler body ?????

 

The Crossfire is the first Chrysler I think I've ever liked but I would still much rather have an SLK. It looks alright but there are some components I don't really like. Not to mention its a Chrysler...

 

If Crossfire i delivered totally without protection against rust like the other Chryslers then it's propably not a good idea to buy it here in Sweden !

 

A dime store Chrysler body on a chassis that was out of date when it went into production at MB . . . hmmm. . . no thanks. I think I would skip this corporate hand-me-down.

 

The SLK chassis was out of date when it went into production? Please explain this.

 

I think he's referring to the fact the the SLK chassis is a derivative of the W202 C-class chassis. The W202 chassis started production in 1992 and ended in 1999. The SLK chassis started production in late 1996 and will end in early 2004.

The R170 chassis is the 2nd oldest chassis in the M-B linup (next to the G-class).

 

What do you mean "now that we know"? I think we've always known and M-B and Chrysler have both been straightforward about it. Personally, I think the front end is ugly and the back end is twice as ugly as the front.

Otherwise, it's OK

 

wtf, that piece of crap is almost as worse as the SSR Truck hard top convertible that is sold out for the first year. I dont know anyone in their right minds that would buy that ugly retarded looking gimp truck that is convertible. Maybe its for a Hick drunk off his *** and won a 50,000$ scratch ticket and thought he was buying a convertible to show off to his farmer friends. I cant beleive the price is 36K for one of those, they are just ridiculously cheesy and cheap looking mainly due to the chrysler badge on it. The chysler badge makes the Prowler look like crap too.

 

I take it you're not from Texas or anywhere near a place with farmers. You should come by sometime and see all the horses, dude ranches, rattlesnakes, sharpshoot'n pistol tote'n rascals, varmits, tumbleweed, and ghost towns. Everybody who's anybody drives an SSR to the honkytonk with its bed chock full of chewing tobbacco, and old beer cans. Now if you'll excuse me Im'a gonna go tell Ma and Pa ga'night before i hit the hay for the evening. tomorrow's my first day as a rodeo clown at the county fair. should be a rootin tootin good ole time. i do hope some day to be sofistahcatid like you though.

 

No Way. I love my SLK and would not want to cheapen it in the driveway, by having that parked beside it.

 

Sorry for the late reply, but I’ve been away for a while.

Thank you Brian_170; I agree. The long genesis of the R170 chassis is why it still has re-circulating ball steering (which the press has described as “archaic”), twitchy chassis dynamics, so-so space utilization, and, for my SLK, the feels-like-you’re-breaking-a-chicken-leg-when-you-shift manual transmission. For these reasons, the R170 chassis fails to deliver as a true driver’s car and, for these same reasons, it fails to deliver as a true GT car. The wonderful retractable hardtop makes it much easier to overlook this (it sure did for me). But if you take that away, there’s not much left – no matter what it looks like. IMHO.


- FD

 

I think MB wants to keep producing that platform long after SLK production ends. From what I saw, under that Chrysler skin IS an SLK 320 right down to the emergency brake lever. The car is being produced to help their Chrysler brand. Chrysler still lags the big three US automakers in quality and MB is trying to change that.

I thought the front end looked cool while the rear end was designed for a boat. It's like MB designed the front end of the car and Chrysler the rear.

My only complaint about the SLK is the lack of rack and pinion feel at the wheel.

Dan

 

The Crossfire seems like a WHY car, not only it a two seater but one with a fixed top? I don't see any point in it, at least the Prowler has a drop top. Remember the premium people were paying for the PT Cruiser...

NP

 

In a Chrysler Crossfire add in the October issue of Automobile, it states that the Crossfire will pull 1.1 g on the skid pad. I find that really hard to believe. Anybody want to comment on this?

 

I drove a black-on-black Crossfire with my father a couple weeks ago. The dealer was asking $5K over MSRP.

My impressions:

The Crossfire was a pleasure to drive. Yeah, it may not be the sportiest, but it was fun. It handled great...the added rigidity of the steel roof makes a huge difference. Apprently the Crossfire has the stiffest structure in the class (which I assume includes the 350Z and others). It rode just like a Benz, which should come to no surprise, and was pretty good over bumps considering how well it handled. It would make for good long distance trips.

The car seemed powerful enough, though this is coming from the driver of a C220. And in true Benz tradition, it masks its speed very well. And pop the hood, and aside from the bright silver plastic engine shroud, Benz emblems everywhere.

The clutch/shifter combo took some getting used to. I was never a fan of Mercedes sticks, so it is no different in the Crossfire. But 2 seats and an automatic doesn't compute in my head. We also have a Miata in the family, which I think has the one of the best feeling manuals of any car (BMW included), so that's a tough judge.

It appears much larger in pics...but as you know, it no bigger than the SLK (duh). I personally think that the Crossfire is a good looking car, and I do like the bobtail. And the pop-up spoiler is cool and very well intergated.

Aside from the bits taken directly out of the SLK, the interior was definitely a notch down in quality from a Mercedes, but still much much better than any other Chrysler product (besides the Pacifica). Nicer than the 350Z too. For some reason the window switches are backwards (the top part lowers the window), but that's a minor point. This is also not the car for claustrophobics, as the roof slopes down (which also may be a problem for tall people...like 6' 3" me) and the windows are tiny.

That's my opinion. As a car nut, it's worth the trip to the Chrysler dealer just to check it out.

 

wait till the supercharged version comes out with the AMG C32 engine.

 

The thought of having to take it to a Mopar dealer for service is enough for me to gag.

 

Yeah Celine Dion at Mopar..

 

Saw a Crossfire in person for the first time on Thursday. It was black. Still think it's ugly, but it looks better in black because black helps hide it's ugly lines.

Does it have a "poser button" for the spoiler? I noticed that the spoiler was up when the car was parked and I thought it was supposed to be automatic. Lame.

 

Can someone pls attach some Crosssfire pix ?

Thanks

 

Serhanium, check out this website for photos.

http://www.chrysler.com/crossfire/

 

Yes, there is an override button, and yes, it is automatic. It comes up at around 55, and goes back down at around 45 or 50, IIRC.

I took one for a test drive, and personally I quite like the look of it. I like the big wheels.

Driving it was no surprise, and it drove very much like our SLK. The trunc looks a lot smaller than the SLK's though, which is strange for a coupe. I found the stick shift adequate. Keep in mind that I'm not a fast-and-furious wannabee, and a test drive on public roads is also not the best place to explore a car's performance limits.

 

I'm the proud owner of a beloved SLK, (and I'll never give it up) but the Crossfire just got more interesting. How does a version with the AMG supercharged V6 grab you? How about a convertible? How about a Crossfire Convertible with the AMG supercharged V6? It's called SRT-6, and your local dealer s/b able to order it right about now...