Originally Posted by +fireamx
Just for the sake of argument, let's say Chrysler was still building the SRT6 exactly the way it was built in 05.
What would you think if CR did a comparison test beween the new Challenger, the Mustang, the new Camaro, and the new SRT6?
In their findings, they said the SRT6 performed the best, but the suspension was way too stiff, (but it did handle the best though). In conclusion the Crossfire should have had a back seat?
What I was getting at with my previous post was something Consumer Reports did way back in 1969 when they did a comparison test between a Mustang Coupe, Cougar, Firebird, Camaro, Barracuda, and the AMX. Engines ranged from a 302, to a 350 to a 390.
Since the AMX had the 390, naturally it out performed the lesser engined cars. The H.D. suspension of the AMX actually would rival that of an SRT6, and for the time, it was considered bone jarring. Which C.R. was quick to point out, but then it did out handle all the "Pony" cars that had nearly a foot longer wheelbase. At the end of the article they basically said that even though the AMX out performed the other cars, stopped the quickest, and handled the best, it just didn't measure up because it was too rough
riding and didn't have a back seat.
I guess they were totally unaware of the Javelin.
My point is Consumer Reports was compairing "Apples to oranges 40 years ago, and I guess they still are. I don't think it made sence then, and I still don't.
To answer ZERACER's question, in 30k miles, my Crossfire has performed flawlessly. I've only needed a vacuum leak repaired under warranty for the hatch lock, and a 4 year old battery replaced under warranty. I would not hesitate to buy another Crossfire.