Originally Posted by quazimodo
It is almost like deja-vu. When I owned my 1970 Dodge Challenger, with a 440, I heard the same types of negative comments. Why didn't I get a Mustang? Why didn't I get a Camaro? blah, blah, blah. You could not get any after market parts for it and a lot of people thought that it looked funny.
In retrospect, the Challenger is a much nicer car than most that were available at that time. It just seems that nobody was able to see it until 30 years later. I always knew it was a nice car and this one is too. I get the same type of response when people see it, as I did when they saw my Challenger. I get asked so many questions about this car.
What I truly find amazing, is a select group of individual's capacity to dislike this car. The dog taking the dump comment is a direct rip off from the comment made on Top Gear during their 2003 review. The rear view of the vehicle is a classic British roadster look. That, to me, provides much of the Crossfire's appeal. Much like the Challenger, the Crossfire lacks from a cookie cutter formula approach to looks. To me, this is very much a good thing.
Yeah, the Crossfire is a concept car for the street. The sheet metal is very complex, and I'm surprised that they didn't charge an arm and a leg for the car just based on the lines. I am very particular about cars as works of art. The Crossfire has some of my favorite features: Wide and low stance, large, wide shoulders, large wheels, high belt line, low "chopped" roof, attention to detail (the spline running from the front to the rear including the interior), and short overhangs. They got it right on this car, it looks like it means business and the SRT6 definitely backs this look up. I'll bet if they had released the SRT6 first, things may have gone a little differently.