The problem is that MB really didn't contribute much to the "partnership". If MB was serious about the crossfire, they could have EASILY made a hybrid of R170 and R171 parts--similar to what VW did with the Corrado, which in VR6 guise uses both mkII and mkIII parts. As I mentioned earlier, if MB really wanted to make the crossfire competitive, they would have at least given it the engine from the R171. And since that engine is an evolution of the 3.2L motor, it really wouldn't have been difficult to make that happen. It's plain as day that MB just didn't want to spend the money on the car to make it competitive. And not for nothing, but even if what you say about development of any aspect of the R171 was a problem, there is no reason why MB/Chrysler couldn't have held off production of the car for a year.

I disagree here as well. The only place where MB invested any time and money was strictly on design. So you are right in one respect--the Crossfire was really nothing more than a design exercise. Of course part of that exercise, was to add a fixed roof to the car. Why do you think even the coupe has those stupid windshield surrounds--because of the strict reliance on the well used R170 platform.

But aside from the items related to the exterior and interior design, all of the important bits are MB, circa 1998. It infuriates me that they use archaic pneumatic lines to run the power locks in the car as well---I really enjoyed not being able to get into the trunk of my car when the line split. C'mon--that's just sloppy and lazy. My corrado has pneumatic lines and it's a 1994 model year car. There are lots of little updates and a couple of bigger ones that the car should have had prior to it's introduction in 2004. That's the crux of the reason why the crossfire never sold well.

I really didn't have time to look up all the cars you listed, but I can tell you that the 350z had a legit nav system, trip computer, adjustable intermittant wipers, and at some point in it's life cycle, bluetooth(maybe from the beginning, I'm not quite sure at this point). And according to Wikipedia (not sure the legitimacy), bluetooth was available in 2005 for the G35.

Also, why is it that other brands actually update their cars throughout the lifecycle, but the most notable update on the crossfire over it's life cycle is the dead pedal on newer models? How about actually addressing some of highly common sensor issues the car seems to have? It goes back into MB not wanting to put any money into the car. They blew their "load" on whatever it cost to reskin the R170 into the crossfire and thats it. Were there ever rumors of a mkII Crossfire at any point in time?

Like I said--it goes back to cost cutting. MB probably spent a good chunk on reskinning the R170 and felt that the other attributes of the car were good enough. I certainly would not complain with HIDs, but I actually think the stock lights are pretty good. The stock HIDs on my old GTI weren't amazingly better, IMO.

You know, I've heard lots of complaints about the s2000 steering being rather vague. Just a couple of threads on this topic that took me about 3 seconds to find: How to improve steering feel? - S2000 Club of America Forums and Any way to fix S2000 Steering Feel??? - MX-5 Miata Forum and
Honda S2000

It;s true that the s2k is thought of as a very precise instrument, but it's also well documented that if there's a weak link for many people, it's the steering. I can tell you that I've had significant issues with the steering feel in the car. I;m used to very tight steering and while I'v never owned a really high performance cars in my lifetime, the my old GTI and current corrado have pretty decent feel for what they are. I can also tell you that in the first month I owned the car, I would mysteriously find myself drifting into neighboring lanes on the highway. I bought the car brand new and the car is/was straight. I eventually got used to this, but the steering tuning for this car is poor. Look, it's pathetic when you drive a small Mazda 5 minivan (microvan?) and the steering eclipses that of a supposed sports car. MB should have done something here---but were back to cost.

If you notice, I've mention cost several times in my response as a reason why certain things that really should have been done, weren't done to it. That sounds an awful lot like the GM of old. No the crossfire isn't the same situation as the Cimarron was, but at the same time, it's not worlds different either. You drive a cimarron and it's pretty easy to know where it came from. You drive a Crossfire and if you're familiar with the SLK, you know very quickly where things were derived--though MB does get credit for at least changing the interior and exterior design. However, the mkI TT was the king of platform sharing compared with the other two cars. Yes, that car was heavily based on the mkIV Golf/Jetta, but you'd never know by sitting in it. It looks 100% audi. Having owned a mkIV Jetta and my mom owning a TT, I can tell you they drove much differently. VW/Audi took the time to tweak most, if not all of the things that drivers will notice from behind the wheel. Some of that was done on the crossfire, like the suspension, exhaust (though it's still stupid quiet), and shifter. All very good starts, but they just couldn't finish the job---another GM trait.