I also disagree with the letter, but for different reasons. DC is clearly trying to say, "we're not responsible". It really doesn't matter what DC's official position on the matter is. Whether it is the result of an outside wholesaler trying to unload them or an official marketing program at DC is beside the point. In either scenario, the mess only could have happened if production was far out of step with demand. DC knew a year ago that these cars weren't selling, yet kept the line humming along regardless at Karmann. This led to an oversupply of cars. The inevitable result is the need to unload them at fire sale prices. There is no denying that DC is ultimately responsible for the situation as a result of very poor production planning.

Incentives kill residuals, and they also kill brand identity. Will this car ever again be thought of as a premium sports car, now that everyone and their dog knows that one can be had for around $22K? Will anyone ever again sign the papers for a (non-SRT) coupe over $30K? For a car that erupted to "ooh" and "ahh" at the Detroit auto show years ago, wouldn't it have been better to build just a few a year, so that it could be thought of as "exclusive"? Wouldn't something "exclusive” that everybody wanted (but few could get) be better at building commotion for a brand that harbors upscale ambitions? Call it a missed opportunity for Chrysler. Call it miserable marketing strategy. I still maintain that the Crossfire was an excellent idea, but improperly managed in the market.

That said, when I bought mine, I wheeled and dealed every penny I could out of them. I did well, getting the car down 6K off the sticker. I was very proud of getting a premium car for a good price. Depending on your perspective, I guess only one of those statements is correct now.