Funny that the XFire's so called highly insulted rear-end design has influenced alot of other car makers to follow the same treatment. Hmmm. Look at the Cayman. It has the two exhausts in the center, bold flared rear fenders like in our cars, deployable wing and the hatch (duh isn't that the same so called dog taking a SH*T look and you don't hear anyone mentioning anything to that effect on that car cuz it's a Porsche). The new BMW M Coupe also has the hatch look with the bold rear quarter fenders and again no negative comment from any of the reviewers or magazines on that design either. See with the XFire they had nothing to come up with so they had to make one up. And the worse thing is that there are idiots out there that just repeat what they hear like damn fools and thats why you hear people saying "oh it looks like a dog taking a S**T", when in reality they really have no comment.

And for example the Boxster S that was around when the Crossfire was introduced had about 258 HP and 229 Torque @ 4,600 rpm and it weighed about 3,100 lbs and had a 3.2 Liter not a huge difference in stats to our REGULAR NON-SRT XFire just only an advantage of 43 HP. Yet it hit 0-60 mph in about 5.35 seconds as opposed to our 6.5 seconds Hmmm. Also the regular Boxster at the time with 225 hp and 192 torque @ 4,600 rpm and about same weight hit 0-60 mph in 6.0 sec flat and hit the 1/4 in about 14.5 sec. @ 97 mph again Hmmm. These numbers are kind overrated because even Porsche claimed on the regular Boxster a 0-60 mph time of 6.7 seconds in the manual. On the other hand, Chrysler claimed 6.5 seconds to 60 mph in our car and the magazines and other reviewers have always gotten 6.5 sec. pretty much all the time. So why the big difference when it comes to Porsche's times as opposed to the magazines and also why all the negative performance reviews with our car when even the higher-statured Boxster S had identical displacement, torque, weight. But Nooo, it's a Chrysler so it's not supposed to be similar, better, outperform, nor outshine even with its plentiful torque of 229 which is more than the new 330 BMW, Audi TT, Boxster and RX8 and not to mention the fact that our car is lighter, out corners and out brakes all of the above and has a top end of 150 mph plus.

Getting back to how magazines times are speculatory: the IS 350 in Car & Driver hit 60 mph in 5.1 seconds, but in Road & Track hit 60 mph in 6.0 seconds. Now I know those are two different drivers with different driving characteristics and conditions that will alter the times, but not by almost a full second. It's like saying the XFire in Road & Track hit 60 mph in 6.4 seconds but in Car & Driver it hit 60 mph in 5.4 seconds. So how in the world did these 2 magazines get such drastically different numbers for the same IS 350 ?

And this is why sooo many ignorant individuals out there make these negative comments on our cars because they do the "hear, say" thing not the "i drove it and wow these reviewers are sooo full of it, this car really performs pretty damn good". It's almost as if the entire auto reviewing world was paid by the competition to bash the Crossfire into oblivion. Maybe it's because they couldn't stand at the simple fact that Chrysler made a nice looking, great handling, well performing and competitively unique car (including SRT-6) that put many of them (competition) to shame. Look at these articles.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=3

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...roadsters.html

Just my 2 cents.