I think it was more than just wanting a sports car. They needed something to bring people into the showroom. At the same time Chrysler was essentially broke and had to put engineering dollars into more productive things.

I suspect part of the appeal of the Crossfire was that it was very cheap to bring to the market. My windows sticker says "84 % German" and everything except for the outer skin was Mercedes. That is the only rationale for the brakes sized for a 16" wheel. identical interior. And that nutsy crossbar behind the seats with holes drilled for the SLK tonneau cover pivots.

The interior is the most telling point. I find it hard to believe that Chrysler ergonomic engineers would have ever signed off on something with such narrow seats, limited range of movement, and no tilt wheel unless not consulted.

Further I imagine that Chrysler would have much rather have used their 3.5 liter SOHC V6. Except for one minor factor, the engine compartment would have to be redesigned to fit a 60 degree V6 in the place of a 90 degree.

Have mentioned this before, there are a lot of disadvantages and only one advantage to a 90 degree V6 and that is that it can be assembled with V8 tooling and it is easy to put either a loss-leader V6 or profit oriented V8 in the same engine compartment.

Really from a Mercedes standpoint, giving the SLK line to Chrysler just meant additional profit from a line that was already obsolete.

A quality line because Mercedes builds nothing else but still obsolete.

So what we have here is really an extreme case of badge engineering designed to fit the niche left by the Plymouth Prowler (not quite 12,000 sold) and by reskining an existing car line. It would not surprise me that C-D could make expenses at a $25k price point since the investment was so low.

It probably also helped financially troubled Karmann to stay in business.

Then with the separation of Chrysler and MB in 2007, the Crossfire ceased to be viable. Besides Chrysler had its own models including a Sebring retractable to sell.

So I would not call the Crossfire a flop at all, rather a halo car that was a product of the merger and not expensive in terms of investment to build.

In finance you consider three things: sunk costs (design, tooling, and bring to market which were very low for the Crossfire), fixed cost necessary to keep in production (and I suspect something of a sweetheart deal to help keep Karmann open - see the Wikipedia article), and finally the variable costs required to produce each car.

While creative accounting is used by any business, I doubt that Chrysler lost any real money on the Crossfire and it filled a niche.

A niche that could be filled by a Maserati variant (C-J-F now)- deja vu all over again.

 

An unbelievable beauty and bargain none the less!

 

This!

 

More than 370,000 Fieros were built.

 

At its introduction (June 2003) Crossfires sold at, or near, MSRP, and a few sold for a premium. By autumn 2003 prices were starting to fall to the point that MSRPs were discounted slightly (consistent with the typical American car).

By winter 0f 2004, "serious" (LOL) discounts could be found. I bought my new 2004 coupe for $29K in February 2004. Dealers in my home state where holding out for $30-31K so I took a cheap flight to Carmax Orlando and drove her home.

Unfortunately for those who had already bought, prices kept falling. By late fall 2005, they were being sold on Overstock.com at $9K under MSRP. As some 2004 models lingered in lots into 2006 if not longer, there were some "new" transactions in the $18 or $19 K range.

 

My 2004 was purchased new below sticker in April 2004 as a "company vehicle" for me. Personally I really wanted the graphite color. Dealer was sticking to list price on that one, but would deal on the red. Same identical cars, just different paint colors.

 

I bought my '07 limited coupe a month ago for about 18% of MSRP. Did have 100k miles but otherwise excellent. That is about what a nice 88 Fiero GT would go for but I liked the Crossfire better (& have had a number of Fieros).

 

Thanks Rob, I went back to check the source I got that number from and I had already erased it.
Looks like it was just for the 2005 model year.

I was a little surprised with the low #'s when I first posted it, because I've never seen as many Crossfires on the road as Fieros.

The Fiero was first conceived as a 2 seater "Commuter" car with its only real competion (at the time) being the Honda CRX.
But over the years GM modified it into a pretty fair Sports Car.
But like so many other "Speciality" cars GM created, about the time they get the whole thing sorted out, they discontinue it.

 

I don't think the Cobra numbers are not correct either. I think that number is a little high, but that was a neat limited car for sure. I got to sit in one at the Chicago half mile. Signed by the creator too. I certainly can't think of another car I would want right now to play with. I have one more mod to do to the coupe, and if it pans out, we are done modding. And, the times, the speed, the performance is going to be what it is...I'm not going any further. These new grilles have really changed the front end. Our brit friends molded it so it rounds out along the front headlight lines. I wish I had a better camera...to show the look. Maybe when the weather straightens up, I can get them out in the sun for a better look.

 

Thanks Rob, that's what I was wondering. I knew the '06 and '07's went for big discounts but, I was not sure with the '04 and '05 models. I spent the better part of two years researching and driving every Crossfire competitor. It was the Crossfires unique story and makeup that won me over. I feel like I own an exotic, at least as close as I will ever come.

 

Isn't that the truth! Shortly after I bought mine, Fieros started to develop a bad reputation for engine fires (only 135 reported). That problem was with the '84's and GM had already corrected the problem by the '85 model. But the news was enough to damage the reputation of the Fiero and sells quickly fell after '86.

 

Had several Fieros mainly because that was my Pontiac period but the real predecessor was the FIAT X1/9 (Which may be why the Fiero was a 2M4). Simultaneously there was the Toyota MR2 which was probably a better car but then I found it hard to take 1290ccs seriously. All three were small, mid-engine 2 seaters and relatively low priced

Also the mid-80s was a high point for GM with the perennial Corvette, Pontiac Fiero, Cad Allante, and Buick Reatta all overlapping (Olds got the Bravada). Each an entirely different concept and most are showing up on Craigslist these days.

I like my Reattas but they fill a different niche in my life, more lux-o-cruisers and satisfy my need for a 'vert so can appreciate a Crossfire coupe which is more of a toy/electronics test bed. Do believe the 88 Coupe a bit of a landmark car with the 6.5" touch screen CRT in the console.

Did consider a Solstice/Sky at one time but don't like 4s and they look, well, a bit broad in the beam. Coupe did steal a bit from the Crossfire though I do like the wheels.

So the Crossfire is more of a logical evolution of a 2 seat coupe or Grand Touring car stretching back to the fifties than something that sprang up by itself. Do wish the dash was a bit less, well, last century.

Oh well, have decided that the best place for the tablet is in landscape mode on the left side of the glove box. Just need to build a slide-in docking station from some .190 sheet aluminum. RSN.

Do agree, the stainless grille is a definite improvement.

ps Fiero problem was they were originally shipped with a three quart oil pan. Since Americans often let it get 2 quarts low this became a warrenty issue, the fires were incidental. For the recall GM went to a larger oil filter (PF52 instead of a 47) and trmarked the dip stick. They also added a shield over the starter wires. Is also the reason many cars added a "low oil level" sensor. (Reattae have one).

pps what does a Fiero have in common with a Trabant ? When they burn both produce toxic gasses.

 

Fiero's were kind of a V-8 conversion thing around Indy. I never knew how reliable they were, but they sure sounded like beasts at the car shows I attended. Just don't see them anymore. I know there still is a Fiero following, club thing, but not like there use to be. I always liked their looks. And trying to find enough members for a XF club in the Indy area has never panned out. They are around, but not many on the forum.

 

V8 Archie is still around. Thing about the Fiero is that it was still the first gen of computer cars (GM CCC) and really did little other than run the engine and activate the TCC, the augtomagic transmission, the 3T40, had little electrics and the manual trans had none.

A sidewindingV8 was really a shoe in install and were a lot around with Carbs rather than FI.

Crossfire is an entirely different issue with near total integration of electronics though not as tamperproof as my WK2. It also has a lot more power in stock configuration than the 80 hp of an Iron Duke Fiero or even the 140 hp Chevvy V6.

Finally, the original Fieros were sub-$10k cars and there were a lot built and frankly the early adopters rarely kept them long, for the first year and a half, the anemic iron duke was the only engine available and the three quart oil capacity coupled with a weak bottom end meant there were a lot of engine failures so a lot of transplant recipients.

True, it is kind of a cult car (the car you wear) and while a rear engine car is cooler in the summer than front (and also had the DA6 a/c compressor which failed regularly) the lack of power steering limited its appeal.

The final nail in the coffin was the lack of height. At 46.9" SUVs often did not see one next to them and tended to change lanes abruptly.

Both the Crossfire and the Reatta (a better comparison) at 51" high do not have this problem though the plain bucket seats and the tilt wheel of the Reatta makes for easier entry.

But both the Reatta and the Fiero were children of the 80s, the Crossfire is a decade later design and the world changed in that time.

 

1962-1967 Shelby Cobra | Hemmings Motor News

 

That is all nice speculation but not exactly true. While I do agree with much of the post some points conflict with actual events.
We have a member here who was somewhat involved in the story of the Crossfire birth and implementation. But, he tells it...... differently.


His Avatar is CREATOR

His name is Eric Stoddard.


You have heard of him?

 

Be glad to hear from Eric, I was just trying to stimulate conversation on a cold day (clear down in the 40's & why I have heaters in the ceiling fans.)

BTW got to looking at the specs for the concept car and to an engineer it is even more evident that they adapted a basic body design to an existing chassis a lot like putting an F40 body on a Fiero.

Numbers that jump out at me at the overall length (increased 3"), wheelbase ( whopping 8" shorter & same as original SLK) and width (3" narrower)

I suspect they needed the extra length for energy absorbing bumpers and most of the shortened wheelbase came out of the passenger compartment .

 

I saw that Mike, but I am still trying to find the article, or it may have come from the Jay Leno show, that only just over 900 were produced. There was discussion about some produced over seas on contract that may have been included. That is the number I have always seen as well. I am still looking for it. It was just on or in something I just read. I will get back to you.


It was an article in Road and Track. It stated Carroll made 910 w/ 316 of them sporting Ford 427 Big Blocks. The 998 figure is including those built under contract by COB/*** produced in England under license. So Carrroll's are only 910. I guess it is an important figure if you are the collector. Maybe those other 88 are right hand drive and are very rare....lol...

 

LOL.


You are close on many things. But I believe the impetus for marketing the Crossfire came from Daimler.


The "basic body design" as you call it was the award winning Stoddard concept car I believe from 2000. Getting that design on a chassis in production within three years meant adapting a lot from existing technology and production lines.

Chrysler built 10 SLK 320's back in the early nineties with tilt wheels as a production test model. It had nothing to do with the Crossfire but clearly such an amendment was possible. But, except for Stoddard's Concept design, Chrysler designers seemed to have had little to do with the Crossfire project.


While the sticker may claim 84% Daimler parts, nothing in the car came from Chrysler.


As for Karman, they had always built the 320 slk so it was logical they got to build the Crossfire. Chrysler had no US lines even close to that platform.


The interior is straight out of the 320 yes. But Benz has never had an inspired interior. Always Spartan. Heck, I don't believe they put a cup holder in most of their cars until post 2002.


As for engines, the c32 was logical as it had always been there, along with the rest of the drive train. Components Benz still uses today. However, the electronics and engine management are not archaic. In fact, while not leading edge, were fairly modern for the times.


Suspension was also upgraded from the 320SLk. I have driven the 320SLK and the Crossie is much better handling.


Eric Stoddard tells it better. I too wish he would relate the story again.

 

I have driven the SLK, and I don't see where these supposed sports car writers get the bs from... I would take my XF any day... I like the MB versions, but they aren't the same.