mixed reviews
All REAL owners think its great, Did you read the What car review , that was very good. 4 stars out of 5.
Timesonline 'Hmmm' were they comparing it with the new bently!
The lack of HP is quite funny for the Uk anyway. Have a clance through and see how many cars that are faster than 6.5 seconds on a 0-60.
Timesonline 'Hmmm' were they comparing it with the new bently!
The lack of HP is quite funny for the Uk anyway. Have a clance through and see how many cars that are faster than 6.5 seconds on a 0-60.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: London, England
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
almost
the issue isnt the 0-60 but for example the TT gets the same while getting 5mpg better, the biggest issue for me is the interior trim which is far below the TT.
The times, top gear mag, telegraph and auto express have all rasied the same points, from sitting in the car at the UK preview i did feel the centre console was cheap
LP
The times, top gear mag, telegraph and auto express have all rasied the same points, from sitting in the car at the UK preview i did feel the centre console was cheap
LP
FYI adf, I am a REAL owner. I love the car and am getting more intimate with it than the average owner by pulling every interior panel, adding sound damping material and replacing the audio system. I've got photos of the insides of the car that make most people gasp.
Loving the car is not to say it's perfect. I haven't read a review yet that hasn't been disappointed with the HP output. Even the Speed Channel review that was more like a gushing 30 minute commercial commented it needs more ponies.
Great car... destined to get better.
Loving the car is not to say it's perfect. I haven't read a review yet that hasn't been disappointed with the HP output. Even the Speed Channel review that was more like a gushing 30 minute commercial commented it needs more ponies.
Great car... destined to get better.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: London, England
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not too noisy or too rattly. I'm just trying to make it even quieter and tighter. I'm installing McIntosh electronics with Focal speakers (the French do make some good things!). I added sound damping and foam panels inside the doors to make the door a better "speaker box."
I'll put together a photo gallery when I make a little more progress. If anyone is doing the same thing, I can probably help save some work.
One thing I discovered is that the doors are far from watertight - when it rains, water drips DIRECTLY onto the speakers. I'm fashioning a little umbrella for each of the new speaks.
I'll put together a photo gallery when I make a little more progress. If anyone is doing the same thing, I can probably help save some work.
One thing I discovered is that the doors are far from watertight - when it rains, water drips DIRECTLY onto the speakers. I'm fashioning a little umbrella for each of the new speaks.
Yes. I emailed DC and offered to send photos of a wet speaker. Their reply suggested I contact my dealer. The Crossfire tech was not concerned and said that doors are never waterproof - that's why they have drain holes at each end of the door. I'm still thinking "design flaw." Sure, some water is acceptable but a direct drip onto speakers is not.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: London, England
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Panama City, Florida
Age: 78
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to see some photos & instructions on how to remove the door and rear panels. Are the planels easy to remove? I traded my 6 Speed for an automatic. For some reason the automatic is a lot noiser inside than the 6 Speed. Maybe its the tires, but could also be they left somethinbg out - like sound deading materials in the back end. I am taking it to the dealer friday to have it checked out, but Chrysler service has been less than perfect in the past finding and curing squeaks or noises.
Guest
Posts: n/a
just for the heck of it...
...looked around the web a little for reviews of the Audi TT. Found some from when it was new, and as recent as last week.
Why check out the TT? Because its looks, when it first came out, were in my opinion as radical as those of the Crossfire now (remember the TT concept car was all brushed aluminum ala the DeLorean?). Not as striking maybe, but just as radical.
By way of comparo, I found that the reviews were almost unanimously favorable for the TT. They mentioned poor rear visibility, but it was always in passing as something one can easily live with for the other benefits of the car.
Performance for the 1.8 Turbo has been described generally as a second or more slower to 60 than the Xfire. The 225 hp naturally aspirated TT about on par with the Xfire.
The 1.8 is cheaper, but by the time you add the option packages that equip it similarly to the Xfire it's a wash, with the TT maybe a little more expensive.
Handling wise, the 4 wd 225 is impressive, but not overly so compared to the Xfire. It's steering is described almost as insensitive as the Xfire's, but it's generally not described in a derogatory manner. Personally, I find the Xfire's steering just fine. Its grip is every bit on par that the Giugaro styled Lotus Esprit I had, maybe even more so. (rear engine cars' rear ends break away more predictably than mid engine cars do). The Xfire's steering would be unacceptable if I were autocrossing or slaloming, but for the occasional track day or blowing around an exit ramp or hitting some back road twisties it's more than adequate.
My point is this: The TT's warts are nearly the same as the Xfire's, it's pluses similar as well. Yet the automotive press seems to forgive the TT its shortcomings while essentially saying the Xfire is pretty, but an effete under performer.
Some kind of bias against Chrysler? True, the Viper was and is awesome, but the Prowler and PT Cruiser are/were merely lookers that teased at performance.
One funny thing about the Xfire's looks. My dealer also owns a Dodge dealer about 2 miles from the Chrysler location. I needed some body touch ups done, so they sent me to the Dodge dealership where their body shop is.
I pulled into their service lane. The Dodge techs, 3 of them, came out to check out the car. The looked it all over, saying they had just gone through some training to work on the car. Chatted for awhile, then they directed me to the building with the body shop. As I pulled away (my windows were down), I heard one tech say to the other "Damn, that car is ugly from the rear."
Funny, to me that's its most interesting angle.
Why check out the TT? Because its looks, when it first came out, were in my opinion as radical as those of the Crossfire now (remember the TT concept car was all brushed aluminum ala the DeLorean?). Not as striking maybe, but just as radical.
By way of comparo, I found that the reviews were almost unanimously favorable for the TT. They mentioned poor rear visibility, but it was always in passing as something one can easily live with for the other benefits of the car.
Performance for the 1.8 Turbo has been described generally as a second or more slower to 60 than the Xfire. The 225 hp naturally aspirated TT about on par with the Xfire.
The 1.8 is cheaper, but by the time you add the option packages that equip it similarly to the Xfire it's a wash, with the TT maybe a little more expensive.
Handling wise, the 4 wd 225 is impressive, but not overly so compared to the Xfire. It's steering is described almost as insensitive as the Xfire's, but it's generally not described in a derogatory manner. Personally, I find the Xfire's steering just fine. Its grip is every bit on par that the Giugaro styled Lotus Esprit I had, maybe even more so. (rear engine cars' rear ends break away more predictably than mid engine cars do). The Xfire's steering would be unacceptable if I were autocrossing or slaloming, but for the occasional track day or blowing around an exit ramp or hitting some back road twisties it's more than adequate.
My point is this: The TT's warts are nearly the same as the Xfire's, it's pluses similar as well. Yet the automotive press seems to forgive the TT its shortcomings while essentially saying the Xfire is pretty, but an effete under performer.
Some kind of bias against Chrysler? True, the Viper was and is awesome, but the Prowler and PT Cruiser are/were merely lookers that teased at performance.
One funny thing about the Xfire's looks. My dealer also owns a Dodge dealer about 2 miles from the Chrysler location. I needed some body touch ups done, so they sent me to the Dodge dealership where their body shop is.
I pulled into their service lane. The Dodge techs, 3 of them, came out to check out the car. The looked it all over, saying they had just gone through some training to work on the car. Chatted for awhile, then they directed me to the building with the body shop. As I pulled away (my windows were down), I heard one tech say to the other "Damn, that car is ugly from the rear."
Funny, to me that's its most interesting angle.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think one of the main reasons that the TT gets a little better review than the Crossfire is because when it came out, what else was there in that price range that performed like it? Not much. Now you have 350z and G35 who are faster than the Crossfire for a decent amount less. The Crossfire would have gotten much better reviews I bet if it even had 230 hp...