IMO the car was not the failure.......Chrysler's marketing Dept failed.
Oh well, I really don't care as I love the car as much now, as I did when I first set eyes on one. I guess the reason I can afford the SRT now is a result of Chrysler's failure.

 

It was built on an outdated (1996) and abandon MB platform, same as the Charger, Magnum and 300. It was new to Chrysler, but old to the rest of the world.

Now Chrysler will be putting out more of the same, only based on Fiat and Alpha platforms and to my amazement, Fiat and Alpha may be selling re-badged Jeep products to the world.

It is only badge re-engineering. The Crossfire went a little farther and designed a new exterior, other than that it is a car designed in 1996.

Don't get me wrong, I love my Crossfire, but it is more like an old comfortable shoe. This is not a state of the art car and never was.

 

I have to laugh everytime I read this "old outdated chassis" stuff. Just because benz update their slk, doesn't mean the old system, isn't a new system for the XF...the chassis aren't exactly the same, but very close.......but, my point is, this car is 6 years old, and still spanking the latest and greatest from the big 3 even today...so, maybe their ideas are outdated....I have had some nice muscle in my days, and these little dudes are nimble as they come..you have to spend triple figures to out do them...

 

How would the world be if the Crossfire was .a marketing success, and there were a zillion things running around? Me? I'm rather pleased with my 'flop'.

 

I love my Xfire's they will always be head turners... But on another not, what do you mean by "same as the... '' in the quote, what platform they from? Not a pure mopar chassis ?

 

Modified E class I believe.

 

really?? the 210 chassis?

 

At the risk of being super redundant here's my take on the Crossfire tale of woe.

• The Design - Eric Stoddard penned a stunning looker. Better than the SLK from every angle IMHO.
• The Pricing - $30 ==> $50K was precedent setting for Chrysler way back when. Many people were simply not prepared to pay those prices for a Chrysler.
• The Engines - A 215 hp 3.2L V6 did not help to justify the pricing of the Base/Limited models. The AMG engine was fully competitive in a 3,200 lb coupe.
• The Gearboxes - The SRT in particular suffered from the stigma of an automatic as the only choice. As good as this automatic is, many macho men simply wouldn't consider an auto transmission. That really eliminated a good number of potential buyers.
• The Interior - While not bad (I love the look), it never got the updates to keep it competitive with other brands that were getting nav screens and bluetooth, and satellite radio.
• The "Age" - Journalists loved to point out the "old hand me down" R170 chassis and recirculating ball steering. Never mind the coupe was a nice rigid platform at 3,200 lbs and the old style steering box is built rugged as hell compared to rack and pinion designs.
• The Marketing - What marketing? I don't think I've ever seen and ad for a Crossfire in print or on TV. Chrysler did nothing to educate journalists or the public. The public in particular was completely ignorant of what the Crossfire represented. And the SRT-6 was even more obscure. Nobody understood what SRT did for the car's braking and handling. The car was being sold in showrooms next to minivans and Jeeps. Chrysler and it's dealers simply didn't know what to do with this car.

I bought two new Pacifica Limiteds in 2006 and still have one of them. That's another Daimler Chrysler progeny sharing Mercedes design and parts that didn't sell well. I love the car and so does the family. But once again, the market wasn't willing to write a check for a $43K Chrysler people hauler and DC did very little to market the car.

 

You're joking, right?

YouTube - Celine Dion : 2004 Chrysler Pacifica Commercial

I saw, and heard that commercial so much, there were times I couldn't get that song out of my head.lol
Don't remember seeing a Crossfire ad more than a few times though.

 

320 SLK chassis.
Keeping in mind that the Benz badge is generaly years ahead of the average car I have little problem with thier 1996 design updated to the 202product. Then it was updated again. Preasenteing te crossfire as a reskinned 96 era product is misleading.

Kurtisberry makes it sound like a VW Karman Gia.

I drove the 320 SLK. Stogy and pretentious vanilla. Designed for the country club set. Not nearly as nimble as the Crossie.

The only thing that seemed to come forward thru the new Chrysler version was the Cedar seats. And I liked them. And the Steering. Which they still use on the 350 SLK.

There is almost no vehicle on the road that is unique and new from it's heritage. They are all evolutions from past successes and failures. Even the so called "totaly redesigned" new ones with brand new names.

roadster with a stick

This car didn't "fail" because it was a rehash of a Series "E' sedan. It failed because it wasn''t supported by the factory that built it or the Brand tha marketed it.

And a nervouse public that saw the impending divorce of these two entities about the same year as the product was launched. I mean Duh!
.

 

I don't think I ever remember seeing one ad for this car anywhere. I actually don't even remember seeing it at autoshows (as in the Chicago autoshow) until the last year of "production", at which point Chrysler was just trying to get rid of them.

 

I know the Crossfire is SLK chassis, I was referring to the first generation Charger, 300, and Pacifica having a modified E class chassis. I am not sure about the 2011 models.

 

You are absolutely correct Franc. But not for the reason you seem to think.

The Crossfire didn't fail because it was a rehash of of the E Series Sedan. Because it isn't. The E Series platform was the W124...W210...or W211 depending on vintage. The closest in vintage to the Crossfire platform is probably the W210.

The Crossfire is based on the SLK R170 chassis designed in the mid 90's and produced up until 2003 by Mercedes and then given life through 2008 via Chrysler's contract with Karmann. This chassis was designed from the start as a 2 seat 2 door machine.

While "old", the R170 chassis is reasonably light and plenty stiff with the coupe roof that Chrysler added. What more would you get from a "new" chassis? The R170 made a good platform for the suspension tuning magic Chrysler's SRT shop worked on the car while avoiding a lot of new tooling cost. And the "horrible" recirculating ball steering was pummeled by a bunch of sheeple journalists that probably didn't even understand how it was designed. I don't find it particularly hard to use or unpleasant to live with. But I love the turning radius on this car. It's almost identical to the Lotus Exige and 4 feet tighter than my Honda S2000. Amazing!

 

MUCH better Avatar Mark. She's waving buh-bye to 70's Pizzaguy.

 

I think that is what I said. My comment about the "E" was a reponse to another post. As for the Steering, I find little to complain about as well.

But thanks for the old news about a car (of which I own three) and Benz products which I have owned since the early nineties.

The SLK 320 was designed to be a convertible which explains the "stiffness" of our roadsters. They are not retrofit Coupes. Just the opposite. As you said.

The car we drive is an evolution of the 1996 design, not a cloned or reskinned copy. I disaggree with those who claim we have a recycled design with nothing different than skin and the stickers on the hood.

But we hear it often.

The downside of owning a redheaded step child from an industry full of over egoed blowhards. That said, you gotta admit the car is very special and what it actually is has little to do with it's failure in the market place.

It's not a Porshe, and it's not a Sebring either. Who knew? I'm just glad we all found out.

 

I am tired of hearing this type of response. It is Bull Crap I have been hearing for 6 years! I will tell you why...

When people buy a new car, nobody looks under the car at the chasis. Nobody looks at the wiring behind the dash and says "this is an old model with old technology". There is no expiration date on cars. The average car buyer is not that critical.

This is how people buy cars... very simple. People look at a car and drive it.... decide they like it and buy it. Bells and whistles mean nothing in the end. People think they mean something but they really don't. End of story.

Shoot.... I took one look and I didn't even need to drive it. I knew I wanted it. I didn't care that it didn't have a cup holder!

 

Wait a second, yours didn't come with a cupholder? Be very happy

 

I love this car so much, I rarely drive it. Under a cover in the garage. I really need to drive it more...

Monty

 

The "Official" Crossfire Concept Car

 

POSTED BY RAY LAST YEAR AT -C-I-C-C-I

From -C-I-C-C-I............
Story of the week @ Motorcities.org
Reply #1 on: August 13, 2010, 03:27:02 PM »

Members:

The following story will run this week on the motorcities.org website...

Jim Dimond (harbor), Gary (Valkryderguy) and I Ray (rhacker382) worked with motorcities to get this out there... It can be picked up by any of the Detroit area Newspapers.

Enjoy:

MotorCities National Heritage Area - Story of the Week