This is the main reason but I'm glad. I haven't ever seen another like mine with my startech bits

 

LOL no, not joking. But I may have blocked it out subconsciously. I hate Celine Dion's music. She seems to have a powerful voice and be a nice person and reasonably attractive but her song choices never really clicked with me.

 

Celine Dion's ad for the Crossfire, and you asked why it bombed?
I think she made more money on her Chrysler ads than anyone.
YouTube - Celine Dion : 2004 Chrysler CrossFire Commercial

 

IMO, the crossfire was doomed from the start--especially since MB didn't really want to invest any money in building the Chrysler brand. But honestly, other than the styling, the car is pretty underwhelming compared with any new performance car you could have purchased when the crossfire was being sold. Overall, the car is quirky, it has a very unique look (some like it, some don't), and most dealers don't know how to do anything more complicated than change the brakes. All of this because Mercedes, from the start, took a very General Motors approach to the development of this car--badge engineer a currently available and outdated platform. I can almost bet that someone in Germany used the rationale that even an outdated MB platform was better than whatever new platform Chrysler could even develop from scratch. And forget using something Chrysler had in play. So why let Chrysler spend money on a product that will likely be inferior from the start---lets give the americans a mercedes on a budget, but then charge them near-mercedes money! Great plan! Furthermore, I the general feel of a MB product matches very well with the more comfort minded feel of most chrysler products.

But the devil is in the details and that's precisely where the Crossfire lost it. As mentioned in a previous thread, the feature list was terrible. The nav is/was archaic and there is no input on the radio for an MP3 player. There is no onboard computer to measure things like fuel mileage or avg speed. The car doesn't even have adjustable intermittant wipers. For a $35k car, the features just didn't compare to pretty much anything else.

Then there's the car itself. I love to look at my crossfire and I think the interior is pretty clever as well. MB spent some money on that aspect of the vehicle and everything else was parts bin MB--and unfortunately, not in a good way. MB cut corners with the recirculating ball steering, which can't match the feel of more precise rack and pinion setups that the competitors came with. The engine is pathetic--it's one thing to offer 215hp in a $22k Mustang V6, but another in a sports car that can approach close to $40k with a couple of options. The power is adequate, but it also doesn't really imbue the car with the feel of a modern sports car. The 3.5L that MB developed for the 2nd gen SLK would have been a better choice. And I bet the car would have sold much better if MB just changed that aspect of the car.

The chassis IMO, is the unsung hero for the crossfire. Adding the fixed roof really tightened up the car. The suspension design is excellent and the addition of fat tires helps it hug the road. But unfortunately, it's one of those cars, like the previous generation BMW 528, where the chassis far outshined the engine. In a sports car that is far pricier than say a Miata, the lack of balance between power and chassis turned a lot of people off. Add the vague steering to the mix and lots of potential buyer simply lost interest.

IMO, the Crossfire's best attributes are the chassis and it's very stout powertrain. The engine in this car is a ubiquitous MB powerplant that was designed to run on the autobahn at close to full throttle for hours at a time. And it doesn't use any exotic or expensive technology to make that happen but those things aren't sexy to most buyers. Most people who buy a sports car, buy one as a second car, so as such, it better offer a full array of performance, which the crossfire was never given the opportunity to deliver. To many, it looked great...and that's about it.

My crossfire isn't a second car. It's my daily and I chose it specifically because of the price, the likely sturdiness of the engine, and the likely ease of being able to find parts to repair the engine. As you notice, absolute performance isn't on that list. If it was, I wouldn't be driving a crossfire. There are just too many compromises in that respect. The crossfire is sporty enough for a daily, IMO. I think the crossfire is probably the most useable 2 seater that I could have purchased in 2008. And I was a total sucker for how it looks.

Bottom Line: For the price of a crossfire, the features and performance really weren't a match for what the competitors were bringing to the table.

If I could go back and re-develop the car, I'd make 2 changes that in my opinion would have made a world of difference to the car. First change the engine to something with about 270 hp and second, give it a rack in pinion steering system. They could even leave the features as they are and not add in all the modern bits that many people look for. I think if those two items were changed, the car would have been much more popular.

 

good write up allEuro. sums it up nicely. The recirculating ball versus rack and pinion is not that big of a deal, and each has their own benefits. The creature comfort things in a 40K car would have been a no brainer for me, and I think you're assessment of the MB thought process was jiust about right on. Their baby was their own, and this just was really the baby Benz for the sucker american market because they probably had to.

It's basically my daily driver too because it beats driving a Focus anyday for the price. Enough get up and go because of the torque, and a great value for the money for longevity. It's a beautiful design by itself. But like the Cayman and the Cayman s and now the Cayman R they could have done something like that, although the SRT after only one year out was that attempt for the performance, but then should have boosted the other componentry as well, and made it true race capable.

 

I suppose it all depends on what you're looking for, but I really enjoy a steering system with some good feel to it. I've driven plenty of BMWs and VW that have had excellent steering feel. But on the other side, I have also driven a Mazda 5 and my GF just bought a Hyundai Tucson, both of which have a more precise steering feel than the Crossfire. To give the crossfire a steering setup better suited to an S class than a sports car is just terrible, IMO. Plus, it looks like MB has starting adding rack in pinion steering to many, if not all of their cars. But yeah, if you don't pay attention to steering feel, that I can see it not being an issue.

I agree 100% with this. For price I paid, I don't think I would have bought anything else. The whole package, depsite it's weaknesses when compared with $35k-$40k performance cars, is much better than the sport compact cars I could have bought for the same price. You just couldn't touch a legit rwd sports car with under $25k back in 2008--unless you wanted a miata. I don't care for convertible personally, so that was out.

YOu know at the end of the day it's about compromise. Is the crossfire my dream car? No. But it gives me about 85% of what I'm looking for in a sports car at a price that couldn't be beaten. When the day comes that I feel comfy plunking down say a legitimate $35k for a '11+ Mustang GT with the options I want, a used Cayman S, or Lotus Elise then I will have to seriously re-evaluate the crossfire. Until that time, the crossfire is a very good vehicle if you're looking for a specific type of sports car.

My dream, I think---would be a car with the styling, transmission, and suspension of the crossfire, but with the engine, clutch, and steering from a BMW Z4 coupe.

 

I could go along with that.

 

The Crossfire was an absolute world-class car from 1999, released in 2004 at a high-for-2004 price point.

Recirculating ball, ~240HP in a ~3000lb car, and no trip computer, iPod inputs, etc. were perfectly acceptable in 1999 - BMW used recirculating-ball in the V8-equipped E39 5-series (540 and M5) to perfectly positive reviews when they came out, and when the first set of SLKs were reviewed in the 90's they weren't panned nearly as hard on steering as the Crossfire was.

But by 2004 and especially by 2008, Mercedes were introducing the 3.5L SLK, recirculating-ball was pretty much gone from the sports car industry, even low-end econoboxes were starting to get iPod inputs and real navigation displays, and 240hp just wasn't that much anymore.

That doesn't mean the Crossfire isn't a fantastic car (I sure love mine), especially at the prices they're going for now - just that it couldn't compete in the $30,000+ price point with very little marketing in 2004, especially in the RWD two-seater market where the latest performance technology is a prime consideration for buyers. I doubt the Chrysler badge helped either.

 

AllEuro

I don't believe Mercedes hatched some evil plot to subvert the company they just paid beaucoup bucks for. And I don't really think it was German ego. I think they were desperate to get some new product in the pipeline as quickly as possible to demonstrate the value of the merger to investors. But yes, they probably did want to differentiate the brands in consumer's minds. Remember the Crossfire was released in 2004 but design and production tooling started long before that. They were caught between product cycles. The R170 was getting long in the tooth but the R171 didn't exist yet in 2001-2002.

And I wouldn't equate the Crossfire design exercise with the classic GM "badge engineering" of legend. The redesign went way beyond brand specific bumpers and badging. It was more like parts bin engineering to speed up the design cycle. The Crossfire shared no sheet metal with the SLK. I'd even say Eric Stoddard and his team completely eclipsed the Mercedes stylists when they penned the Crossfire. And Chrysler added a fixed roof to the R170 chassis. That's not an inconsequential change. They also tweaked the suspension in the case of the SRT-6.

As for the telematics, I don't remember Nav, Bluetooth, iPod adapters, USB ports, or media hard drives being all that common in 2004-2005. Certainly cars like the 350Z, G35 Coupe, Vette, and Boxster didn't have all that stuff. By 2008, yes it was common fare but, not in 2004. And it's really only the last couple of years that telematics have trickled into the mainstream with Ford's Synch system and it's competitors.

I'll give you the point on the trip computer / mileage calculator and intermittent wipers. I'd like to add tilt steering wheel to the list of stuff that was readily available and expected on even mid market cars at the time. Don't know what Chrycedes was thinking there. And HID lighting, while new and expensive at the time would have been appropriate at the price point of the Crossfire and especially the SRT-6.

As for the recirculating ball steering, journalists loved to trash it as old tech. But I came to an SRT-6 from a 2008 Honda S2000 which is generally acknowledged as a scalpel when it comes to steering feel and response. But, I don't feel hugely disadvantaged in the SRT-6. Yeah, there's a bit too much assist and yeah, the S2000 had better feel. But I adapted pretty quickly in the SRT-6 and I can more or less put the car where I want it with confidence. So while the steering could be improved it isn't a deal killer for me.

 

The original price of the Crossfire and SRT6 were the biggest failures of the car, imo. On the used market, these things are an absolute steal for the amount of car you get.

I know I'll get some flack for this but the biggest mistake Chrysler/MB made with the this car (even bigger than using recirc ball steering) is not offering a manual transmission in the SRT6. I would've loved to buy an SRT6 but the lack of a manual trans was a complete deal breaker for me. What honest sportscar ONLY offers an automatic transmission? I realize that to most people, that wouldn't be that big of a deal but if you're going to market a sportscar, nothing spells that out better than a manual transmission at least being on the option list.

 

The problem is that MB really didn't contribute much to the "partnership". If MB was serious about the crossfire, they could have EASILY made a hybrid of R170 and R171 parts--similar to what VW did with the Corrado, which in VR6 guise uses both mkII and mkIII parts. As I mentioned earlier, if MB really wanted to make the crossfire competitive, they would have at least given it the engine from the R171. And since that engine is an evolution of the 3.2L motor, it really wouldn't have been difficult to make that happen. It's plain as day that MB just didn't want to spend the money on the car to make it competitive. And not for nothing, but even if what you say about development of any aspect of the R171 was a problem, there is no reason why MB/Chrysler couldn't have held off production of the car for a year.

I disagree here as well. The only place where MB invested any time and money was strictly on design. So you are right in one respect--the Crossfire was really nothing more than a design exercise. Of course part of that exercise, was to add a fixed roof to the car. Why do you think even the coupe has those stupid windshield surrounds--because of the strict reliance on the well used R170 platform.

But aside from the items related to the exterior and interior design, all of the important bits are MB, circa 1998. It infuriates me that they use archaic pneumatic lines to run the power locks in the car as well---I really enjoyed not being able to get into the trunk of my car when the line split. C'mon--that's just sloppy and lazy. My corrado has pneumatic lines and it's a 1994 model year car. There are lots of little updates and a couple of bigger ones that the car should have had prior to it's introduction in 2004. That's the crux of the reason why the crossfire never sold well.

I really didn't have time to look up all the cars you listed, but I can tell you that the 350z had a legit nav system, trip computer, adjustable intermittant wipers, and at some point in it's life cycle, bluetooth(maybe from the beginning, I'm not quite sure at this point). And according to Wikipedia (not sure the legitimacy), bluetooth was available in 2005 for the G35.

Also, why is it that other brands actually update their cars throughout the lifecycle, but the most notable update on the crossfire over it's life cycle is the dead pedal on newer models? How about actually addressing some of highly common sensor issues the car seems to have? It goes back into MB not wanting to put any money into the car. They blew their "load" on whatever it cost to reskin the R170 into the crossfire and thats it. Were there ever rumors of a mkII Crossfire at any point in time?

Like I said--it goes back to cost cutting. MB probably spent a good chunk on reskinning the R170 and felt that the other attributes of the car were good enough. I certainly would not complain with HIDs, but I actually think the stock lights are pretty good. The stock HIDs on my old GTI weren't amazingly better, IMO.

You know, I've heard lots of complaints about the s2000 steering being rather vague. Just a couple of threads on this topic that took me about 3 seconds to find: How to improve steering feel? - S2000 Club of America Forums and Any way to fix S2000 Steering Feel??? - MX-5 Miata Forum and
Honda S2000

It;s true that the s2k is thought of as a very precise instrument, but it's also well documented that if there's a weak link for many people, it's the steering. I can tell you that I've had significant issues with the steering feel in the car. I;m used to very tight steering and while I'v never owned a really high performance cars in my lifetime, the my old GTI and current corrado have pretty decent feel for what they are. I can also tell you that in the first month I owned the car, I would mysteriously find myself drifting into neighboring lanes on the highway. I bought the car brand new and the car is/was straight. I eventually got used to this, but the steering tuning for this car is poor. Look, it's pathetic when you drive a small Mazda 5 minivan (microvan?) and the steering eclipses that of a supposed sports car. MB should have done something here---but were back to cost.

If you notice, I've mention cost several times in my response as a reason why certain things that really should have been done, weren't done to it. That sounds an awful lot like the GM of old. No the crossfire isn't the same situation as the Cimarron was, but at the same time, it's not worlds different either. You drive a cimarron and it's pretty easy to know where it came from. You drive a Crossfire and if you're familiar with the SLK, you know very quickly where things were derived--though MB does get credit for at least changing the interior and exterior design. However, the mkI TT was the king of platform sharing compared with the other two cars. Yes, that car was heavily based on the mkIV Golf/Jetta, but you'd never know by sitting in it. It looks 100% audi. Having owned a mkIV Jetta and my mom owning a TT, I can tell you they drove much differently. VW/Audi took the time to tweak most, if not all of the things that drivers will notice from behind the wheel. Some of that was done on the crossfire, like the suspension, exhaust (though it's still stupid quiet), and shifter. All very good starts, but they just couldn't finish the job---another GM trait.

 

Mercedes doesn't offer manual transmissions on the high performance models aka AMG models...I think driving a stick is overated any way...You guys must not drive in a lot of traffic like I do in Houston...

 

Well, I have both an auto and manual. I enjoy driving the manual more even though the auto on the XF is the best auto that I have ever driven. But you are correct on rush hour traffic. I work out of my basement or on a plane somewhere so I don't have the daily rush hour traffic to deal with.

 

I can't help but compare the Chrysler Crossfire to the Merkur XR4Ti's that were sold at Mercury dealers from 1984 thru 1989. I owned 3 of the XR4tI's (86, 88, 89) at the same time and thoroughly enjoyed all of them. When you consider the XR4Ti had a fully independent suspension, used a turbocharged 4-cylinder for both performance & economy (what's going on today!), and had "before its time looks" (a Cd of 0.29 - nearly 30 years ago!), yet the car failed miserably here in The States. Only 42,464 cars sold in 5 years! What was the biggest failure - a high performance Ford product sold by a Mercury dealer network where "performance" wasn't its claim to fame. And the Merkur XR4Ti was highly successful in Europe as the Ford Sierra, with even a Cosworth 4x4 version available in later model years. Heck - both the XFire & XR4Ti were even assembled (under contract) in the same Karmann plant!

Now, IMHO, Chrysler has had the reputation for producing high performance cars in the past. But it's hard to remember any Chrysler models that were anything other than full size cars, even in the "muscle car" era. Sure there have been Chrysler "sports car" products with significant performance, but these marques tend to be either Dodge (e.g, Viper) or Plymouth (e.g., Prowler). And saying the Prowler was a siginficant performance car might be a stretch. But is was unique, had a "retro look" and that's what it had going for it back then. And both cars were American designed & built!!

Previous postings have pretty much nailed it regarding all the possibilities for the Crossfire's demise. I feel strongly that poor marketing of the product was the biggest impact and the reasons why the original 5-yr contract with Karmann for production from 2004 thru 2008 was never renegotiated and/or extended.

The America buyer will purchase a car from an OEM producer that is viewed as being soley from that producer. European, Japanese, Korean, American - doesn't matter. The location of the assembly plant isn't a factor. (Note: The only exception I can recall in recent years are the BMW Z3 owners who flipped out when they discovered after purchase that the car was assembled in SC.) But try to market a car as an American marque that is produced somewhere else just doesn't work. Never has; probably never will.

The Merkur XR4Ti was designed & built overseas and flopped as an American marque. It essentially was just a badging change. But the Crossfire was a combination of German-designed mechanicals & interior with an American-designed body. Not just a badging approach. (Note: And one has to remember that the early SLK platform & associated model was never really pushed hard by M-B as a "performance" car. They had a retractable hardtop, which was unique for years, and came across as "luxo 2-seaters". Only the AMG products were marketed as performance cars and continue today.) So the XFire was viewed as a European car built overseas but sold as an American marque. It too flopped in the market. Heck - There aren't many Chrysler dealers that even know how to work on the car with any competence and the M-B dealers will often times look down their noses because they view it as a "poor man's" Mercedes.

But I love the car!!!! And I loved my XR4Ti's just as much!!!! The only real difference is I only own 1 XFire!!!! Gotta do something about that!!!!

 

all of these are really good observations. and all contribute to the why it failed. broken down, too expensive, not true sports but more than just a Vega, two seater in at least a 2+2 market, internal thumb nosing and politics, lots of stuff. technically the car doesn't bother me a bit because it's solid, is a performer, and is different enough to be enjoyable to own. Would I have paid 40k for the car? Not a prayer. It doesn't have that price to value positive relationship to me. On the other hand the price it's at now? Oh yeah, big time way positive. Wew're winners all in all as far as I'm concerned. You want a performance car then pony and pay for one. this is as much performance car as I need.

 

I'm in total agreement. My XFire delivers in all areas.

 

I've been a forum member at S2Ki for over three years and yeah, some people complain about the steering in the S2000 but many of those are idiots repeating crap they've heard but don't really understand. Two things the numb nuts would always bring up would be the electrically assisted steering and the drive by wire throttle.

Because Honda chose to use electric rather than hydraulic assist, there was a crowd who whined about it lacking "feel". Sorry but I drove the car every day for three years. It felt just fine. I personally think people were reaching for excuses and blaming the electric assist. I don't think hydraulic vs electric assist really has much to do with the steering feel of the car.

When Honda switched to drive by wire and a programmable ECU with the AP2 redesign in 2004, all of the AP1 owners were quick to defend their older cars by pronouncing the "feel" of the newer system "inferior". Well, the guy who got me to buy an S2000 drives a 2002/AP1. We've swapped cars several times. Neither he nor I can detect any difference in throttle response or that intangible "feel".

If someone can't put an S2000 on the money 99.99% of the time, I'd look first at the driver before blaming the car.

And oh yeah, I've been neglecting my favorite lament from the S2Ki forum. The ages old complaint "the rear end is twitchy". Or, "the car spins out for no reason". Or, "it takes a seasoned driver to handle this car". What crap! It takes a driver who's not an idiot! The car is incredibly well balanced and stable. You can steer with the wheel, throttle on oversteer, or trailing throttle oversteer. The back end breaks traction very predictably and is very easy to control as long as you haven't violated the rules of physics.

So, I don't give much credibility to the general population of internet forum opinions when I have direct experience with the car in question.

As for cars owned, I haven't owned exotics but I've owned a Mustang, Merkur XR4Ti, two Alfa's, Supra, two Vettes, 05 GTO, Infiniti G35, S2000, and now SRT-6 along with a gaggle of family haulers and sedans. IMHO the worst of the lot were the Vette's (87 & 02). I don't think I'll ever buy another one. I don't like the seating position / visibility and at the limit handling was horrible, especially in the wet. Not a great experience other than the power to weight ratio.

 

Spud, just out of curiosity, because I've never driven an S2000, how do they compare with the Cross for just an overall experience. Mot road fell in particular, just the experience of their sports car. I always liked them, but just wondering. on the overall ride.

 

Having one of each I would respectfuly disaggree. The best advantage for an automatic is on the drag strip or...in a minivan.

The high torque of the NA six allows for simple clutch engagement in stop and go. Most times just put it in second and use the throttle to go and slow down, never touching the brakes. So you don't even have to move your foot over.

Besides, for many of us who prefer to row, shifting is anatomic. Said another way, virtualy automatic as we don't really think about it.

The only time my six speed shifts clunky IS when I think about it.

Spud is right about the steering. I think journalist and purist used it as a red herring so they would not have to admit the Crossie was sports car.
I remember a Top Gear episode where, after mentioning the RB steering they said, "This.....this car.... is not a sports car,,,,,but,,,,,,I like it!"


roadster with a stick

 

I totally agree Franc.
Of course I don't own an automatic to compare it to, but I don't drag race anymore either.