Link to the full article at the bottom but I took what I found off the link associated to our car because I found that to be the most insulting to us, the owners of these cars that we love! We "sully the image of MB by sharing the bones..." UGH!

While the full article does not say anything about Crossfires, I find it ironic that the two images are of the Crossfire and the SLK! Guess ours is the hottest car because none that they mention are posted in the lead story! This is what the link says:____________

http://autos.aol.com/article/general/v2/_a/kissing-cousins/20070102163309990001

 

Well, excuuuse me...
Did they just realize that after building how many units?
Here's an idea, just rename the car to MB Crossfire.

 

To really **** them off we should all put a Powered By Mercedes-Benz badge on our Crossfires, right in the back where everyone can see...

 

Its not really that parts sharing will sully MB's image, it is that it exposes that the MBs are horrifically overpriced! If they can Frankenstein the Crossfire and sell it for a full 20g's less than a MB badged car (at a minimum-at sticker mind you), it really shows that MBs do not need to be as expensive as they are. So instead of buying a E-320 (or 350 now), just get a Chrysler 300 and pocket the rest. Thats what they are trying to avoid.

 

I may get flamed, but I disagree with some of your observations...

MB's are horrifically overpriced? Compared to what, a Ford, a BMW, an Audi? The Crossfire sold at MSRP
for $10k less than it's discontinued SLK counterpart. A small $35k two seater was too much for MOPAR
customers.

While we are understandably partial to our Crossfire’s, lets face it... the Chrysler name is hardly in the same
class as luxury car maker Mercedes-Benz. Chrysler has improved over the years, but it is still a third rated
American car maker, lagging behind GM and Ford. In a way, you can't really blame MB owners for thumping
their nose at a Chrysler product. They are paying good money for the three pointed star, the build quality of
their cars and much better service. We just got lucky DC decided to build a good looking concept car in
Germany to use up left over SLK parts and then exported it here at a much lower price to boot.

You can also compare MB owner’s feelings with some of our forum members when they first saw the new
Sebring and Aspen models. Many here were very disappointed that while our Crossfire is in limbo, and for
the most part abandoned by DC, yet some of it’s styling cues have been carried over to those other models…

 

I really feel stupid because I always thought Chrysler was an upgrade from Chevrolet and Ford. To the best of my recollection Chrysler has always been an engineering innovator and G.M. and Ford copied and used most of their pioneering developments.

 

Forty years ago, Chrysler built crap.
But their design team has always been innovative and aggressive.
I was pleased when Daimler bought and added new strength.
Today, I think their quality is on par with Ford and GM.
I think they still lead in style for price.

 

Black Diamond, I'm going to have to disagree with ya. Personally I feel some of the best cars ever built by any of the "Big 3" were built between the years of 1962 and 1970, and Chrysler products were among the best. I'm speaking about reliability or dependability, rock solid construction, ease of maintenance, and over all longevity of the vehicles.
I grew up in a very small town, but it did have a Chevy and a Ford dealership. Every year the local police dept. purchased a new cruiser from one of those dealers, Chevy one year, then Ford the next.
Well my Dad worked at a Dodge dealership, and he got tired of seeing this go on for the 8 years we had lived there. So in 1963 he put a bid in for a new cruiser, and under cut the two local dealers by a wide margin. For the next 4 years, the town only purchased Dodge cruisers from my Dad because they preferred them over the Chevy or Fords. As a matter of fact, 3 of the 4 cruisers that the town bought, wound up being purchased by the very police officers that drove them when the cars were retired. That had never happened with either the Fords or Chevys.
I'd have to say Chrysler products started going down hill in the latter part of the 70's. Then the K-car fiasco happened and nobody took Chrysler very serious for quite awhile.

 

+FireAmx, I think I may have explained myself poorly.
But back in 1959 the company I worked for was building plastic injection molds for the big 3.
This remained my career my whole working life. I worked on problems of styling and design with engineers of the big 3. Before and after CADCAM.

In my opinion, in my earlier experiences, there were more problems with the Chrysler vehicles. I'm not saying that Ford and GM were without problems.

I think Chrysler styling has always been in the lead.

What surprised me over the years working with all three was that past problems and mistakes kept getting repeated. Engineers would get good at their jobs, and then get promoted or transferred. And the young new engineers start over. CADCAM made it better for everyone.

Another surprise was the perception of Japan quality. We were working with electronic files from the big 3, and Japan was still sending blueprints, and not good ones at that.

And just so you know where my current attitude is, we have 3 vehicles:
'06 XF Roadster, '06 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo, '02 Dodge Ram truck.

 

I'm surprised they didn't mention that DC just made a deal with a Chinese auto maker to import and sell Chinese built cars into the USA... Now we're talkin'... Those things ought to be FAST and EASY to fix...

 

sounds worse than ricer... meh.

 

Black Diamond, I hope you noticed that I started my praise for Chrysler products with the 1962 model year. I did that because from the years 1957 thru 1961, Chrysler was essentially building the same car. The "Forward Look" only went so far to attract the crowds. I fully agree with ya, those years were plagued with alot of problems, (at least they figured out how to build a "torsion bar" that wouldn't break while your car sat in the garage). :rolleyes Giving up on the "Hemi" might not have been the best idea, but the creation of the "Wedge" motor turned out to be one of their better programs.
I would have liked to have seen them continue with the Turbin car also, but the "fuel crisis" pretty much killed that idea.
Now even though the 1962 Plymouth and Dodge designs weren't that well received by the buying public, their mechanicals, and their chassis were well dialed in, and for the most part, "bullet proof". That's probably why they were the first in the industry to offer the 5 year 50000 mile warranty on the 1963 models.
I confess, I'm pretty much a fan of everybody's cars that were built during the 60's and early 70's. So my bias towards these classics, probably clouds my judgment a little.
I do think it's pretty awesome that today's cars can run rings around the classic muscle cars from the past. For a long time, alot of us "old guys" thought those days were gone forever.

 

On this we agree.
My first brand new car was a 1963 Impala Super Sport Convertible.
I much desired the 1956 T-Bird but could not afford. Had the opportunity to buy one about 10 years ago, but when I sat in it and drove it, I found I had lost interest.
I bought a 1978 Corvette (Anniversary year) new. And many others.

My problem is that I covet many vehicle, particularly for their design features. But in about 2-3 years my interest has dropped.

I expect this will also happen with my new 2006 XF Roadster.

My wife says its OK as long as I only discard the vehicles.