When DaimlerChrysler was first formed the official line was that Mercedes and Chrysler products would remain distinct and that product platforms and powertrains would not be shared. Maybe that was the actual intent of the firm’s executives as well. Either way, the Chrysler unit’s unexpected and continuing weakness in sales and profits forced a reconsideration of this policy. What Chrysler had been doing was not working. A new direction was needed. The one chosen was to take Chrysler’s products upscale in price and sophistication partly through the use of Mercedes componentry. This strategy is especially evident in the new Crossfire.
The Crossfire first appeared as a concept sports car a couple of years ago. It strongly expressed Chrysler’s upcoming edgier, art deco, “cab rearward” design language—a language which we have now seen on the Pacifica and will soon see on Chrysler’s new rear-wheel-drive large cars. Supposedly many auto show attendees expressed strong interest in the show car. Maybe so, but I’ve long noticed that auto executives whose companies are in a slump like to treat themselves to a new sports car. The rationalization is that such a car will end the slump by getting consumers to come into showrooms, take a look at the new sports car, and pick up a new minivan or SUV on the way out. I personally doubt this “halo car” strategy works as well as it did in the days when the only alternative to a sports car was a boring sedan or wagon. Why buy a minivan just because it shares a brand (but little else) with the desired sports car when a sport sedan or crossover that directly satisfies one’s full set of needs is available elsewhere? The effect of a new sports car on company and especially executive morale is less debatable. For some mix of these reasons, DaimlerChrysler decided to produce the Crossfire.
It’s always noteworthy whenever a show car gets approved for production. What made the Crossfire ever more interesting was the route chosen. To avoid developing an all-new product, which could not be financially justified, the production Crossfire is heavily based on the Mercedes SLK. Notably, the Crossfire uses the SLK’s chassis, 3.2-liter V6 engines (normally aspirated and supercharged), transmissions, steering system, brakes, and instrument panel (though with unique faceplates). It is even manufactured in Germany by Karmann, which has long specialized in the production of low volume specialty cars. Any danger of blurring the difference between the two brands was largely eliminated through vastly different exterior styling, a coupe instead of a convertible configuration, and the fact that the SLK will be thoroughly redesigned for 2005. Basically Chrysler is getting Mercedes’ fully amortized hand-me-downs. Still, using Mercedes parts and German assemblers forces a $35,000 price, pretty steep for a Chrysler.
The largest issue: what exactly is this novel combination of an American design and brand with German engineering and manufacturing? We’ve had the Catera from GM and a pair of Merkurs from Ford, but those were thinly clothed German products. The Crossfire is a more complicated transatlantic effort. A brief test drive helped me figure the car out.
I later drove the SRT6 version of the Crossfire at the SRT Track Experience, which SRT buyers attend free of charge. (Non-owners like me pay $300.)
Chrysler Crossfire Reliability
Want better reliability information? Want to really know what difference it will make if you buy a Chrysler Crossfire rather than something else? It's coming in the form of "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats. From these you might learn that your first choice, compared to your second choice, is likely to make 2.7 extra trips to the shop in its first five years. You might decide its advantages compensate for this, or you might not. Either way, you'll be able to make a much better informed decision.
To gain access to this information you have a choice: sign up to help provide the data now or pay $24.95 later. For the details, visit my website, www.truedelta.com.
Styling and Accommodations
I’ve already mentioned Chrysler’s new design language. Some changes were made between the show car and production, most notably a change from vertical to horizontal headlamps, but the Crossfire’s look and character survived the transition to a surprising degree. The strakes on the hood, aggressive wedge, boattail rear end, and huge wheels of the show car are all present and accounted for. It is undoubtedly a highly novel striking design, no mean achievement when most new cars strongly resemble others already on the road and many of those that are truly new are also truly ugly. No one will mistake the Crossfire for anything else or accuse its designers of copying someone else’s work. Many people will like how it looks.
The major aesthetic difference between the regular Crossfire and the SRT6 is that the latter gets differently styled wheels that, to my eye, are considerably less attractive on the car. I prefer my wheels without so many spokes.
One minor aesthetic weakness: the brake rotors look tiny within the huge wheels (18s up front and 19s in back).
Inside the Crossfire is evidently based on the SLK. The basic look of the instrument panel and especially of the upright gauge cluster is very Mercedes. That said, the liberal use of high-quality silver faceplates, trim, and swithces throughout the interior, already a cliché elsewhere, in this car carries the exterior’s art deco flavor into the interior. It helps that these silver bits looked and felt high in quality—not just flashy plastic. Frankly, the interior of the Crossfire seemed higher in quality than that of the SLK (though not that of the Audi TT) and was a much more interesting place to be. If there is a Germanic aesthetic influence here, it is more Audi than Mercedes. Think TT.
The Crossfire was not designed to be practical. Getting in without hitting one’s head is not easy. The doors feel far heavier than any in my recent memory. (Why I haven’t a clue.) Once in the driver’s seat the distant windshield header makes it impossible to see traffic lights unless you stop further from the light than normal or scrunch down.
Other aspects of the driving position are appealing. I personally dislike the heavily raked windshields found on many sports cars—especially American ones—because I don’t appreciate having the A-pillar in my face. The Crossfire’s more distant pillars and windshield helped open up the tight interior. As in the SLK the dash is high relative to the driver’s seat, but the view forward is still good. (The view to the rear is not so good owing to a high tail and an extremely narrow rear window.) The seats, also SLK-based I think, were supportive in all directions and reasonably comfortable. I’ve sat in better seats, but these are far from deal killers.
Storage space is in short supply, but that’s typical of this sort of car.
On the Road
My test drive of the regular Crossfire was much shorter than most I conduct so I can only provide my initial impressions. Many people will criticize the Crossfire for having only 215 horsepower when Japanese rivals such as the Mazda RX-8 and Nissan 350Z offer 238 and 287, respectively. On the other hand, German brand competitors in this price range offer a similar amount of power and cost even more. (Audi offers a 250-horsepower 3.2-liter six in the significantly heavier TT for 2004, but this car costs significantly more than the Crossfire.)
I would have preferred to drive a six-speed manual, but the car was equipped with the five-speed automatic. I liked the powertrain more than I expected to. The amount of thrust provided is more than adequate, if well short of neck-snapping. Much credit is due the transmission, which possesses short gearing and tends to find the right gear promptly even within manumatic input. Recall that Mercedes once sold a huge S-Class sedan equipped with a 3.2-liter six, and that car did not embarrass itself despite weighing 50 percent more than this one. The Germans know how to set up a car’s gearing to get the most out of an engine. If only American companies were not so obsessed with tricking the last few tenths out of the EPA’s fuel economy tests they might learn a thing or two.
The best thing about the powertrain is its aural performance. I’ve sampled this same six in the SLK, but do not recall such an intoxicating soundtrack. Some exhaust system engineer sweated the details here. Between the highly tuned exhaust note and the transmission’s short gearing, punching the car up to 35 sounds like a full-throttle run to a much higher speed. Almost too artificial, but I could not help liking it. In many of my reviews I lament that many performance cars do not provide thrills in normal, legal driving. This one does. A question I cannot answer is whether this frenetic quality becomes tiresome after the first few miles.
In my initial review: I imagine that there is always a chance that DCX will drop the supercharged, 349-horse AMG variant of the 3.2 into the Crossfire. Not a very good chance, but a chance nonetheless. That would make for a very interesting ride.
They later did do this. The 330-horsepower SRT6 is a very quick car. At the track it accelerated even more quickly than the 425-horsepower 300C SRT8. At full throttle the transmission shifts are very crisp.
I did not thoroughly evaluate the brakes, but they are clearly more powerful than the huge wheels make them look.
I did not care for the SLK’s handling. Though no Honda S2000 in terms of responsiveness, the Crossfire’s chassis felt better balanced and more precise than the SLK’s. Lean in turns is minimal. Chrysler’s ads claim that the car pulls 1.2 G’s on the skidpad, but this seems dubious to me. Again a few well-thought-out details helped. I especially liked the shape and feel of the steering wheel rim, which contributed to my feeling more connected to this car than I felt to the SLK. The recirculating-ball steering is well-weighted but, as in the SLK, feels much less lively than I like in a sports car. Make that any car. More than any other aspect of the car this steering makes the Crossfire feel more mature (for lack of a better word) than the average high-strung sports car.
The SRT6 has a firmer suspension, so it handles a bit more crisply and leans less in turns. However, it still lacks the agile feel I personally expect in a sports car.
I was not able to evaluate the Crossfire’s ride quality. The chassis felt very composed, but all of the roads I drove the car on were smooth. When I drove the SLK around some heavily tar stripped surfaces I encountered a odd springiness to the seat that kept me constantly bouncing up and down. I could not tell if that issue will carry over to this car.
Overall I enjoyed driving the Crossfire (in either form) more than I enjoyed driving the SLK, but less than I enjoyed driving the Mazda RX-8, Honda S2000, and BMW Z3 (which I continue to prefer to the technically far superior Z4).
Pricing
The automatic adds $1,075 to the Crossfire’s price, bringing it to $35,570. All-season tires ($185) are the only other option. This car is too new for reliable transaction price information. A dealer I pass by three days a week has had the same three Crossfires out front for weeks now. Heavy discounting may be in this car’s future.
Given the Crossfire’s fixed roof its most obvious competitors are the Mazda RX-8, Nissan 350Z, and Audi TT. The Japanese cars will run you two to four thousand less. The Audi with a newly available 3.2-liter six will run you at least five thousand more. The Mazda, with four doors and a usable rear seat, is much more practical as well as a better handling car than the Crossfire. However, it feels like a less expensive car and has no midrange power to speak of. The Nissan has plenty of midrange as well as top-end power, but feels even cheaper than the Mazda and can prove tiresome. The TT is a more cramped car than any of the above, and I do not care for its deep-in-a-tub driving position. In coupe form it has a rear seat, but unlike that in the Mazda it is very cramped. With the 250-horse six it should be a screamer, though. Alone among these cars the TT is based on a front-drive platform. Although it has all-wheel-drive, this basis gives it a nose heavy weight distribution that should affect the car’s handling (unlike the other cars mentioned here I have not driven the TT).
A Mercedes SLK will run you over ten grand more. But then it has a folding metal roof and three-pointed star. Figure five grand for the roof, five grand for the star.
Ultimately the Crossfire’s major advantage is its styling and craftsmanship. If these strongly appeal to you, then the rest of the car should prove at least adequate. However, if the styling doesn’t do much for you, then the rest of the car isn’t likely to win you over.
Last Words
The Crossfire is a visually intriguing car with a modicum of dynamic character. It should be an enjoyable car to own, though people whose top priority is brute horsepower will want the SRT6 and those whose top priority is sharp, agile handling will be happier elsewhere.
What this car says about the future character of Chrysler I have more trouble saying. I suspect many people are not sure what to make of a sports car from Chrysler; but then Audi never sold a volume sports car here prior to the TT. The Crossfire certainly looks and feels different than any pre-2004 Chrysler. In the looks department it has already been joined by the Pacifica and will be joined next spring by the 300C. This suggests that in the future Chryslers will appear edgier and more sophisticated. Dynamically the Crossfire will probably share less with other Chryslers, especially those based on Mitsubishi platforms (all future front-drive Chrysler cars). The Crossfire has a strong German feel from switchgear to seat of the pants. The Pacifica despite a rear suspension derived from that of the Mercedes E-Class sounds and feels much more American. The Town & Country minivan even more so. The upcoming large cars might feel more German aside from the Hemi V8, which judging from the Ram pickup it which it is currently offered has a very traditional American character. Finally, Mitsubishi-based cars can be expected to have the relatively light, delicate feel typical of Japanese cars. Even with a shared aesthetic, is this any way to rebuild a brand? Will the future Chrysler be cohesive like the German brands, or all over the map like Chevrolet and Ford. The Corvette has nothing in common with other Chevrolets; will the Crossfire have a similar relationship with other Chryslers? Time will tell.
To learn more about my reliability research and sign up to participate in it, or to perform thorough new car price comparisons, visit www.truedelta.com.
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.