Just been reading a review of the Chrysler Crossfire in Autocar magazine, and it's really thrown me into a spin about which one I should use my hard earned dosh for.
I actually placed a deposit on the Crossfire last year, I'd been to the motor show and the car looked fabulous 'in the flesh'. I was very dissapointed however when the preliminary specifications were sent out, these stated that the 0-62 time was 7.3 sec!, and this is from a 3.2 V6, most hot hatches can do better than that these days.
The report in Autocar is very positive though, they say chassis/engine/gearbox is very good and they quote 0-62 as 6.5 sec. (that's more like it). This was also on a US spec car so maybe the UK car will improve on this.
They also carried out a head to head with the 350Z and they say that the Crossfire is the better looking and has vastly superior fit and finish, but then again the Z wins hands down for power and torque.
I know this forum will be slightly biased!, but any advice on which one I should go for?
I think in the meantime I'll hold onto both orders and wait for the tests on UK spec cars (due early summer), and decide then which way to jump.

 

I bought that mag today.... heres my opinion on the Crossfire:

Front - looks like a merc; the lights / grille / fogs etc don't seem to be from the same designer. Interesting though.
Side - nice, if a little fussy
Wheels - gorgeous
Back - batman car. I like the idea of a pop up spoiler but not one that looks like you could pull it off when it pops up.
Interior - better than the Z [apparantly]

Overall - tough choice. I'd have the Z. Or both.
Or have the Crossfire and give me your Z spot!

[Z spot - thats a male "G Spot"!!]

Cheers

PaulUK

 

Wow, I had no idea the performance was going to be so abyssmal. Chrysler needs to put that tired old Intrepid engine out to pasture! I am guessing this car, like 90% of the other cars they make, is using this, right? I mean come on Chrysler, they put that piece of junk in the Prowler, how embarrasing is that for a car with the largest production wheels that it probably can't even chirp them. It's a solid engine, but it's way down on power.

 

Paul UK,
Yes, I agree about the spoiler, but I think the rest of the car mor than compensates for it. Having both sounds good to me, I've been trying to talk the girlfriend into buying it, but she's not too keen so far.
Your'e probably right about the Z spot, it does it for me every time!.

Rob,
I don't think this is the same engine, most of the mechanicals are from the Mercedes SLK 320 (including engine), and as far as I know this is the first time that Chrysler has used a Merc engine (anyone know different). Do you really think that 0-62 in 6.5 sec will feel that slow?.

 

According to both Top Gear and Evo, the Crossfire's gear box is pretty poor, and let's the whole car down.

I think it looks GREAT from the back and side, but very boring and Mercish from the front.

 

Nice looking car (although IMHO it won't beat the Z looks wise), with a nicely made interior by all accounts. Which seems to be the only way in which the Z lets itself down, although I think the press are a little unfair with comments such as it looking and feeling Yugo cheap! I've driven the Guildford model (as I live and work just down the road) and it's still the best Jap car interior I have seen. This looks as though that will change when the RX8 comes out, as the interior looks fab, especially those seats!

However, where it will be let down is having a Merc gearbox and chassis, as they aren't exactly inspiring.

The Crossfire I would expect my Dad to buy, whereas me a Z please

 

I used to be loyal to Chrysler Corporation, or something, but I don't care for the direction they are going nowdays. That includes the Crossfire.

I'd ask yourself a simple question. Do you want a sports car?

If yes, but a Z. If no, buy the Crossfire.

 

Since both cars fall into the "what lights your fire" rather than practical transportation ultimately the decision rests with your "fire" answer. If I tie I'd go with the Japanese car.......much higher reliability.