mmarshall

IN A NUTSHELL: Perky, handsome, and good-looking…IMO, this car never got the credit it deserved.

One of my ex-co-workers (he knows who he is…..for privacy-purposes, I won’t use any names)….used to make fun of this car and call it a joke. The auto press from what I remember, was itself divided…some really liked it, others dismissed it as a poor effort. Although I wasn’t (and still am not) a fan of the way Chrysler builds vehicles, I had to disagree with most (not all) of the negative comments. Yes, it was a somewhat cramped for a person my size (virtually all small coupes and roadsters are), and it didn’t have Toyota or Lexus build-quality (except for the rigid structure). But, IMO, particularly for the roadster/convertible, it was one of the best-looking cars to come out of Detroit in quite some time, even if it used a basic Mercedes platform. The coupe was also handsome, but a little more awkward-looking with its 1930s-style droop-down rear end. And, style-wise, Chrysler was starting on a roll…..the excellent retro-Dodge Challenger was to follow it in 2008, and the hugely-successful Chrysler 300 sedan had already been introduced, with an even better Second-Generation model to follow.

The Crossfire was produced in four basic versions…Standard/Limited coupes or roadsters, and the high-performance SRT-6 Coupes and roadsters. (In the first year, 2004, only coupes were offered). Non-SRT versions came with a basic SOHC 3.2L V6, of Mercedes heritage, with 215 HP and 229 ft-lbs. of torque (which, in this small light vehicle, was quite a bit of power), and SRT versions used a supercharged version of the same engine, with 330 HP and 310 ft-lbs. of torque, which, by the standards of the time, turned it into a rocket. SRT versions were also not available the first year. While I admittedly am not a fan of drag-racing, this car, with either engine, had little to be ashamed of in the Spunk-department. Its Mercedes-derived frame-platform, like with the SLK itself, also gave the convertible/roadster version excellent stiffness for an open-top car, with a minimum of cowl-shake and torsional-weakness. One need only to compare former Chrysler convertibles of the 80s and 90s (Sebring, Lebaron, Dodge 400, etc…), whose structures warped like a rubber band under load, to appreciate the Crossfire’s Mercedes-derived stiffness.

Chrysler also offered some nice colors for the Crossfire, particularly in the SRT-6 version. One of my favorites was the light pastel yellowish/beige….never liked being or tan as an exterior color, but that yellowish version was smart-looking.

Though there was some overlap in their production dates, in a way, it’s too bad that the two-seat Ford Thunderbird, Chrysler Crossfire, and the GM Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky wins were not necessarily all three on the market at the same time. They would have made an excellent three-way (or four-way?) market-competition for domestic two-seaters…..although the Solstice/Sky twins had smaller N/A/ and turbo-fours, and the T-Bird a N/A V8. The Corvette, of course, was also a two-seater, but in a different power and price-range…it was more of a strict high-performance car than the SRT-6 Crossfire, and more of a classic sports-car. The Mazda Miata two-seater was smaller than any of the others, lower-powered, and appealed to a different sort of two-seat driver.

I test-drove a Mercedes SLK two-seater, as a colleague of mine, at the time, was interested in one, and, from what I remember, a standard (non-SRT) version of the Crossfire. The SLK had a power-operated hardtop, with the usual (for the period) tank-like Mercedes construction of the body and frame…even the power-hardtop had a very solid feel to it. The Crossfire, being a less-expensive convertible than the SLK, lacked the power-retractable hardtop, using a manually-operated ragtop instead. As mentioned above, both were distinctly better then average for a convertible in terms of body/cowl-flex. The SLK was also somewhat more solidly-built inside, in terms of interior hardware/trim-quality…like it or not, the Crossfire was an early-2000s-vintage Chrysler product, and Chrysler products of that era, like some of their GM competition, were known for dime-story-quality interiors.

One other weakness in the Crossfire was the relatively inconvenient (and tricky) procedure of raising/lowering the manual top (see the video below)…the GM Solstice/Sky twins were also more complex and inconvenient in that regard, especially compared to the ingeniously-simple top-operation in the Mazda Miata. In the Crossfire, to lock or unlock the Tonneau cover, you had to use either a 10 mm wrench or a special tool from either Chrysler or Mercedes to stick it down a narrow gap (being careful not to scratch the paint) to secure or insecure the assembly that locked the cover. One person could usually do it, but it was better with two.


All in all, though, despite a couple of weaknesses, the typical Chrysler cheap/brittle-plastic interior (although in this case a visually-attractive interior), and a spotty reliability record, I liked this car, and, had I been in the market for a small convertible at the time, would have probably chosen it over the Solstice/Sky twins, although not necessarily over the Thunderbird, which offered more room inside for my oversized frame, or the Mazda Miata, which was even more cramped inside for a person my size than the Crossfire, but offered far superior reliability and the ingeniously simple top. The SLK was solidly-built, but IMO simply cost too much for its size. And the Thunderbird, in its first couple of years (early-2000s) when demand for it was through the roof, sold at some of the most ridiculous dealer mark-ups I had yet seen. I was at a dealership when a woman walked in, took a new 38K T-Bird out for a test-drive, came back, paid 55K for it (I’m not kidding), and took it home. The only T-bird at the dealership, if my memory was correct. I don’t remember Crossfire mark-ups (if there was any mark-up at all) being like that. Sadly, however, the market for small coupes and convertibles was starting to fade at the time. Today, of the vehicles I’ve mentioned in this write-up, (if you don’t include the much more expensive Corvette, in a different class), only the perennially-popular Mazda Miata remains…..its Fiat 124 cousin having bitten the dust last year in the American market. The also-perenially-popular Challenger remains, but that is a pony car, not a small coupe, and is actually built on a shortened version of the large Charger frame.

And, as Always, Happy Car-Memories.

MM

mmarshall

Here's a quick 5-minute video on the Crossfire SRT-6 from John Davis and Motorweek:

LeX2K

People seem to like or even love the car
https://www.cars.com/research/chrysl...sumer-reviews/

mmarshall

Yes, the few negative comments seem to center on it being too low for aging bodies, expensive to service, and poor wet-traction. RWD sports cars, however, have never been very good in slick conditions.....that's why many owners just park them in the winter and/or run the engine and transmission just enough to keep them lubed.

Byprodrive

iTrader: (1)

I hated the 4-cyl engine lack of power & noise it made. The 6 cylinder was fine but the chassis short wheelbase made it overly easy to get sideways!

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Ah yes the Crossfire. The poor man's Mercedes SLK

mmarshall

IMO, a lot better-looking than the SLK.

sdls

in my opinion the SLK looks slightly better, but not by much

SW17LS

I'd much rather have an SLK lol

mmarshall

There's not that much difference in how they drive (which is not surprising considering the platform/drivetrain sharing)....but the Crossfire, particularly the convertible, seems to have much better looks inside and out....again, subjective.

JDR76

Definitely subjective. I prefer the looks of the SLK over the Crossfire, and I don't even like the SLK...

SW17LS

Yeah, subjective. SLK is much better looking IMO

mmarshall

Well, one clue is that, unlike the Crossfire, the SLK is still in business, although it has been renamed to SLC.

sdls

way to cheapen the SLC, Mercedes. The old school SLCs cost a fortune when they were new.

mmarshall

How was the SLC cheapened? I don't quite follow you. And the latest SLC is not exactly Chump-Change.......it starts at just under 50K.