Hey Stangers!

This is my first post, so go easy.

The other day I came across the specs for the new 05 Chrysler Crossfire SRT-6 and got a little worried. It seems to me like Chrysler is setting this car up to take on and possible beat the Stang at the traditional stop-light fights. What do you think?

05 Stang GT
Engine: 4.6L V-8
Weight: 3425 (est.)
HP: 300
P/W: 11.4

05 Chrysler Crossfire SRT-6
Engine: 3.2L V-6 Supercharged
Weight: 3060 (est.)
HP: 330
P/W: 9.3

 

It probably will outperform a stock GT in 0-60, 60-0 and slalom but it costs $45,000 base vs the Mustang GT base of approx $25,000. It is not really a fair comparison.

 

First, the SRT6 weighs 3240, not 3060.

Second, why does everyone insist on comparing apples to oranges??? The Crossfire SRT6 has an MSRP of $45,695 -- around 75% more than a Mustang GT. And from glancing at the real stats for the SRT6, I don't see any reason to believe it is for sure going to be faster than a 2005 Mustang GT.

Dave

EDIT: darn, I must be a low typer today, ecgirard2 beat me to the punch...

 

Werd.

Wait for a Cobra and it'll be apples to apples price wise (almost). The Cobra will shred an SRT6.

 

Maybe it's just me, but does anyone else think that the Crossfire is UGLY AS SIN?

IMO it only looks somewhat good when the top is down.
When the top's up...
I don't mean to offend anyone who likes it, just stating my opinion. B)

 

That's one of those cars that falls into the "I'm glad it's out there, but I'm not spending my money on one" category. I like bold, different design. I don't want one in my garage, but it makes the commute more interesting.

 

Quote that TopGear guy:


"I've been thinking for a long time of what the design reminds me. Yesterday, I finally found it. You know that 'hurk' a dog makes when he's going for number two? That's it! Yuck!"

 

I think Chrysler is setting it up more to be an M3/350Z fighter.

 

I agree! Chrysler didn't build that car to compete with the Stang.
Although, I think GM made the GTO for that purpose. They deny it, but look at the guys who are buying it? Its the same guys who bought Firebirds and Camaros.
No need to worry! If you want to spend 34k or more, buy a Cobra and blow everybody off the road. Minus a Viper or ZO6 Corvette-LOL

 

Yup. They arent even the same type of car, and Ive driven crossfires, theyre nothing to write home about. The Shelby V10 roadster, compare THAT to the Crossfire in 07-08......

 

If i had to go non-ford,,,,I'd take the 300 over the Crossfire B)

 

I used to sell Crossfires...

Most people were digusted by the car after the test drive, especially compared to the price. My dealer was asking $10,000 over sticker. This was a pretty evil dealer though. One sales guy wrote in almost a $1000 in "accessories" that didn't even exist.

 

the whole srt thing to me is gettin about as ridiculous as all the -R stickers you can buy at pep boys.

when you can get everything SRT or -R then i guess it somehow becomes less special or whatever.

whats next the focus cobra, or the cavalier ss, new pontiac gto (o wait i guess they thought that would fly.)

 

Actually, chevy is getting rid of the Cavalier and replacing it with the Cobalt which, in fact, does have an SS model...

http://www.chevrolet.com/cobalt/#ss_supercharged

 

SVT is the same way.

Cobra, Lightning, Contour, Focus

 

I don't think his point was against multiple performance cars. It was against the use of SRT or R in all their names. SVT has the Cobra and Lightning, they have their own names and are totally different vehicles. Admittedly though, the SVT Focus and SVT Contour were stupid names, and fall into the same category as the SRT stuff when it comes to handing out names.

Of course, naming the Viper-engined truck the SRT-10, may be the dumbest one of all. They also named the Viper roadster the SRT-10. It's always fun to write a post about seeing or racing a SRT-10, only to have to answer the question of which one. Real marketing geniuses.

 

I hear ya, but what about the RT Dodges from 35 years ago? Chargers, Challengers, and more. I always thought that the SRT thing was an homage to that.

<- Not trying to be argumantative, just giving some context to the discussion.

 

Crossfire SRT and Mustang GT is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, though still in the fruit orchard overall.

The SRT ought to be a very fast and capable car, given what we've seen Mercedes do with their similar AMG versions of that chassis. The power and power to weight numbers ought to speak for themselves for the most part, and the SC motor does have a deep and broad power/torque band -- them boys over at AMG KNOW how to hot rod a motor. The chassis, what with a stiff structure and a good IRS ought to give it a leg up in the twisties, especially on less than perfect roads.

I don't mind SRT, R, SVT or whatever monikers, as long as the car has the goods and the brass to back it up. However, when it is nothing but a chessy stripe, scoop and trim package, I have nothing but disdain for these hollow marketing ploys.

 

that is too funny...........i wonder how many people paid more attention to their dogs going potty after reading this. but it does look like my boxer doing her business but on another note. im sure the car will be fast but as Chevy found out fast doesnt always sell as good as a car that is a little slower but looks good!!!!

 

While I think the crossfire looks ok (There are uglier cars out there). I don't think many of the car companies are building just to compete with the stang. In some sense they will compete. But most everything that one can consider competition right now. Really may or may not be competition.

crossfire SRt-6 : 2 seats / V6 / $45k / performance edition
Mustang GT : 4 seats / V8 / $25k / regular street car
350Z : 2 seats / V6 / upto $36k / various versions
Subaru STI : 4 seat / Turbo 4 / $32k / Performance version
Pontiac GTO : 4 seats / V8 / $35k / regulat street car

While those are just a few of the cars. What it breaks down to is the mustang is a value for hp. Handling we don't know about yet. But most cars near to it in hp are considerably more expensive.