Talk:Chrysler Crossfire

Trivia
We can see a blue colored crossfire in the Prison break (S02E07). Peda from Hungarian wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.6.138.71 (talk • contribs)

Concept?
Can anyone add a section for the Crossfire concept and its features, and how its been modded and turned into production?

Sales Years?
Anyone have the exact numbers for production for the model years of 2006 and 2007?

SRT-6 Sales Years?
Anybody know what the validity of these SRT-6 production numbers is?

SRT-6 production numbers 2005: 2016 coupes, 968 roadsters 2006: 13 coupes Total: 2997

They're widely quoted, but I haven't been able to find a verifiable source. JKrukoff (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

February 2007 cleanup
There were way too many sections and as I started to combine them, I realized the information wasn't even consistent. I took a first pass, but it could definitely use some more work. Thx. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 21:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I made another pass over, looks better, but some information was slightly wrong, and i fixed it. The SRT has the same size tires. 18x7-19x9.5. And the in the 2005 section, it said "2006 the SRT", when it was introduced in 2005. Also i added the information about the 2005 base model back in. Seems like alot of people dont know every difference, so i think its very helpful, but the formatting could be a little better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.70.138.181 (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks, when I was cleaning it up, I figured there would be some info I had criss-crossed. Plus, some of the car websites seem to have conflicting info about years and models, so it is good to put in the sources to see which ones actually agree. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 15:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok i will look for some more offical sources, but mainly my information came from Chryslers website, dealers, and other cars for sale. But it looks like the models and everything are good now.

"Community"
Wikipedia should not be used to advertise your car club, as it is not a fansite. The "top 5" claim is ambiguous and unproven (another Wikipedia article is not a reference!). Not to mention the "almost a cult following" claim, with a Crossfire forum as a reference - please keep the article as neutral point-of-view as possible. --Vossanova o&lt; 19:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

0 - 60 Time
The N/A Crossfire 0 - 60 time is 6.5 seconds with either transmission, whoever keeps posting it as 5.8 seconds please stop. Most sources (Road and Track, the Crossfire Owners Manual, Etc) report this to be the case, and as an owner I can assure you that the N/A does not achieve a sub 6 second 0 - 60 run. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.237.66 (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC) I think you misunderstood me; Road &Track and other verifiable sources give a 0 - 60 time of 6.5, and as an owner I can corroborate this. I am aware personal experiences are not valid. However, the 0 - 60 time continues to be changed on this page without good sources; I am reporting it as vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenlightracer (talk • contribs) 00:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly, one's personal experiences are _not_ a valid WP:SOURCE for Wikipedia. Reliable, third party sources, such as Road & Track, are to be used and WP:CITEed accordingly. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 20:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I had misunderstood which time was being supported by the sources and the mixmash history. Using the magazine to support the time is the correct method and other edits should be reverted and the editors should be warned using templates such as uw-error1, uw-error2, etc. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 01:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Actual Horsepower Numbers
Due to a gentlemen's agreement between Chrysler and Mercedes both engines utilized in the Crossfire were down rated from the actual horsepower rating of 349 and torque rating of 332 ft.lbs and 215 horsepower/229 ft.lbs. respectively. This is a common practice in the automotive industry (example; 2002 Chevrolet Camaro Z28/Pontiac Trans Am and C5 Chevrolet Corvette). This has been supported by multiple performance shops through dyno testing of stock vehicles but none of the large review companies performed dyno testing (as they rarely do for any vehicle). The stock performance numbers for all models support this claim as well as all model Crossfire's straight line performance is identical to their SLK counterparts. If the lack of a major review company citation is not acceptable then I hope the math would be. (Anthony955 (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Chrysler Crossfire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120905094241/http://www.media.chrysler.com/dcxms/assets/specs/2006crossfireSRT6specs.pdf to http://www.media.chrysler.com/dcxms/assets/specs/2006crossfireSRT6specs.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213132810/http://www.media.chrysler.com/dcxms/assets/specs/08_ChryslerCrossfireTech.pdf to http://www.media.chrysler.com/dcxms/assets/specs/08_ChryslerCrossfireTech.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120626132055/http://www.businessweek.com:80/autos/content/dec2005/bw20051228_854585.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/dec2005/bw20051228_854585.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Sophomoric humor
Please note that actual performance tests and specifications of the car should be included in an encyclopedia article. Reviews that are consistent about the vehicle (such as design similarities and comparisons) are also notable. However, sophomoric humor and a single media entertainer's personal opinion is not noteworthy, nor encyclopedic. Per WP guidelines, "Wikipedia is not a repository of humor." What may appeal in a mass-media when targeting for a particular audience does not mean it is notable for encyclopedia article. For example, the comparison of the car's shape to that of a "defecating dog" is only a juvenile attempt at bathroom humor that is based on and appeals to a silly sense of immaturity. Such a statement does not contribute to any automotive-related knowledge. Thanks, CZmarlin (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, the design section currently reads rather like an advert for the car and contains only positive opinions on the car's design, which is undoubtedly polarising. If not that particular test (or phrases from it) then something should be included to reflect the fact that the styling is not universally popular.Jellyfish dave (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello Jellyfish dave,
 * It is a fact that not all people have the same opinions about what is attractive or unattractive. "One person may even perceive deformity, where another is sensible of beauty; and every individual ought to acquiesce in his own sentiment, without pretending to regulate those of others" (See: David Hume 1757).
 * In particular, there are countless cars with styling that is not universally popular. There are numerous lists filled with opinions about cars that are “ugly” - such as is the purpose of this website: uglycars.co.uk.
 * However, any discussion of the aesthetics of the design of the this car should focus the fundamentals and principles of design and visual elements, particularly when experienced professionals express them. It should also be noted that principles such as harmony, unity, emphasis, or opposition are also rules that creative artists purposely break. Moreover, many cars have pushed the boundaries when it comes to styling to the point of being polarizing and have also become classics over time.
 * On the other hand, a crude attempt at bathroom humor by a media personality is clearly not encyclopedic. Moreover, other negative opinions about the Crossfire's rear end design repeat the comment made by Mr. Clarkson (such as: I did like it once but got put off it when Mr Clarkson said "It looks like a dog having a poo" which put me right off the Crossfire) and are thus not independent reliable sources. There are also websites that list "most ugly back-ends of cars" (such as carthrottle.com) without any explanation other than the author does not like them. Once again, these are completely unreliable sources.
 * Cheers - CZmarlin (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The "reception" section
This is an encyclopedia article and must be written without editorial bias. It is not a critical evaluation of a subject, nor a collection of unverifiable comparisons such as "that it's rear end resembled a dog defecating" and "looked like a dog in the middle of a life-altering dump." An encyclopedia article is not the place for bathroom humor to gain an audience. There is also no basis for the statement that "the Crossfire received poor reviews" without mentioning a singe positive or even neutral road test, of which there were many. This section also fails on the basis of WP:NEUTRAL policy. This includes the guideline to "avoid stating opinions as facts." A neutral point of view "neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject." This reception section is also an example of "undue weight to minority opinions." It contains no balance to the large number of reliable sources media that had positive reviews about this vehicle. According to WP policy, "criticisms about a subject may be verifiable, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Moreover, describing aesthetic opinions is problematic and even "experts" might not all agree. WP guidelines note that "esthetic opinions are diverse and subjective." The policy is to "strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view." In particular, several of the quotes in this section are nothing more than sophomoric humor and a television entertainer's personal opinion. According to WP guidelines, "this does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether." These are the reasons for the removal of the section. - CZmarlin (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Q
Why do they say this car only goes for $160,000 miles 72.26.16.240 (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Q
Why do they say that the Chrysler 2005 crossfire is only good for up to 160,000 MI's motor goes how many this is the one with the Mercedes motor the r170 72.26.16.240 (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)