Crossfire Srt Florida Coupe Supercharged 330 Horsepower Only 2016 Produced on 2040-cars

Auto blog

This or That: 2005 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 vs. 1984 Pontiac Fiero

Welcome to another round of This or That, where two Autoblog editors pick a topic, pick a side and pull no punches. Last round pitted yours truly against Associate Editor Brandon Turkus, and my chosen VW Vanagon Syncro narrowly defeated Brandon's 1987 Land Rover. In fact, it was, by far, the closest round we've seen, with 1,907 voters seeing things my way (for 50.8 percent of the vote) versus 1,848 votes for Brandon's Rover (49.2 percent). Sweet, sweet victory! For this latest round of This or That, I've roped Editor Greg Migliore into what I think is a rather fun debate. We've each chosen our favorite terrible cars, setting a price limit of $10,000 to make sure neither of us went too crazy with our automotive atrocities. I think we've both chosen terribly... and I mean that in the best way possible. 2005 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 Jeremy Korzeniewski: Why It's Terrible: Taken in isolation, the Chrysler Crossfire isn't necessarily a terrible car. In fact, it drives pretty darn well, and there's a lot of solid engineering under its slinky shape. Problem is, that engineering was already rather long in the tooth well before Chrysler ever got its hands on it, having come from Mercedes-Benz, which used the basic chassis and drivetrain in a previous version of its SLK coupe and roadster. Granted, the SLK was an okay car, too, but even when new, it hardly set the world on fire with sporty driving dynamics. Chrysler took these decent-but-no-more bits and pieces from the Mercedes parts bin – remember, this car was conceived in the disastrous Merger Of Equals days – and covered them with a rather attractive hard-candy shell. Unfortunately, the super sporty shape wrote checks in the minds of buyers that its well-worn mechanicals were simply unable to cash, though an injection of power courtesy of a supercharged V6 engine in the SRT6 model, as seen here, certainly helped ease some of those woes. In the end, Chrysler was left with a so-called halo car that looked the part but never quite performed the part. It was almost universally panned by critics as an overpriced parts-bin special, which, I must add, was damningly accurate. As a result, sales were very slow, and within the first few months, dealers were clearancing the car at cut-rate prices, just to keep them from taking up too much of the showroom floor. Why It's Not That Terrible, After All: I can speak from personal experience when discussing the Chrysler Crossfire. You see, I owned one. Well, sort of...

eBay Find of the Day: 1979 Chrysler ETV-1 electric car prototype

Electric cars may be reaching their time in the sun with successes like the Tesla Model S, but the basic concept goes back to practically beginning of motoring. EVs also saw a brief renaissance in the 1970s when automakers were trying find a way around rising fuel prices. This 1979 Chrysler ETV-1 concept for sale on eBay Motors is a great example from that era.
Built in 1979, designers hoped the ETV-1 would preview what an electric car would look like in 1985. The base price was slated to start at $6,400, or the rough equivalent of $20,536, which seems like an optimistic price. General Electric created the ETV-1's powertrain, and Chrysler was in charge of styling. At the time, the Department of Energy called it "the first advanced four-passenger subcompact experimental electric car."
While it seems ancient compared to today's EVs, the ETV-1 featured regenerative braking and a computer-controlled electric motor. Chrysler reported a 100-mile range at 45 miles per hour with two passengers in the car. The range fell to 75 miles with four passengers. Acceleration was not brisk with Chrysler claiming the run to 30 mph in 9 seconds. Power was stored in 18 lead-acid batteries, and a full charge took 10 hours from a home outlet.

Almost 70 percent of FCA-PSA Groupe models to ride on two PSA platforms

With the merger between PSA Groupe and Fiat Chrysler having been officially announced this week, we still don't know where everything will settle once the process concludes. We covered the catalog of models herded by the combined company's 12 brands, all of which will remain for now. Profound changes must be afoot somewhere, though, else there'd be no reason for the tie-up. Automotive News has a report on one of the big moves, writing that "more than two-thirds of [PSA-FCA] production would be concentrated on just two platforms." Around 2.6 million cars built by the combined company would sit on PSA's Common Modular Platform, also known as the EMP1, for B-segment city cars, entry-level and mid-range C-segment sedans, and compact crossovers. Three million vehicles would ride on the EMP2 architecture intended for C- and D-segment cars and higher-end crossovers. Those figures account for around 5.6 of the 8.7 million vehicles the combined company expects to sell annually. AN didn't mention the Giorgio platform that's already spread throughout the FCA kingdom to support numerous current and future offerings like the next-gen Jeep Grand Cherokee, but did write that "larger Jeep models will continue to use FCA underpinnings." The body-on-frame chassis' under Ram trucks and the Jeep Wrangler and Gladiator should hold pat. We'll wait for word on the fate of the Compact U.S. Wide platform carrying the Chrysler Voyager and Pacifica and Jeep Cherokee. Dodge products with questionable futures are anyone's guess; we've heard the Dodge Durango, still built on a Mercedes-derived platform it shares with the current Grand Cherokee, could go body-on-frame for the next generation, or die and have the Giorgio-based, three-row Jeep Grand Cherokee take its place. More mystery comes with the long-lived LA and LD platforms in the big sedan and coupe trio Chrysler and Dodge still milk quite successfully. And if there were ever a time for the Dodge Journey – last reported as a Giorgio recipient – to modernize or die, we don't know when that time is. Although FCA platforms have been designed with alternative powertrains in mind, AN says the PSA Groupe architectures "are more modern than FCA's equivalent platforms." After PSA acquired GM's Opel/Vauxhall division, the French company didn't waste time moving the Anglo-German products to in-house platforms, helping to put the formerly money-losing operations into the black in just 18 months.