I'll probably catch a lot of flak for this, and be labelled one of those "SRT Snobs", but it's not my intention to **** people off. The car is what it is.

One of the primary aspects of a sports car is a powerful engine. The base and limited models do not qualify for that at all. At over 3000 pounds 215 horsepower does not a sports car make. Combine that with what other folks are calling its "Grand Touring" features, and I think you've got another strike against calling the Crossfire a sports car. That doesn't mean that it's not cool, or that it's not fun to drive.

However, the SRT-6 is several steps away from the Grand Touring aspect. Stiffer suspension, better handling, and 350 horse power. Now you've entered sports car territory. Albeit, it's definitely at the low end of the sports car arena, but it's in there.

 

On my insurance policy it states the following for my SRT6

High Performance Sports car.

I can't believe Farmers Insurance Company would make a mistake.

Scott

 

I guess I agree with that... but it's hard to concede the SRT6 is a sports car when it's missing a pedal, still has the same lazy steering, and comes with a mandatory 250 lbs of crap a real sports car would have sacrificed for lateral grip.

 

Tom, I'm not pissed off, but I am surprised hearing this coming from you. Of course you're entitled to your own opinion, as is everybody else on this forum. That being said, I don't think the engine size, or the amount of H.P. has anything to do with deciding whether a car qualifies as a true Sports Car or not. It simply dictates how "FAST" the paticular car in question is going to be.
I think you've got the criteria for a "Muscle Car" and that of a "Sports Car" confused.
The NA Crossfire will do anything a SRT will do, except accelerate as quickly to it's eventual top speed. So by your "standards" that means it doesn't qualify.
The "softer" suspension of the NA Crossfire makes it a better "GT" car than a SRT is. The "Surpercharged" engine in the SRT makes it a better "Drag" car than a NA Crossfire, but both cars still qualify as "Sports Cars" as far as I'm concerned.
Maybe I'm going to have to rethink my "Trusting your judgement" statement I made in another thread.

 

If you're stuck in city traffic, have a piece of "Garage Art", or just simply drive easy 99% of the time to preserve your precious big bucks Porsche-Vette-etc., I don't think the FUN equation is slanted in your favor. My 07 6spd hits > 100 & probes the limits of the on/off ramps almost every day.....I'm having fun....don't care what you call it!!

 

All this silliness over a definition. Stop and think about it. Does it really matter what a "sports car" is and why are some of you so defensive about this. NA Crossfire against SRT. You still can't shift a SRT and if that's a requirement of the definition, guess what, YOU LOSE. Mines faster than yours NA NA NA NA NA. It's as if your all arguing about the size of your crank.

I meant to say crankshaft. Sorry

Is the Crossfire a sedan ?, No
Is it a van ?, No
Is it a truck ?, No
Is it a SUV ?, No
Is it a Crossover ?, No

Is it a , well, what do you call it, oh yeah, a sports car ? You bet your *** it is and a good one at that.

By the way the other thread a while back on this same subject was the same thing. No conclusions, just arguing.

to paraphrase Barack Obama and John McCain:

" You can put lipstick on a SRT but it's still a SRT."

 

Good one Chuck. LOL!

 

I edited it after you read it. Check it out. The pig quote that is.

 

I don't think the transmission choice has any bearing whatsoever on the sports car/non-sports car determination. Then again I always considered manual transmissions to be what you get when you don't have enough money to get the automatic. If the SRT6 came only with a 6 speed, I wouldn't own one.

It doesn't really matter what anyone calls it, but if Miata is considered a sports car, which it widely is, then the Crossfire should be as well regardless of the trim level.

 

A clutch pedal and straight mechanical connection in the drivetrain is KEY to controlling weight distibution in corners. Especially in a car that has a non-linear electronic throttle with a programmed delay in engine braking.

I've always considered sports cars to be what you get when you don't have enough skill to build your own. I bought a Crossfire because it was cheap and it looked cool... Like a PT Cruiser.


My point? Don't kid yourself. Makes you look dumb.

 

Oh, let there be no doubt about it, I have no mechanical skill whatsoever so I can't even repair my own let alone build one. But "kidding myself" into thinking the Crossfire is a sports car? I don't think so. Now comparing a Crossfire to a PT Cruiser...wow...good luck with that one.

 

It's not just speed that qualifies a car to be a sport car. Maybe a racing car, but not necessarily a sports car. Look at all the old European sports cars like the old Porsche, MBs, and the list of British cars, all two door coupes and roadsters. They were not very fast, but spirited cars. Those were sport cars. I think the XF falls into that category. IMHO. How can this not be a sports car?

 

I can remember when the MG's and the Jag's came over in the early 50's. They had 2 seats, 2 doors either rag top or coupe. They were sold as Sports Cars. Why do you think Chevy made the Corvette and Ford the Thunderbird in the 50's. To compete with the Sports Cars coming over from europe. The GI's in the war in Europe loved the cars in England and brought them home. Sports Car originally had 2 doors and 2 seats and handled well. Over time things changed and almost anything was called a Sports car to market it.

 

I don't think so! Our Sports Cars are more comfortable today and more enjoyable to ride. I've owned Corvettes in the past and they weren't very comfortable. That's progress. I'm sure Corvettes today are more comfortable and better handling, does that mean they are not Sports Cars? I was under the impression that cars of today are suppose to get more miles to the gallon and be more cost effective. Overall my Crossfire Sports Car cost more to operate than my Corvettes did.

 

YOU DA MAN F.P., TELL EM

 

[quote=mrphotoman]Lol did you type that from your Radio Shack TRS-80 using DOS?
Actually realizing that some of us might be of the elderly persuasion I thought it would be easier to read without reading glasses. Is too small ?

 

Next to my Dodge Cummings, its a sports car to me. Besides in my neck of the woods theres been a spike in Ben-Gay sales due to head jerks when I go by. LOL.

 

Well.... I'm not qualified.. darn it, just my luck! I guess a whole bunch of Porsche, BMW and Audi owners owners will be surprised to hear the news that they don't qualify as sports car owners either. Boy, someday I hope maybe....

 

Very well said.

My wimpy little Limited Roadster outran a pair of Spec Miatas racers, a Porsche 911 and a C5 Corvette (among others) last spring on California Speedway's road course.

It's a sports car, difficult as that may be for some to accept.

 

Man, who opened this can of worms? PHILLY is rt, if don't think we have a sports car, just line up beside us and we will quarter mile or top end, really doesn't matter, and curves is what you like, well we will do that as well, and there isn't any soft steering either...someone has not driven an SRT version if they think that...so sports cars do have paddle shifters today, not that out dated crap that costs you time and et...computers rule, they make HP possible that old sports cars could only dream of...so its a sports car of TODAY>>...