no_really

the edmunds weight you have is for the vert SRT6, and I suspect that's a bit on the heavy side.

It so happens my main reference listed the lightest weight, but by less than 100 pounds. Hard to say what each of these different sources considers "curb weight," or where they get their numbers. But it is safe to say the car weighs right around 3000 pounds, give or take a bit. That is not 3400 pounds, or even close. Hard to say how much weight the SRT package adds, but I would be surprised if it was actually 200 pounds.

no_really

Scroll down, thank you.
http://research.cars.com/go/crp/feat...7&aff=national

JonBoy

When I looked up the weight for the SRT-6, I found it said 3400 in the article which is why I quoted that number. The SLK 32AMG was 3220 lbs, which is why I questioned how an SRT-6 would overpower a Boxster S that beat the SLK on the track (though not in a straight line).

Again, I could acknowledge a result that was close but it wasn't even close. As I said, they got nearly 4s on the Boxster, which would call for at least a 4s improvement over the SLK. A minor suspension change (plus more weight) do not typically equal 4s over a single lap, know what I mean? Especially on a street car.

JonBoy

In my research (past R&T) I've found the SRT-6 starts at 3240lbs and goes up to 3328lbs. So, not quite 3400 lbs - closer to 3250 for the coupe version. These match Chrysler's own numbers.

So, not close to 3000 but not that close to 3400 (in coupe form) either - somewhere between.

http://scoop.daimlerchrysler.com/pdf/produ...eSRT6_specs.pdf

ttb

magazines are horrible for rating cars. they actually consider cup holders in sport cars good.

Warren J. Dew

I wonder if you guys who are questioning the Crossfire's much quicker lap time have ever driven a car with a 0-60 time below 5 seconds. The difference between a 5.5 second 0-60 and a 4.8 second 0-60 is like night and day. In numbers, it's about a 15% advantage. And the Crossfire's quickness holds up over the full quarter mile, too.

Compare that 15% advantage to the Boxter's lateral performance advantage - 0.92 versus 0.90, about 2%. Call the braking even - the Crossfire's brakes start out better but fade more. On the track, that huge acceleration advantage will overwhelm everything else. Remember, acceleration counts every time you come out of a curve - the more curves there are, the more times you accelerate.

Would I buy the Crossfire? No, I wouldn't - I think it's ugly, it doesn't sound very fun to drive, and I'm not convinced that Chrysler has recovered from their traditionally abominable quality and reliability. On the other hand, this the old Boxster S - the same one that underperformed cars half its price. I'm not into overpriced dilettante cars, so I wouldn't buy it either.

Bottom line - the magazine is called "Speed", not "Fun2Drive" or "Luxocar". In terms of speed, the Crossfire is clearly superior, even if it's not better in the areas I care about personally.

Officer_down

That is the old Boxster S. The new one should be considerably faster than the other two on such a track.

JonBoy

What you are forgetting is that the Crossfire understeered badly and had brakes that faded. What does that mean? It took longer to scrub off speed heading into corners, then had to go through the corners slow. That should have negated the acceleration advantage gained by the extra power it had over the Boxster and 350Z. The braking was NOT even - they said the brakes faded on the track.

Reference the comments (from board members) about this track being very tight - ie, it rewards excellent handling and grip, not necessarily power.

A Camaro SS beats up on an S2000 in a straight line. But start to turn and the S2000 quickly walks away.

Granted, the Crossfire is quite a bit more sophisticated than the Camaro SS but still, I believe the analogy holds. It's not meant for tracking (understeer and poor brakes), yet on a tight track, somehow it walked away from two cars that should have had an advantage.

Again, I'm only saying it doesn't add up to me. By that I mean that their words combined with the experiences of myself and those on this board don't add up to a Crossfire being so dominant on a tight track.

Lastly, the Boxster S didn't underperform cars half it's price. I think just about everyone agrees that a Boxster S would still match/beat an S2000 in just about every performance category (just not by a whole lot, in general). A Corvette is faster but everything else is pretty much a wash. An Elise might put it to shame, but the Elise does that to a lot of cars. Outside of that, I can't think of anything else that runs with a last gen Boxster S that's directly comparable (ie, that is a convertible or targa). There are non-convertibles that are quicker - Z06, for instance - but really, that's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

CG

How many of you guys have actually driven the SRT-6? After reading this thread I decided to go see for myself what the car was like. I drove a regular Crossfire a year or so ago and didn't care for it. The SRT-6 was a surprise. I was not prepared to like the car at all but I found that I liked it very much. The handling on the street was much better than I expected, as was the steering and tracking. The feel of the car under heavy braking was good but not great when pulling down from higher speeds. Throttle tip in seemed a little sudden with a fine line between easing away from a stop and getting slammed in the back by the torque and acceleration. There's no question that this thing is seriously quick. I did a quick blast from a rolling start to something over 110 mph and back to a legal speed limit and I doubt if the whole thing took 20 seconds.

The one thing about the car that I really didn't care for was the transmission. Leaving it in Drive and punching it from a start I would get what seemed like a moment of silence between 1st and 2nd gears. It was a very odd feeling but once 2nd kicked in the car was off and running like a thoroughbred. I never turned off the traction control and that may well have been the culprit on that shift. Even using the AutoStick the shifts were too slow and the downshifts too jerky.

Having driven the Boxster S and the 350Z I'm really not all that surprised that one test found this car to lap the track faster, although the amount does surprise me. Would I buy this car over a Boxster S, 350Z, or C6 Corvette? I might take it over the Nissan but not the other two. The bottom line is that I liked the car well enough that it wasn't nearly as ugly when I got out as when I got in.

PilotKD

If a 350Z weighs 3310, I don't see an SRT-6 coming in under 3000lb. The S2000 weighs over 2800 and it's much smaller with a 4 cylinder motor. You're telling me the SRT-6 weighs <150lb more than an S2000? No way.