Talk:Chrysler Crossfire

message: 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)
thread_title: SRT-6 Sales Years?

message: 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. — MrDolomite • Talk 21:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: February 2007 cleanup

message: 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< 19:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Community"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 , , etc. — MrDolomite • Talk 01:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  0 - 60 Time 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Actual Horsepower Numbers 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: The "reception" section

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Q