Styling Cues

[LarryIII]

Yesterday afternoon Rosie & I went to our local Chrysler dealer and parked SUBYDOO ('97 SVX) next to a Crossfire.
I walked around both cars as they sat side by side.
The major impression that I got was how small the Crossfire is, when compared to the SVX. The Crossfire is narrower and much shorter than the SVX. Both cars are approx. the same height.
Since the dealership was closed, I could not get into the Crossfire. It's interior looks cramped and I think there is too much 'brushed aluminum' finish inside on the dash/console area.

The SVX seems very light and airy both inside and out because of the large glass area. The Crossfire has high sides and narrow side windows which give it a heavy feeling.
Rosie called the side winows, "slits". I guess the newer side impact resistance requirements mean that doors are high and windows are narrow.
The back window is tall and narrow. It must have big 'blind spots'.
The back of the Crossfire with it's big tires and short rear end reminded me of those '38 Ford coupe hotrods from the early 50's.
The rear tucks around underneath and has 2 exhaust pipes close to each other in the middle of the car. This emphasizes it's heaviness.

These are just my impressions, remember; "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

[Landshark]

my impression is that its butt-ugly.

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally posted by LarryIII
The SVX seems very light and airy both inside and out because of the large glass area. The Crossfire has high sides and narrow side windows which give it a heavy feeling.
Rosie called the side winows, "slits". I guess the newer side impact resistance requirements mean that doors are high and windows are narrow.

I think it has less to do with side-impact resistance and more to do with styling trends. You can see this trend in other recent sporty cars - TT, 350Z, etc...

Someday we'll associate this trend (either consciously or not) with the early '00s and call it 'dated.'

[RSVX]

My parents recently bought the AWD version of this, and they absolutely love it. I will be able to Test Drive it when I visit then in NC this Turkey Day and let you all know how I feel about it.

[Chicane]

I love/hate the crossfire. Love the design, hate the fact they stuck a lame V6 where a v8 should have been. Anyway, I think the SVX looks a lot heavier, the design just looks 'heavy'. >shrug<

- Rob

[RSVX]

OH CRAP!!! You said Crossfire... I was thinking Pacifica, LOL anyways... NEVERMIND...

[Kurt_W]

For once I agree with Rob...*!*

I looked at the Crossfire orginially and was unimpressed with the looks. I however looked at one a couple days ago in person and its smallness impressed me, and it looks a lot better in person then it does in pictures.

I also agree that the car needs a little more guts for the $35k price tag it carries. In one auto mag I read in the last couple months, one of MB's big aftermarket perf companies shoved a 6.8 liter blown engine into a Crossfire...I however don't remember much else about that article other then that we shouldn't expect to be buying one any time soon.

[LarryIII]

Originally posted by Chicane
I love/hate the crossfire. Love the design, hate the fact they stuck a lame V6 where a v8 should have been. Anyway, I think the SVX looks a lot heavier, the design just looks 'heavy'. >shrug<

- Rob

Rob,

I disagree with you on the styling. The SVX is a much bigger car, but when you put it next to a Crossfire it looks light, airy. and open. The Crossfire looks heavy, 'hunkered down", and mean. It looks like a hot rod ready for street drags. Maybe that's what Chrysler wanted for subliminal appeal.
I got the impression that the SVX looks happy while the Crossfire looks angry.

[LarryIII]

Nick,

You are probably right. The "Clunky" look seems to be in fashion.
I hate to see a beautiful woman with gorgeous legs wearing shoes that look like combat boots. Call me sexist or a dirty old man, but that's the way I feel.

[Andy]

You Sexist, Dirty, Old Man