Crossfire benefits from engineering by Mercedes-Benz

Crossfire benefits from engineering by Mercedes-Benz
at http://www.washtimes.com/autoweekend...5635-6603r.htm

Mike wrote:

Crossfire benefits from engineering by Mercedes-Benz
at http://www.washtimes.com/autoweekend...5635-6603r.htm

Crossfire is nothing else than a differently clothed
first-generation MB SLK, the R170.

Crossfire sales are _very_ low so production
most likely will be stopped still this summer.

Chrysle itself will be sold soon as Chrysler and
MB management failed to keep the brand alive -
as of today it seems as if Cerberus, a private
equity firm, will buy them.

Chrysler, another traditional US carmaker's name
to disappear?


Juergen

"...the only real caveat is its requirement for high-grade gasoline. "

I found this a curious comment in the review.

That would be 91 US octane presumably. A US buyer of such a car would
complain about a fairly standard grade of fuel? Or is this octane rating
'high' in the US?

DAS

For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling
---

On May 14, 8:21 am, "Dori A Schmetterling" <i... (AT) nospam (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

"...the only real caveat is its requirement for high-grade gasoline. "

I found this a curious comment in the review.

That would be 91 US octane presumably. A US buyer of such a car would
complain about a fairly standard grade of fuel? Or is this octane rating
'high' in the US?

DAS

For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling
---

91 is consiered "premium" grade, thus about 30 cents a gallon higher.

In article <17idnXSs-ML77dXbnZ2dnUVZ8qminZ2d (AT) pipex (DOT) net>,
"Dori A Schmetterling" <info (AT) nospam (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

"...the only real caveat is its requirement for high-grade gasoline. "

I found this a curious comment in the review.

That would be 91 US octane presumably. A US buyer of such a car would
complain about a fairly standard grade of fuel? Or is this octane rating
'high' in the US?

DAS

For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling
---
Medium high.

The standard is 87.
Their higher octane requirements is a hidden additional cost of driving
many imports.

On May 14, 12:51 pm, Just Facts <J... (AT) intnet (DOT) wrld> wrote:

In article <17idnXSs-ML77dXbnZ2dnUVZ8qmin... (AT) pipex (DOT) net>,
"Dori A Schmetterling" <i... (AT) nospam (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

"...the only real caveat is its requirement for high-grade gasoline. "

I found this a curious comment in the review.

That would be 91 US octane presumably. A US buyer of such a car would
complain about a fairly standard grade of fuel? Or is this octane rating
'high' in the US?

DAS

For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling
---

Medium high.
The standard is 87.
Their higher octane requirements is a hidden additional cost of driving
many imports.

hardly hidden

On Mon, 14 May 2007 06:48:20 +0200, "Juergen ." <jaguare (AT) bigfoot (DOT) com>
wrote:

Mike wrote:
Crossfire benefits from engineering by Mercedes-Benz
at http://www.washtimes.com/autoweekend...5635-6603r.htm

Crossfire is nothing else than a differently clothed
first-generation MB SLK, the R170.

Crossfire sales are _very_ low so production
most likely will be stopped still this summer.

Yea, like why bother with it.

Chrysle itself will be sold soon as Chrysler and
MB management failed to keep the brand alive -
as of today it seems as if Cerberus, a private
equity firm, will buy them.

Chrysler, another traditional US carmaker's name
to disappear?

Why would they do that?

On 14 May 2007 18:53:46 -0700, robrjt <rob.tansey (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

On May 14, 12:51 pm, Just Facts <J... (AT) intnet (DOT) wrld> wrote:
In article <17idnXSs-ML77dXbnZ2dnUVZ8qmin... (AT) pipex (DOT) net>,
"Dori A Schmetterling" <i... (AT) nospam (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Medium high.
The standard is 87.
Their higher octane requirements is a hidden additional cost of driving
many imports.

hardly hidden

Really?

Does it typcially say "premium required" anyplace other than inside
the gas filler door? Does the gas mileage sticker say "premium
required"?

(Don't know, but I don't recall this information being displayed in a
place conspicuous to a potential buyer.)

In article <1179194026.303887.237730 (AT) n59g2000hsh (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
robrjt <rob.tansey (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

On May 14, 12:51 pm, Just Facts <J... (AT) intnet (DOT) wrld> wrote:
In article <17idnXSs-ML77dXbnZ2dnUVZ8qmin... (AT) pipex (DOT) net>,
"Dori A Schmetterling" <i... (AT) nospam (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

"...the only real caveat is its requirement for high-grade gasoline. "

I found this a curious comment in the review.

That would be 91 US octane presumably. A US buyer of such a car would
complain about a fairly standard grade of fuel? Or is this octane rating
'high' in the US?

DAS

For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling
---

Medium high.
The standard is 87.
Their higher octane requirements is a hidden additional cost of driving
many imports.

hardly hidden
Well not usually spelled out in the sales blurb.

Toyota is particularly sneaky in that their 3.5L V6 in the Camry is
specified as a regular fuel requirement, but Toyota HO admitted to me
it requires premium fuel to deliver the full specs.

In article <kqbi43lbq0g7e98p9a3d8nvsj67374aalg (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
edward ohare <edward_ohare (AT) nospam (DOT) yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

Chrysler, another traditional US carmaker's name
to disappear?

I'll bet not.
It's probably going to be good for Chrysler.
MB (DC) used Chrysler for high volume lower cost parts which they shared.
D didn't get along with C.
DC tried taking Chrysler into large expensive high horsepower RWD cars,
which did well for a few years, but higher gas prices caught up with
them and they lost many of their traditional customers.