2006 Chrysler Pt Cruiser Touring on 2040-cars

Auto blog

This or That: 2005 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 vs. 1984 Pontiac Fiero

Welcome to another round of This or That, where two Autoblog editors pick a topic, pick a side and pull no punches. Last round pitted yours truly against Associate Editor Brandon Turkus, and my chosen VW Vanagon Syncro narrowly defeated Brandon's 1987 Land Rover. In fact, it was, by far, the closest round we've seen, with 1,907 voters seeing things my way (for 50.8 percent of the vote) versus 1,848 votes for Brandon's Rover (49.2 percent). Sweet, sweet victory! For this latest round of This or That, I've roped Editor Greg Migliore into what I think is a rather fun debate. We've each chosen our favorite terrible cars, setting a price limit of $10,000 to make sure neither of us went too crazy with our automotive atrocities. I think we've both chosen terribly... and I mean that in the best way possible. 2005 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 Jeremy Korzeniewski: Why It's Terrible: Taken in isolation, the Chrysler Crossfire isn't necessarily a terrible car. In fact, it drives pretty darn well, and there's a lot of solid engineering under its slinky shape. Problem is, that engineering was already rather long in the tooth well before Chrysler ever got its hands on it, having come from Mercedes-Benz, which used the basic chassis and drivetrain in a previous version of its SLK coupe and roadster. Granted, the SLK was an okay car, too, but even when new, it hardly set the world on fire with sporty driving dynamics. Chrysler took these decent-but-no-more bits and pieces from the Mercedes parts bin – remember, this car was conceived in the disastrous Merger Of Equals days – and covered them with a rather attractive hard-candy shell. Unfortunately, the super sporty shape wrote checks in the minds of buyers that its well-worn mechanicals were simply unable to cash, though an injection of power courtesy of a supercharged V6 engine in the SRT6 model, as seen here, certainly helped ease some of those woes. In the end, Chrysler was left with a so-called halo car that looked the part but never quite performed the part. It was almost universally panned by critics as an overpriced parts-bin special, which, I must add, was damningly accurate. As a result, sales were very slow, and within the first few months, dealers were clearancing the car at cut-rate prices, just to keep them from taking up too much of the showroom floor. Why It's Not That Terrible, After All: I can speak from personal experience when discussing the Chrysler Crossfire. You see, I owned one. Well, sort of...

This government surveillance van is both cool and creepy, and it could be yours

Whether you're planning a heist and need to gather information, or you're a government agency tracking down the leader of a crime ring, Hollywood has taught us that the unmarked van is the ideal machine for gathering intel. And apparently that's not just a Hollywood trope, because you can buy this actual, honest-to-goodness ex-government surveillance van: a 1998 Plymouth Grand Voyager. It's being sold by the Chicago suburb of Streamwood, Ill., on the government surplus auction site GovDeals. According to the description, the van was acquired by the town as part of a drug seizure and converted to surveillance duty. It looks like a plain white Grand Voyager for the most part, except for the amber flashing light on the roof. Or at least it looks like a light. It's actually the disguise for the camera periscope. Open up the sliding door of the van and you'll discover a swivel mount for the camera, a TV mounted to the back of the driver's seat, and a toolbox that holds all the electronic equipment, including battery chargers for the van and the camera. There are also solid panels behind the windows so that people walking by can't peer in and see all the equipment. It's a bit less wild than some of the vans we've seen on film, but those Hollywood vans are usually larger commercial vans that can store more people and stuff. Less interesting details include the fact that this Grand Voyager has a 3.3-liter V6 with an automatic transmission. It has just over 100,000 miles and was good for a little more than 150 horsepower and 200 pound-feet of torque when it was new. The interior looks impressively clean, as does most of the exterior, but the description and photos highlight the fact that the front strut towers are rusty and in need of repair. Included are new strut towers, but obviously the welding in and painting is the expensive part. Also, while we think this van is pretty neat, since it's an actual surveillance van like we've seen on film for years, we would feel creepy actually owning it. After all, it's a vehicle for watching people, and while a government might have a legitimate reason for doing that, your average person doesn't. Unless you need a prop for a film, are going to show it off at car shows, or are another city government needing a cheap surveillance car, we think having this would be a little too weird. But if you have one of those reasons, or are less worried about what people think, you have a few more days to bid.

Chrysler 300 diesel could get green light

Word has it Chrysler is keen to shove its new turbo diesel V6 into a range of models. Wards Auto reports Chrysler President and CEO Saad Chehab has made it clear the automaker is investigating the possibility of using the 3.0-liter oil-burner in the 300. While speaking at an Automotive Press Association luncheon, Chehab said, "It's a matter of how much the customer is willing to pay for that premium. That's the only issue with it."
The Chrysler 300 is sold as the Lancia Thema in Europe complete with a diesel of its very own, and since the Jeep Grand Cherokee is now available with the diesel V6 here in the States, it only makes sense that the engine could potentially show up on the 300 order sheet. Opting for the 3.0 V6 in the Jeep Grand Cherokee will set you back an additional $4,500, however.
Chehab also said the engine could make an appearance in the next-generation Chrysler 200, which is set to debut next year.