I read an article recently about how musician Pat Benatar, a 2022 inductee of the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame (very belatedly and deservedly), has recently declined to perform in concert her evergreen, singalong hit, “Hit Me With Your Best Shot“. I’m a fan of both Benatar and this song, and I could imagine being a concertgoer and disappointed with the absence of this gem in the setlist. It remains a standout in her canon of catchy, memorable rockers that I will still occasionally hear on the radio or play on the jukebox.
Paraphrasing a bit, she stated that she’s skipping this number out of deference to the families of the victims of the rash of mass shootings that have been so prevalent in the news this year. I absolutely respect her for the reason she cited for giving this song a breather, which I still hope will be on only a temporary basis. Her actual words typified her classy but succinct apparent manner, and did so without explicitly referencing any of her personal political beliefs. She made her point very effectively in a manner that’s hard to argue against, as much as one may love that song.
A quick internet search will yield many definitions for “crossfire”, most of which will involve gunfire coming from two different directions. I’ll present the following question in an attempt to very gingerly sidestep igniting a discussion about gun control that’s outside the scope of this friendly, car-based site, so please play nicely with me in the sandbox. Who in DaimlerChrysler’s product development team let the “Crossfire” model name make it past even the first or second round for consideration? In exactly what context would crossfire be seen in even a vaguely positive light?
One could make a case that the 1982 and ’84 Corvettes with their electronically fuel-injected “Cross-Fire” engines might have set the precedent as to why this might have seemed okay. In the case of the ‘Vette, though, the name seems justifiable as it lends itself to the mechanics of how the fuel injection system might have operated. With this two-seat Chrysler, though, the gunfire imagery seems more inherently baked into this car’s image, aided by the fact that there’s no hyphen.
I’ve read that the Crossfire name was related to the intersection of some of the planes of its exterior sheetmetal in profile, and also to having been an early product of collaboration across the newly created DaimlerChrysler organization. Unfortunately, neither of these things are what first come to mind when I hear the name “Crossfire” and/or look at this car. The sporty, little Chrysler was already going to be something of a challenging sale to some prospective customers by dint of its unusual, distinctive styling that included hood strakes, highly sculpted bodysides, and a rounded, bobbed tail. It arrived in the first months of 2003 as an early ’04 model, sharing a platform and much of its componentry with the first-generation R170 Mercedes-Benz SLK roadster that had made its debut in the fall of 1996.
The Crossfire’s partial Mercedes pedigree added to its mystique. The Limited Roadster was powered by a 215-horsepower, 3.2-liter V6 engine, though the high-performance SRT-6 version packed 330 horses under the hood. Our featured car would be capable of 0-60 mph in the mid-six second range if equipped with the six-speed manual transmission, while the supercharged SRT-6 could do this sprint about a second and a half less. All of the first-year ’04 models were fastbacks, but the new-for-’05 Roadster was arguably a more visibly palatable offering for those who found the closed coupe’s styling too polarizing. Shorn of its sloping, fixed roof, the Crossfire looks slightly more conventional, combined with the inherent fun-factor of being a convertible.
The ’05 model year would also be the Crossfire’s best, with total production up close to 43% to almost 36,000 units from the first-year figure of 25,000. Sales fell off the proverbial cliff for ’06, with that year’s tally dropping to short of 9,000 units. There were just over 76,000 Crossfires produced over its four-year run, with the final ’08 models finding just under 1,800 buyers. Our featured car appears to be finished in factory Graphite Metallic, which thankfully wasn’t named “Gunmetal”, or something like it.
The Limited package included many upgrades from the well-equipped base cars, including and not limited to the availability of the five-speed automatic transmission, appearance items like fog lamps and satin-finish, chrome interior door handles, leather-upholstered, high-back bucket seats, and an upgraded sound system. The original base-price of an ’05 Limited Roadster was $38,295 (~$58,000 in 2022) before options, just over $4,100 (~$6,200) over the cost of the standard convertible.
I remain a fan of the Art Deco look of these cars, in either body style. When they had first arrived, I remembered thinking they were simply a continuation of Chrysler’s winning streak of offering products with forward-thinking style that neither GM nor Ford would have attempted with a few exceptions. The use of combined Mercedes-Benz and Chrysler engineering (heavy on the Mercedes) also seemed like a promising harbinger of the new company’s commitment to offering advanced technology beneath a daring exterior. However, I also remember wondering about the merits of its model name. I had the fleeting idea that “crossfire” connoted internal combustion. I also gave DaimlerChrysler the benefit of the doubt in terms of assuming their departments of marketing and development wouldn’t have sloppily named this sportster without considering their choice from all possible angles.
I loved the bravado this company seemed to have around the turn of the millennium, with a full-range of Chrysler-branded products intended to appeal to a wide demographic. In 2022, this marque is down to only the 300 sedan and the Pacifica and fleet-only Voyager minivans, for a total of just three models. At the time of the Crossfire’s introduction, it would have seemed unfathomable to me that just twenty years later, there would be just one Chrysler-branded passenger car left in new car dealerships. I like the Crossfire all the more for simply even having existed, whether its styling was to mainstream tastes or not. It’s just that it’s unavoidable for me in present day to look at a vehicle that had once excited me called “Crossfire” and wish it hadn’t been given a name that reminds me of human tragedy.
Downtown, The Loop, Chicago, Illinois.
Thursday, May 19, 2022.
The Crossfire engine in the Corvettes was the only choice for 82 and 84. I personally used a 82 as DD for 3 years without any trouble. But they were not optional, otherwise they would have sold exact 4 Vettes with that engine.
Thank you for this. A flip to page 265 of my Encyclopedia of American Cars could have saved me the faux pas. Fixed, and have a great day.
The cool-sounding “Cross-Fire Injection” from what I understand was the same throttle body injector (TBI) like those used on the Iron Duke 2.5L four, only with two of them mounted 90° angle apart. A cooler name than it deserved to have, much like the Iron Duke itself.
I remember they quickly earned the nick name cease-fire due to issues.
As dman notes further below, cross-fire also refers to power jumping across ignition wires and sparking in the wrong cylinder, creating a misfire condition.
So in addition to facilitating a derogatory nickname, it also referred to an ignition malfunction.
A typical GM faux pas from the early eighties.
I had never really thought about the Crossfire name. Naming trends can get going in companies, and didn’t this car show up about the same time as the Dodge Magnum? I thought of it as one of those names that conjured an image of the old west.
Who came up with it and approved it is an interesting question – it had to be someone on the Mercedes side of the business because they were thoroughly in control of everything when this car was being done. I wonder if it was a German idea of a name that would appeal to Americans. That seemed to be the M.O. of the company by then – a German idea of what Americans wanted.
I was always a little mystified that Chrysler would not put a V8 in this car. Was it about CAFE numbers, or something else? My suspicion was that Daimler was happy to send discontinued platforms here for Chrysler to build and sell, but that they would never stand for a car that could outshine the stuff in M-B dealers. Can you imagine the bang-for-the-buck this roadster would have offered with one of the Magnum V8s from the truck line? This thing was never styled and priced in a way that would draw a V6 kind of customer. This was supposed to be aggressive and macho (“Crossfire?”) and needed over-the-top power to match the rest of the package. This could have been a Corvette alternative, or more along the lines of the original Thunderbird. But it wasn’t.
I think you’re exactly right. I saw a remarkable number if these on the road in Germany, in and around Frankfurt.
a German idea of what Americans wanted
I don’t think so. It’s a bit simplistic to think that the Germans were doing it all at Chrysler at the time, and that everything they touched turned to shit. Chrysler’s design studios cranked out a number of concepts at the time, most/all of which had certain obvious retro touches, like the Crossfire. The Crossfire concept was designed by Chrysler’s 25-year-old Eric Stoddard, a wunderkind who then was hired away by Hyundai.
It was a typical concept, meaning very expressive but not really production-ready. When the response was positive, it was up to Chrysler’s Joe Dehner, who found that the out-going Mercedes SLK could accommodate a revised production Crossfire.
Although I wasn’t a fan, it strikes me as a rather logical extension of the brand at the time, stylistically and otherwise.
As to the missing V8, keep in mind that the R170 was quite a small roadster (only a couple inches longer than the Miata at the time). A V8 would have been a difficult fit, and required a lot of reworking, at best. As it is, the 330 hp supercharged V6 version was a genuinely fast car at the time, and certainly gave V8 performance.
The Dodge Caliber, as well, had a gun-related name. The Avenger (avenging what, exactly?), Nitro (ha!), and Charger were pretty macho, too.
As to why these never had a V8, it probably would have taken too much re-engineering. This fundamentally was a Mercedes-Benz that had been fettled with by Chrysler, and the Gen. 1 SLK-Class it was based on never had a V8. Putting one in (whether a Daimler or a Chrysler one) would probably have inflated the development budget tremendously. As Paul states, it also didn’t really need one. The supercharged AMG V6 was highly competitive.
Perhaps the Chrysler marketing whiz-bang name maker-uppers knew about the good old days when Chrysler built big muscle cars with “Cross Ram Induction” systems where two big carbs on each side of big V8s used long intake runners to feed the opposite banks.
Cross as in crisscross, not gun fire.
It certainly deserved the “Cross” name (see image below), and, well the term fire, that means hot… or oddly, cool in the car world. The following names come to mind even before my morning coffee: Firebird, Fireflite, Firepower (a 1950s Chrysler V8).
There’s also some attempt to make the rear look like an Audi TT.
Once I have my coffee, I’ll surely recall more “fire” car model names.
Counterexample: Sunfire.
Fireblast!
Blastfire!
Here’s one: Renault Fuego! Except, I think with that one, the fire imagery comes from them overheating and actually catching on fire. Beautiful cars, though.
I’ve been sitting on an essay idea for a couple of years about relating fire to automotive imagery, but I think it might be served better by being executed by someone with decent, working knowledge about how engines work.
This reminds me some of when I went to see the Maryland State Fair one summer, whose featured guest musician was Nils Lofgren. To the dispersed masses, Nils is probably best known for playing background guitar on tours from Bruce Springsteen and Neil Young, but here at home, he’s had several actual hits. Let’s start with “White Lies”:
which was frequently played on rock stations. He also had a succession of hit srds, with lyrics ongs call “Bullets Fever” in 1978, about the NBA club now known as the Wizaupdated each week as the tea reached closer to the championship. These were all over the radio and TV in many formats. Finally, everybody who grew up in DC, MD or VA in the ’70s to early ’90s remembers this charmingly lo-tech advert for Jhoon Rhee Self Defense. Rhee, who singlehandedly popularized Tae Kwon Do in the U.S., asked a client, Lofgren, if he could write a jingle for JRSD. If he liked it, he’s get lessons for free. But none of these were played at my State Fair concert. Little did I know, even “White Lies” was just a local hit that nobody elsewhere knew, so it did get added to the set.
I always though “Crossfire” was a dumb name. As for “Hit me with Your Best Shot”, the title’s already got Pat in trouble before, as it was one of the songs mentioned on the infamous “, which included every song they could think of that included planes, explosions, destruction and such, as well as a few which had nothing controversial by just seemed to be too cheerful given the circumstances (i.e. Kool & the Gang’s “Celebration” or Louis Armstrong’s “What a Wonderful World”.
As for the Crossfire, it was all too easy to see the Benz showing through. Compare the interiors and dashboards of the two cars – the shapes are slightly different, but everything is in the exact same place.
This was all excellent. Thanks for the song and commercial references – I miss TV spots that had memorable tunes.
I like the name, I like the car, I like Cross-Fire injection.
The Crossfire passes as German enough for the Gilmore’s all German brands show, as a Crossfire shows up from time to time.
As for why the name? Probably because it sounds aggressive.
I always liked the car, and really would have liked to have owned one, as I liked the styling better than that of the SLK, and of course I come from a long-time Chrysler family.
I never really gave the name much thought, although I agree with Steve above that it sounds aggressive, which I’m sure had a lot to do with the choice, and of course the DaimlerChrysler cross pollination thing (and Crosspollinator would have sounded absurd, and could probably be construed as just as offensive by some).
I understand the sentiment here, and frankly when viewed through that lens I agree, and wonder if that choice would have been made today. Although I’m sure there are plenty of brands and product categories that might still readily consider it appropriate for their branding. Ironically, I can easily imagine the Dodge brand tagging a vehicle with this moniker even now, as it seems to fit their marketing image.
I think it’s one of those things that have to be kind of sought out or overthought on some level to be labelled offensive (and Joe, I understand clearly that this is not your aim in this piece, nor do I imagine you to be doing either). I read recently that both Lizzo and Beyonce have changed or vowed to change lyrics in recent work due to pushback from certain groups who were a bit tweaked by a word or phrase in their art. I get it, from a certain perspective, but I can’t help but want to scream from the highest peak, “But that’s not what they were talking/writing/singing/rapping about, people!!” Context, in other words, is key.
I still really like the car, and probably would just as much if it were named differently.
I still dig the Crossfire. I think the big ding for me might be its having only two seats, which I also can see as one of the big draws for someone who wants a big toy like this.
Also, agreed about context. 2005 seems like a world ago in a lot of respects. I certainly didn’t waste any Kleenex over the Crossfire’s name when they first came out.
The first thing I thought of when I first saw this car (and still do) is the misfire that can occur with cheap or defective spark plug wires.
That, and I often thought about KKK cross-fires. Yet I wasn’t never distracted enough to bring it up.
This. In fact, when GM came out with their Crossfire in the ‘80’s one of the car magazines mentioned that it was a poor choice of name given the familiarity mechanics would have with the term, as it referred to current arcing between adjacent spark plug wires or across a distributor cap. Of course by the time the Chrysler came out, I suppose ignition crossfire was becoming a thing of the past with individual coils and higher quality high-voltage components than in the past.
People who know absolutely nothing about this car can pretend to be offended by the name so that they can act like they know something about it.
I thought it was a good car with little mass appeal – a sort of “halo” ride for Chrysler. Fun!
As for Benetar – these songs are on her multi-platinum album, “Crimes of Passion”. And guess what song follows “Hit Me With Your Best Shot”, on that album?
“Hell Is For Children”. Which is a song, I believe Patty isn’t discontinuing from her concerts. So it was quite clear from the get-go what the term was understood to mean even back in the 1980s.
“Hit me with your best shot”, “take your best shot”, or “took a shot at me”, are all phrases that are about taking a punch, not a bullet.
People with little to add to conversations, argue over labels.
It may be a fine car.
I just think it’s an odd name.
Could one say that all MoPar product development in that era was… caught in the crossfire between the DaimlerChrysler “equals”?
Always brought up when Chryslers of the era are discussed; but if the art deco look had been a hit, this and the ungainly 200 wouldn’t have that “What were they thinking?” stigma they ended up with.
An excellent point, and when the very last 2007-era Sebring came out, its strong family resemblance shared with the Crossfire was one of the first things I noticed.
As a convertible; a looker. The coupe, not so exciting. Probably fun to drive though.
These days people are used to walking on eggshells and overthinking all the possible implications, lest someone might get offended. But just a few years ago, in 2005, it was simply a model name like any other, and few people cared whether it was gun imagery or not, and even if it was, why that might be a problem. Crossfire, Blastfire, Lightning Flash, 48 Crash, whatever.
Once upon a time we had a Matador, which can mean a bullfighter but also simply “killer” in Spanish. Before that, we had names like Dictator. Plenty of cars named after weapons of all kinds, too. Questionable model names have been with us since the beginning and usually only become questionable in retrospect as sensibilities change.
As for the car itself, I remember thinking “meh” at the time and still do. Nice enough, but too anodyne for a halo car. Not enough to offend anyone.
Agreed. Enjoy Crossfire, really, because I don’t see a company whose naming committee came up with “Stellantis” coming up with anything even half as good in the future that isn’t a legacy name.
So….it could be worse….how about the fuss over ‘Crossfire Hurricane’, and I don’t mean the Rolling Stones, but that’s probably the original.
But had the fortune to get a company lease on an ’05 Crossfire in the darker days of the company. Was a droptop in Graphite Grey, 6 speed. They were doing the supercharged SRTs but they were gone already.
For a 2 Dr, I only had 1 complaint, because the fuel tank was between the rear strut towers, there was a bulkhead behind the seat that limited travel, I needed a couple more inches. For the V6, plenty of power, the manual was fun. Miniscule trunk with the top down. Wife was in Iowa, couldn’t put the top down coming home because she had 12 dozen ears of sweet corn in the truck and could not drop the top.
Engine had a 9 qt pan full of Mobil 1 0W40 oil, as I approached 4K miles, requested an oil change, dealer explained that the PCM monitored the engine and would flag when to change the oil, was 9 qts at $15/qt & $25 for a filter.
The tires were all directional & short in front, tall in back. One manager that snagged an SRT was on his 2nd set of tires IN A YEAR (tires were covered at $300 each), was within weeks of turning it in when a ‘deer’ jumped out in front of him, luckily his buddy in the Camaro Z28 was nearby to get him home…..ya right.
Being a drop top, had the top down every chance I could, all yr round. Was hoping for a good deal at the end of the lease. When that time came, just short of 9K miles, the oil change flag popped. But turn in price was near $20K on a now 2 yr old car with 9K miles. Decided an SUV was a better choice.
Delayed CC effect… I saw a Crossfire coupe within the last week – in that ubiquitous silver/blue that seemed standard. I recall being intrigued by these at the time, but had no room for one in the stable (or the budget.)
There was a lot of domestic retro action in the late nineties – early aughts (Prowler, PT Cruiser, Beetle, MINI, Thunderbird, Mustang, SSR, HHR) with varying degrees of success. The biggest was probably the PT Cruiser, so Daimler thought they’d give it a go with the quasi art-deco Crossfire.
Unfortunately, the design language wasn’t there. Some even compared the Crossfire’s rear window treatment to that of the old, unloved AMC Marlin. I guess they were hoping a Crossfire success would transfer over to other model lines, most notably the lackluster 2007 Sebring, which ended up being an even bigger bomb since it wasn’t a niche vehicle like the Crossfire, but a bread-and-butter product upon which profits the company really depended.
On top of the failed styling, there was some significant cost-cutting that was readily apparent in the plastic-fantastic interior, like the Tonka-level switchgear. Maybe not as terrible as the first generation Caliber, but still there.
None of it was working, so Daimler finally threw in the towel and sold Chrysler to Cerberus in 2007.
I can see the Marlin connection. I think that the Marlin-style fastback works, at least for the handsome, single-year ’67 design, as it has some length to it. The Crossfire’s rear quarters compress this fastback look into a really short rear-deck, so to me, anyway, the effect isn’t quite the same.
Agree with your assessment of how the ’07 Sebring’s look came to be. I remember a bit of worry starting to creep into my picture of Chrysler right around that time.
I’ve always found these donor cars–which have platforms, tech and electronics not used by the rest of the brand and are sometime straight rebadges–oddly fascinating. Now, Daimler and Chrysler were of course under the same umbrella and Chrysler borrowed some bits and bobs from Daimler on a lot of stuff (like the 5G-Tronic transmission), but the fact of the matter was that none of the other Chryslers was this much of a Mercedes-Benz under the skin.
Other notable mentions include the Toyota Cavalier (yes, really), Honda Cro$$road, Acura SLX, Mercury Villager, early (2003-2005) L322 Range Rover, Volkswagen Routan, Chevy Express City, INFINITI Q30/QX30 (although it did have Nissan/INFINITI infotainment), and the current media darling, the Toyota Supra.
When I had first read (and later re-read) your comment, I wondered if the Lincoln LS and Jaguar S-Type would also fall under that “donor car” idea, but then I also remembered that the last Thunderbird also shared that platform.
I think there’s a good article here at CC on the Toyota Cavalier somewhere. That one floored me when I first read it. I think like 50 of them were sold, or something. (An exaggeration, of course.)
The metallic silver painted interior accents are absolutely repellant in these and many other late Daimler era Chryslers, nothing ever looked cheaper executed to me before or since, it looks like someone took a rustoelum silver spray can and bombed over what you’d expect to be woodgrain(because silver is high tech, you see!)
I didn’t mind the basic design of the Crossfire but it’s very contrived, it looks like what The Sharper Image would have sold if they sold cars. I mean it’s retro but you can’t pin it down to anything in particular it’s emulating, like those hood stakes remind me of something, but what?
As for the name I like it, Crossfire sounds cool on it and sounds cool on the 80s Corvette engines, and rolls off the tongue like a good name should. Keep in mind this is Chrysler we’re talking about here, the company who had engine designations called 440 Magnum(eg .44 Magnum) or TNT 440 (it’s dynamite!). If anything it’s a name that would have fit better on one of their later LX platform muscle cars or a Ram than a little two seater sports car.
Yeah, the Crossfire’s metallic silver plastic knobs were really off-putting and cheap. I don’t know if they wore all that well, either.
The old 440 Magnum was a Dodge. The Plymouth version was a 440 Super Commando. The 440 TNT was what they called the 440 when it went into a Chrysler. So:
440 Super Commando = Plymouth
440 Magnum = Dodge
440 TNT = Chrysler
There seem to be earlier ‘Commando’ Plymouth and ‘Charger’ Dodge V8 engines, but those names didn’t seem to last long (especially after the 1966 Dodge Charger car came out).
How could I forget Commando!
So yeah, 440 Magnum, 440 Super Commando, 440 TNT. Not exactly a naming strategy bringing up connotations of world peace and putting a flower in your hair. But they fit the cars they were used in perfectly, that’s all that really matters in a name.
You remind me now of Mercury’s similar relationship with “Marauder”.
The “Sharper Image” reference is spot-on, come to think of it. Even my CD-player / alarm clock that I still have from the same era of the Crossfire has a similar aesthetic, with the silver accents, etc. Maybe I don’t find that look that offputting because I remember the early- to mid-Aughts as an exciting time, and finally being able to purchase things as a young, working professional that had that same, basic style.
In my opinion, the Crossfire name is a whole lot better than Chrysler’s previous specialty car… the Prowler. To me, that’s a name with no positive, or even neutral, connotations. At least Chrysler didn’t follow that up with the Stalker.
Both of those could have the currently marketed “Night” Package as an optional extra. And there could have been the fancy French sounding Plymouth Voyeur… likely with cameras not just in the backup position, but 360 degrees…
Good point Eric.
I always thought that they stole the name “Prowler” from the RV/Travel Trailer of the same name. And it was a dumb name on the Trailer as well. AS IF anyone could “prowl” with a big honking building on wheels.
I’d forgotten about those! A mighty odd name for a family-oriented product. Well, unless you’re a family of prowlers, I suppose:
“Stalker” made me LOL… For me, “Prowler” conjures up thoughts of being on a nighttime adventure, but yeah, no – none of the definitions of that word I’m looking at on my computer as I type this are coming from a positive place.
Alliteration is a big thing with car names. Chrysler Crossfire just sounds right, and direct. It made me think of a neutral position in a discussion, where you are caught in a cross fire of arguments. As a reskinned Mercedes it should have been more popular, except that it couldn’t convey the prestige that a Benz buyer is looking for. So why not up the monthly lease payments and get the real thing? Chrysler did have a thing for gun related, aggresive names. I suppose that HellCat isn’t too dainty either.
Take your best shot? I don’t see anything gun related in that term. It means to give your best effort, right? Just like Rocky Balboa, but he wanted to take his in the ring
Great points, and I suppose I could have taken a step further to compare the prices of the comparable Chrysler and Benz when they were new. What would the percentage difference in price actually have been? Granted, the Crossfire got the hand-me-down technology from the older Mercedes design, but still. Anyone who wanted and could afford a halo Chrysler probably had a little extra money available.
The Crossfire name hasn’t aged terribly well, but I’m thinking the Studebaker Dictator, built from 1927 to ’37 wasn’t a great name idea even when new, what were THEY thinking?
Crossfires were a limited boutique offering in South Africa, but I still see them around quite often, and I always stop to admire them.They were a left field design but in the nicest way, very sculptural. I’ve never seen a tatty one, they have remained in a higher income ownership pool, and are clearly loved by their owners.
To be fair to Studebaker, until a certain dude in a certain European country decided to start invading all his neighbors, the word ‘dictator’ hadn’t yet gotten the extreme negative connotation it has had ever since.
“Hood strakes”. Thanks Joe, that’s going to be my “thing I learned today”! I recall wondering once if there was a name for those….lines…..on the hoods of Chryslers of this short period. Regardless, I always found them entirely repellent. To the extent that I would regularly reject the straked Chryslers offered as rental cars. Irrational, perhaps. But they just freaked me out.
I never had a problem with the name and had never thought about it having a negative connotation. But that may be because I just never thought much about these MB-Chryslers.
It’s just that the hoods of these things always have reminded me of the underside of a blue whale. Freaky.
Jeff, I don’t think I’ve ever looked that closely at a picture of a blue whale, but you’re absolutely right. I think an association might have just been formed. I think those hood lines looked better on the Crossfire than on the workaday sedan Sebring. Never my favorite design element, I think they added some distinction to what the Crossfire had going on.
Maybe the should have named it “Happyfire”.
Having a corrugated metal hood makes it look cheap.
“Friendlyfire” = just as terrible.
i actually liked the model name, and this car. it looks cool, retro but not overdone. the name reminded me of a shootout scene in maybe a james bond movie, where the hero escapes just in time in his little sports car