The 2005 Chrysler Firepower was a Dodge Viper-based concept sports car designed as a luxurious Grand Tourer. It featured a 6.1L Hemi V8 engine, producing 425 horsepower, aiming for a 0–60 mph time of 4.5 seconds.
Posted by Venkie2Maybach@reddit | WeirdWheels | View on Reddit | 90 comments
The concept car made its debut at the 2005 North American International Auto Show.
It was intended to be an accessible, luxury alternative to the Dodge Viper SRT10 to compete with cars like the Cadillac XLR.
The 6.1L V8 was paired with a 5-speed automatic transmission, projected to reach 175 mph.
It utilized a Gen 3 Dodge Viper chassis with styling cues from the Chrysler Crossfire, featuring a "Hydro Silver Pearl" exterior.
The interior was designed for luxury, featuring Ocean Deep Blue and Oyster leather, along with matte maple accents.
Despite positive reception, Chrysler believed the vehicle would not be economically viable and feared it would reduce Dodge Viper sales.
not-posting-anything@reddit
It's crazy to think Chrysler almost had a hypercar and a super GT in their lineup, now all they have is an outdated minivan
neanderthalensis@reddit
That interior looks surprisingly production-ready
Schmittiboo@reddit
If you showed someone today, they´d probably say on the inside its an Aston.
obi1kenobi1@reddit
I’d say more “production plausible”. This was Chrysler in 2005, you know that all the chrome would be replaced with silver painted plastic on the production model, and the piano gloss black would probably be matte dark gray plastic. Chrysler really knew how to push a nice design downmarket and make everything feel super cheap in those days.
But yeah apart from that, and considering how outlandish the interior often was on 2005-era concept cars, it does look surprisingly restrained and realistic, as if they had intentions of turning it into a production car.
BillfredL@reddit
Some would say that talent never left.
obi1kenobi1@reddit
Yeah, but sit in a Dodge Charger EV or a Chrysler Pacifica and compare the design language and materials to competitors, then do the same with a 2005 Chrysler 300 or Town and Country. There was just such an overwhelming aura of cost cutting and laziness that permeated everything back then, and that was on top of the fact that (at least in my opinion) that was the absolute worst era of car interiors. Say what you will about modern cars, I say most of it myself, but the interiors of cars from the past decade or so tend to feel so much more premium and well thought out than at pretty much any point since the ‘60s. But as bad as interiors from manufacturers like GM and Ford (and even some of the other manufacturers that are usually associated with nicer interiors) tended to be in that era Chrysler really stood out as somehow even worse.
And I say all this as someone who actually really liked (and still likes) the aesthetic that Chrysler was going for in that era. This concept car is a great example of the vibe that the designers were clearly trying to achieve before the accounting department got involved, but other concepts like the Dodge Super 8 Hemi and Dodge Kahuna really do a great job at conveying the image that Chrysler was striving towards back then, and I still love that aesthetic. That sort of modern retrofuturist throwback to a more elegant time. But then instead of that cool version from the concept cars we got the Temu version that looked and felt like it was made out of plastic storage bins from Walmart, the execution of that idea just tended to be so lazy and incompetent (at least when it comes to the interiors) that I can’t help but hate it.
I get it, it was the 2000s, the popular aesthetic was what the whippersnappers like to call Frutiger Aero. Plastic with metallic paint was more “hip” and “modern” than chrome, Gen X was the young adult demographic everyone was targeting and they hated chrome and wood and traditional luxury cues that they grew up with. But they just couldn’t pull it off for whatever reason, the vibe I got from all their 2000s-era interiors was “hey we know you like chrome and retro aesthetics but Home Depot had a sale on silver Krylon so enjoy”. I feel like I’m the only person who really loves how the Crossfire looks and wouldn’t mind having one some day (as long as I didn’t have to rely on it as a daily driver) but man that interior with the mediocre aesthetics and the laughably tacky silver spray paint just kills the vibe.
horselessheadsman@reddit
There's no speedometer lol
Viperin98@reddit
Probably would have a digital speedometer / display
Pokesabre@reddit
I will never not be amazed at the disparities between the sizes of American engines and their power outputs
BondGoldBond007@reddit
Put a turbo on it like in Europe and this thing makes 600+hp
Important-Spring3977@reddit
Or, I don't know, put a supercharger in it like they actually did in the US, and it makes 800+?
I swear the whataboutism in this thread reeks of inferiority complexes
crystal_noodle@reddit
It is odd. People obsess with HP/L, but its a silly stat that really doesn’t say much about the driving experience of a sports car or grand tourer.
CallOfCorgithulhu@reddit
And people must not look at other engines of whatever era they think American engines were down on power.
Sure you can find sportier engines from the era, but OEMs across the globe had low and high power density.
Armored_Guardian@reddit
Torque is a thing
Pokesabre@reddit
That American motors produce worryingly low amounts of for their size
BaconNPotatoes@reddit
They make it at much lower rpm than what you're used to.
ThePandaKingdom@reddit
Going from my 4.6l V8 Mustang to my Focus ST eas a strange experience becusee the cars feel similiarly quick but the outputs at X RPM are wildly different lol. It is funny driving around in a Ford Focus that makes 270lbs of torque at 2500 rpm lol
Hailfire9@reddit
What was the weight difference? I'd bet what you're really feeling at lower speeds is the power/weight ratio and shorter gears. And then the turbo lag kicks in.
I love muscle cars, but hot hatches are their own breed of insanity.
ThePandaKingdom@reddit
The mustang is a decent but heavier but not astronomically (3500lbs vs 3235) and It 100% has taller gearing. The focus will do 22.5lbs of boost at full throttle in 3rd. But ive read that boost is limited in first and second.
The must could cruise comfy at 25 in 3rd gear but the focus needs to be in 4th at 25 keep the rpms tame. The focusy is also a 6 speed though, where the mustang was a 5 speed so thay kinda make it hard to compare gear ratios in a general sense.
In regards to them being their own breed of insanity and turbo lag, it was definstely a new experience having to wait a second and then 'holy crap" lol. I have eagle sports on it at the moment, they are what came on it whe i got it. If you are cruising in second at like 3500rpm and punch it it just spins the front wheels lol. The car is definately fun, thats for sure.
Pokesabre@reddit
Ah, so they're fake deisels
Secret-Ad-7909@reddit
I mean, small block Chevys are found in more trucks than anything.
Pokesabre@reddit
Ah yes, the XXXXXXXL ego compensator 5000, I am quite familiar
Secret-Ad-7909@reddit
That’s what they’ve become yeah. But for all generations the drivetrain at least, is built to do work.
And yes your comparison works, for the majority of new trucks the gas and diesel options are close enough in output that it doesn’t really make a difference. So I don’t understand why anyone puts up with all the DEF/EGR/high price nonsense that comes with modern diesels.
As for the actual conversation, I love the torque delivery from the LS3 in my Camaro. Obviously it launches hard and will continue to push you into the seat with each gear change. But the times I notice it most are when I’m trying to move through traffic and I can ‘instantly’ accelerate to take advantage of a gap.
warrensussex@reddit
Not sure what gas engines you are talking about, but chevy's gas engines produces no where near the amount of torque of their diesels. Most people just have no use for it so it's a waste.
Secret-Ad-7909@reddit
Okay, yeah. My bad
Figgy_Puddin_Taine@reddit
idk why they’re booing you, you’re right
jore-hir@reddit
Gears are a thing
ijustbrushalot@reddit
The 2005 BMW 760Li had:
6.0L V12 438hp
This 2005 concept had:
6.1L V8 425hp
DeepSeaDork@reddit
It was 20 years ago, and had 420 ft lb of torque in a mass produced engine. If you want to compare a 300 HP Toyota V8 or a 400 HP supercharged Jaguar V8 of the time, then you are just trolling.
stewieatb@reddit
An M57 of that era puts out ~420ft-lbs at 2000rpm, and will get 50mpg, from 3.0 litres.
Anyone who thinks there's "no replacement for displacement" isn't trying very hard.
DeepSeaDork@reddit
Not at all what I'm saying. HP and TQ specs for that engine were good for 21 years ago.
The M57 specs are bullshit, that is a tuned engine, not straight from the manufacturer. Also, I had a 3.0 BMW straight six, 50 MPG is completely off.
stewieatb@reddit
A 5.9 Cummins is a truck engine, an M57 is a car engine.
If you want engines that produce low-end torque in the early 2000s, a midsize turbo-diesel is a good option. Building a stone-age OHV 16 valve petrol V8 and detuning it to make low-end torque is a stupid option.
DeepSeaDork@reddit
No kidding it is a truck engine. You are still comparing gas engines to diesel engines. The V8 in this concept car had double the horsepower than the M57 engine. I dont think there would be much fun putting a diesel engine in a sports car. If you want to compare any other mass produced gasoline V8 engines of the time, go ahead. All I was originally saying is that 21 years ago, the power output numbers for this engine were impressive compared to other mass produced V8 gasoline engines of the time.
stewieatb@reddit
M57D30TÜ2 puts out 428 ft-lbs at 2000rpm, straight from the factory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M57
DeepSeaDork@reddit
Wow that is so amazing.
Armored_Guardian@reddit
A turbo diesel makes a lot of torque? Wow, that’s impressive and relevant
itsmejak78_2@reddit
they might have large displacements but they still have half the package size compared to an overhead cam V8
DFLDrew@reddit
If viper based, why no V10?
ThtPhatCat@reddit
Haha right? Viper based how?.. does it dream of growing up to be a Viper?
_badwithcomputer@reddit
Viper chassis and subframe etc. Similar to how the Cadillac XLR was built on the Corvette platform
BaconNPotatoes@reddit
Imagine we could have had this but, instead someone signed off on the crossfire instead
Mythrilfan@reddit
The crossfire is like half of the price of this.
BaconNPotatoes@reddit
And significantly less cool
Mythrilfan@reddit
...okay? That's like saying you shouldn't buy a Passat because a 5-series is better.
Secret-Ad-7909@reddit
I’m thinking the crossfire is what this was watered down to after all the boring people got their say.
Artistic_Bit6866@reddit
Crossfire was years before this…
Secret-Ad-7909@reddit
Shhh….
Speed_Addixt@reddit
Well said, I’m stealing that quote. In every corporate, there is one person with great, great vision. Then all the boring people come and they manage to sculpure it to absolute piece of shit. Happens in my job all the time.
Artistic_Bit6866@reddit
What are you talking about? Crossfire was years before this came out.
MajorEbb1472@reddit
Came here to say the same. What a shit decision.
Venkie2Maybach@reddit (OP)
This concept was released alongside the Crossfire.
Alkiap_@reddit
It was not, the Crossfire concept was shown in 2001 and the production model went on sale in 2003.
PegaLaMega@reddit
It's all about the profit, not the consumer.
Cleanbriefs@reddit
The radiator grill, the hood with those ridges, and the Chrysler logo on the back. Make them go away and it is still in 2026 a very stylish car!
DavidLitBlunt@reddit
I’m sold.
Funkgun@reddit
New Jag is oddly similar
MegaTurboLaser@reddit
Chrysler FIREPOWER.
Was there any more murican car name ever?
Soggy_Cheek_2653@reddit
a reference to the FirePower engine line, must be
devonlad22@reddit
And yet the first corner it sees will cause it to have a panic attack and try to climb a telegraph pole to find safety
sexinsuburbia@reddit
I can imagine grandma driving this thing, hunkered down low barely being able to see over the steering wheel. Going 20 mph in a 35 mph zone. Hitting the Chrysler demographic hard.
snowballkills@reddit
6.1l and 4.5s...laughs in Tesla ;)
BananaPalmer@reddit
Yeah but then you have to drive a Tesla
snowballkills@reddit
or you could let the Tesla drive you ;)
BananaPalmer@reddit
And get decapitated when its inferior camera-based autopilot mistakes a 55' trailer for a highway overpass?
I'm good.
snowballkills@reddit
now dude you guys are just sounding really stupid. Billions of miles on autopilot/FSD...and decapitations under a trailer happen more often with humans in control than FSD...
BananaPalmer@reddit
https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a62919131/tesla-has-highest-fatal-accident-rate-of-all-auto-brands-study/
It's your life. Do what you want.
snowballkills@reddit
cared to read anything other than the headline? What is the safety rating of this car OP posted?
As far as your article goes, below is from it:
The study's authors make clear that the results do not indicate Tesla vehicles are inherently unsafe or have design flaws. In fact, Tesla vehicles are loaded with safety technology; the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) named the 2024 Model Y as a Top Safety Pick+ award winner, for example. Many of the other cars that ranked highly on the list have also been given high ratings for safety by the likes of IIHS and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, as well.
So, why are Teslas — and many other ostensibly safe cars on the list — involved in so many fatal crashes? “The models on this list likely reflect a combination of driver behavior and driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and fatalities,” iSeeCars executive analyst Karl Brauer said in the report. “A focused, alert driver, traveling at a legal or prudent speed, without being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, is the most likely to arrive safely regardless of the vehicle they’re driving.”
BananaPalmer@reddit
Explain to me what influence a car has on driver behavior and driving conditions?
Please, continue to make yourself look like a fool by further glazing Tesla
snowballkills@reddit
Can you make yourself not look like a fool by ignoring simple facts that if:
A car has tons of power and instant torque available for cheap, and is easy to go above legal speed limits.
Majority of the buyer group is young to middle age
Live in urban areas with a higher accident rate and traffic
It makes the above group more likely to have accidents/fatal accidents.
Do you think the rate of fatal accidents of cars such as Mustangs, Vipers, Corvettes, etc. are the same as those of other cars in the brands lineup?
Do you get into a minivan and then in a 3 sec 0-60 car and drive the same way?
BananaPalmer@reddit
So, you're saying Tesla customers are juvenile idiots with no self-control who drive recklessly in congested urban areas, and that's why the fatal crash rate is fully double the average?
snowballkills@reddit
I guess you couldn't digest the explanation I provided. Also, electronic locks locking people inside a car in case of fires is nothing new and is a problem plaguing many brands and models, and in the case of Tesla - more of a user error. The car has failsafe mechanisms to manually open the doors. How many deaths have happened coz of doors in case of Tesla? Check facts dude
Artistic_Bit6866@reddit
Or let it burn you alive without being able to escape.
crystal_noodle@reddit
Nothing screams car enthusiast like not wanting to drive
snowballkills@reddit
That I totally agree with you on! But there are times when you are dead tired, on a super boring long trip (straight road for hundreds of miles with nothing to do), etc. where having the luxury of the car doing 90% of the job is a true luxury
milkbeard-@reddit
You had a Tesla in 2005?
snowballkills@reddit
You're reading this in 2005 or do you keep a car only for a year? The point is that these specs look quite poor today. Have you heard the statement that the current iPhone is millions of times more powerful (yes - MILLIONS!) than the computer that powered the Apollo 11? Probably not!
Artistic_Bit6866@reddit
If you stopped simping so hopelessly for a minute, you’d realize that’s exact the point they’re making. Your comparison is stupid.
OwnPermission95@reddit
This actually looks amazing. The interior and rear are gorgeous. But of course Chrysler wouldn’t make a car this cool.
m00kery@reddit
Looks like a Corvette and an Aston martin had a retarded love child like a car from GTA
aipac125@reddit
Remember when we thought 4.5s was fast? Regular production Tesla's are running in the 2s.
MattressHallington@reddit
Only 1 tesla model can do that and its a performance based model.
MattressHallington@reddit
Great looking car. I remember seeing these at the NAIAS.
biffbobfred@reddit
Gives Roma vibes
SputnikFace@reddit
~~Cross~~MisFire was one of the worst handling cars I ever drove. It was too light in the ass to stick to curves properly.
This looks like a bigger, heavier,wider version that probably would have been the better bet.
regeya@reddit
As the former owner of multiple Chrysler products, how's the water pump on the Hemis
TalbotFarwell@reddit
I wish they built this for real. A couple of years later and it could’ve had the 392 Hemi or a street-legal homologated 426 Hellephant (without the supercharger) would’ve been badass in it.
OldWrangler9033@reddit
I wouldn't have called that Weird, unfortunate casualty of salemens fears of losing sales for their existing car. Dumb.
DryProgress4393@reddit
Very Aston Martin,it looks great.
Fun_Reference_270@reddit
That looks really good actually!
GoNe2heLL@reddit
Ferrari 456 front end and Aston Martin rear end... Hell yeah I'll take two