Chrysler puts a bullet in the PT Cruiser

[the Teuton]

[/troll]

[ifcar]

Flip the rear seats down and you had a cavernous van-like space that made conventional sedans seem almost useless. 

The PT was a pretty good car in its day, but let's not exaggerate. Remove the rear seats and you have more space than the average compact wagon, but less than half the volume of many vans.

Any decent wagon will dwarf the practicality of a sedan, too.

[Byteme]

LOL - to this day my dad calls the Mustang exactly that, and says exactly that that was how it was marketed.

He opted for his first new car a '66 Galaxy GT390 as a result!

The Mustang was marketed to be just about any kind of car a buyer would want; from a secretary's car to a road racer and GT car.  One simply had to check the right boxes on the order sheet.

Never heard of a Galaxie GT 390.  The Galaxie came as an LTD, the Galaxie 500XL, the Galaxie 500 7 Litre, Galaxie 500, Custom 500 in  a bunch of different body styles.  I think there was a Fairlane GT with a 390 engine.

Truth be known today one might consider just about all cars as "chick" cars since women make the majority of new car buying decisions, at least in the US.

[AutobahnSHO]

Even the cars bought by guys are influenced by girls.
Most people buying NEW cars are a little older, and usually married/ in a serious relationship.
Trust me, they ask the girl what she thinks...

[AutobahnSHO]

The PT was a pretty good car in its day, but let's not exaggerate. Remove the rear seats and you have more space than the average compact wagon, but less than half the volume of many vans.

Any decent wagon will dwarf the practicality of a sedan, too.

+1

Not to mention that even though it might not be "underpowered" it was "heavy".
According to the 1st couple pages of the thread anyway. 

[AutobahnSHO]

[/troll]

If i just had some money and guts...
I spose I should just suck up any potential resale value and go nuts..

Although I really wanted to paint every panel of my original Wagon (79 4wd, tan, I drove it 1992-1994) with a different Rush Album cover...

[GoCougs]

The Mustang was marketed to be just about any kind of car a buyer would want; from a secretary's car to a road racer and GT car.  One simply had to check the right boxes on the order sheet.

Never heard of a Galaxie GT 390.  The Galaxie came as an LTD, the Galaxie 500XL, the Galaxie 500 7 Litre, Galaxie 500, Custom 500 in  a bunch of different body styles.  I think there was a Fairlane GT with a 390 engine.

Truth be known today one might consider just about all cars as "chick" cars since women make the majority of new car buying decisions, at least in the US.

Are you calling my dad a liar?

[SVT666]

Are you calling my dad a liar?

I think he did.

[GoCougs]

I think he did.

He's in for it now.

[SVT666]

He's in for it now.

Go all ChrisV on his ass.

[Byteme]

Are you calling my dad a liar?

Read it anyway you want.  I'm simply stating I'm not aware of a Galaxie model called the GT 390.

[the Teuton]

If i just had some money and guts...
I spose I should just suck up any potential resale value and go nuts..

Although I really wanted to paint every panel of my original Wagon (79 4wd, tan, I drove it 1992-1994) with a different Rush Album cover...

You owned a GL wagon?

You are my hero.

[GoCougs]

Go all ChrisV on his ass.

Oh, I'm a nice guy. Byteme/John and I have long ago worked things out, and for this subject, I've done my duty.

[AutobahnSHO]

You owned a GL wagon?

You are my hero.

lol

Credit for Something at last.
Mine was pretty close to this one. No roofrack or fancy lettering on the side though, and it was "dirty brown".

It was a true FWD car that, when you pushed the lever under the dash down, became true 4WD- "Do not engage 4WD on dry pavement or drivetrain damage can result" or something like that. Nothing like being able to do donuts forwards AND backwards.
AND a BIG GREEN LIGHT on the dash came on that said, "4WD". That was the "buckle up" light to my friends..

Oh and the spare tire was right next to the carberator.

[AutobahnSHO]

So I took my son to his clarinet lesson (yeah yeah, he's only in 4th grade, we're working up to saxophone) and there was a PT cruiser in the driveway (instructor's family rented one.)

And I saw THREE Cruisers on the mile drive home.

So I looked up the cruiser's "utility value" and compared it with my reference, my Subaru:

1997 Subaru Legacy L Wagon
overall length (mm): 4,671,
overall width (mm): 1,715,
overall height (mm): 1,450,
ground clearance (mm): 155,
wheelbase (mm): 2,629
137 HP @ 5,400 rpm
curb weight (kg) 1,390
Fuel economy EPA highway (l/100km): 7.8    (30.1mpg)

2002 PT Cruiser
overall length (mm): 4,288,
overall width (mm): 1,704,
overall height (mm): 1,600,
ground clearance (mm): 152,
wheelbase (mm): 2,616
150 HP @ 5,500 rpm
curb weight (kg) 1,409
Fuel economy EPA highway (l/100km): 8.1    (29.0mpg)

1997 Subaru Legacy L Wagon
rear seat up; to lower window (liters): 1,019,
rear seat down (liters): 2,067,
all seats in place (liters): 1,019
all seats removed (liters): 2,067

2002 PT Cruiser
all seats in place (liters): 538
all seats removed (liters): 1,818

1997 Subaru Legacy L Wagon
front headroom (mm): 1,003,
rear headroom (mm): 986,
front leg room (mm): 1,100,
rear leg room (mm): 884,
front shoulder room (mm): 1,374,
rear shoulder room (mm): 1,361

2002 PT Cruiser
front headroom (mm): 1,026,
rear headroom (mm): 1,006,
front hip room (mm): 1,372,
rear hip room (mm): 1,189,
front leg room (mm): 1,031,
rear leg room (mm): 1,036,
front shoulder room (mm): 1,387,
rear shoulder room (mm): 1,369

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2002/chrysler/pt_cruiser/specifications/index.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Had to search more for performance:
http://www.jdmuniverse.com/forums/stocktimes.html
PT Cruiser 0-60mph in 10.9sec, 1/4 mile in 18.2
Legacy L   0-60mph in 10.9sec, 1/4 mile in 17.7

Overall:
Cars are close to the same gas mileage,  weight, and performance.
The Subie is about .4m longer, and .15m shorter (vertically.)
PT Cruiser has plenty more legroom in back, but loses out BIGTIME on storage space.

Of course the PT Cruiser sold TONS of models because of the great exterior, which managed to last a LONG time..

[hotrodalex]

This isn't fun anymore, somebody better get banned because of this thread and i have a pretty good idea of who it should be.

I say NAcar.

[omicron]

yeah, the only real exception was the Dodge La Femme.

That's brilliant! I want one.

[ChrisV]

So I took my son to his clarinet lesson (yeah yeah, he's only in 4th grade, we're working up to saxophone) and there was a PT cruiser in the driveway (instructor's family rented one.)

And I saw THREE Cruisers on the mile drive home.

So I looked up the cruiser's "utility value" and compared it with my reference, my Subaru:

1997 Subaru Legacy L Wagon
overall length (mm): 4,671,
overall width (mm): 1,715,
overall height (mm): 1,450,
ground clearance (mm): 155,
wheelbase (mm): 2,629
137 HP @ 5,400 rpm
curb weight (kg) 1,390
Fuel economy EPA highway (l/100km): 7.8    (30.1mpg)

2002 PT Cruiser
overall length (mm): 4,288,
overall width (mm): 1,704,
overall height (mm): 1,600,
ground clearance (mm): 152,
wheelbase (mm): 2,616
150 HP @ 5,500 rpm
curb weight (kg) 1,409
Fuel economy EPA highway (l/100km): 8.1    (29.0mpg)

1997 Subaru Legacy L Wagon
rear seat up; to lower window (liters): 1,019,
rear seat down (liters): 2,067,
all seats in place (liters): 1,019
all seats removed (liters): 2,067

2002 PT Cruiser
all seats in place (liters): 538
all seats removed (liters): 1,818

1997 Subaru Legacy L Wagon
front headroom (mm): 1,003,
rear headroom (mm): 986,
front leg room (mm): 1,100,
rear leg room (mm): 884,
front shoulder room (mm): 1,374,
rear shoulder room (mm): 1,361

2002 PT Cruiser
front headroom (mm): 1,026,
rear headroom (mm): 1,006,
front hip room (mm): 1,372,
rear hip room (mm): 1,189,
front leg room (mm): 1,031,
rear leg room (mm): 1,036,
front shoulder room (mm): 1,387,
rear shoulder room (mm): 1,369

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2002/chrysler/pt_cruiser/specifications/index.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Had to search more for performance:
http://www.jdmuniverse.com/forums/stocktimes.html
PT Cruiser 0-60mph in 10.9sec, 1/4 mile in 18.2
Legacy L   0-60mph in 10.9sec, 1/4 mile in 17.7

Overall:
Cars are close to the same gas mileage,  weight, and performance.
The Subie is about .4m longer, and .15m shorter (vertically.)
PT Cruiser has plenty more legroom in back, but loses out BIGTIME on storage space.

Of course the PT Cruiser sold TONS of models because of the great exterior, which managed to last a LONG time..

Ok, I'm going to be serious, here, for a moment. Before we bought our PT, we looked at a lot of cars. In fact, we spent quite a bit of time at the International Auto Show sitting in a lot of different cars to get a feel for useability and ergonomics. My wife originally wanted an Outback Sport (the impreza wagon), but when we looked at it, the rear seat ingress/egress was horrid. Very easy to hit your head on the roof line due to the sedan shaped rear doors and low roofline. Since we had to consider rear seat passengers (primarily her parents, who are in their 80s) that ingress/egress was paramount. It also cost a bit more than the PT. We also looked at the Legacy, which I liked (but she didn't. And neither one of us liked the more expensive Forester). Being basically a sedan based station wagon, it had the same issues with rear seat ingress/egress: low and hard to get in/out of for taller or older people.

The PT may have only slightly higher headroom listed, but that's measured from the seat cushion, and doen't include the fact that the seats were higher off the floor, making it so you didn't have to drop down into the seat, instead, you simply slid in. And the rear doors were tall all the way to the rear making it very easy to get in while barely ducking your head. Since you sat more vertical on the taller seats, you actually had more useable legroom in the rear with the front seats in normal driving position. It turned out to be very easy to get her folks in and out of the rear when we were taking them places.

Speaking of rear seats, the PT also has a little trick that the Legacy doesn't. A flick of a lever and one or both rear seats come completely out, leaving a low, flat load floor (due to the specifically designed rear suspension that allows for a low floor). This makes for a huge rear carrying area, on par with much larger SUVs. While the Legacy may be listed as having more volume, a long skinny tube can have more volume than a short, squat box, but the box will carry more real world things than the long skinny tube can. This is how I was able to carry the stack of 14 36x64 Pella replacement windows in the back with the hatch closed. The Legacy (and normal sedan based wagons) simply couldn't do that, because, even though it might have more LENGTH creating more volume, it wouldn't have had the internal height to do so. Same with carrying lumber and the stand up compressor with one rear seat folded forward, while still having room for my wife and myself in front, and my stepson in the remaining rear seat. The utility value of that trick was utilized quite a bit during our 5 years of ownership. If I wanted to carry a small stack of 8 foot lumber, I could fold a rear seat flat, use the adjustible cargo tray in the rear to make a flat surface behind that seat, and fold the front seat forward flat to creat a flat load floor from the rear hatch to the dashboard! I carried the entire load of 8 foot cedar railing for our deck home in this manner with the hatch closed!

The only thing it couldn't carry that I wanted it to was a 4x8 sheet of plywood, as diagonally it was an inch too small.



That still has the rear seats in it. Without them, the space opens up even more. It may not be quite as wide in spots as the Legacy (but it doesn't have rear strut encroachment) but it's as long and it's taller.

Considering the Legacy is a midsizer and the PT is a compact wagon, that's not bad.

As for the accelleration times you listed, two things. First, the test numbers listed are usually from a fully loaded Limited, as that was the one that most magazines tested. That meant equipped with the automatic, which was over 2 seconds slower to 60 than the manual trans version before break in.

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2004-chrysler-pt-cruiser-1.htm

"Base manual-transmission wagon did 8.9 sec 0-60 mph; automatics are significantly slower."

Second, the PT, like a lot of modern cars, starts with a default ECU program that learns as you drive it, and also limits power delivery during the first 3000 miles (sort of an enforced break in period). The jump in hp at the 3000 mile point may not be huge, but it's noticeable, especially if it's not going through a slushbox. My PT was noticeably quicker to 60 after break in than it was when we got it. But you have to drive it kind of briskly in that first 3000 miles in order to get that jump in power (the ECU reads your driving needs and adjusts the fuel and spark map accordingly. Liek I said, this is a trick that a lot of modern cars have, and often we use it to reprogram musclecars: you disconnect the battery for a bit and make sure the car's chassis drains all residual current, then reconnect the battery and drive the car hard. The ECU resets to a default mode and learns it's new fuel and spark mapping).

Yeah, it hasn't changed much in the 8 years it's been around, but it was exactly the kind of small, practical vehicle we were trying to get people out of instead of SUVs, and it had a unique style that stood out in a sea of conservative cars AND people seemed to like it (unlike the Aztek. Even in the supposedly poor sales year last year for PTs, it still sold more than the BEST year of Aztek sales (and probably close to all years of Aztek sales combined)). Too bad Chrysler couldn't have paid more attention to it and kept it relevant for a new generation of buyers.

[AutobahnSHO]

I'm not trying to bash it. I'm just saying it's not the crazy vehicle from the Gods some think.

The Cruiser can totaly be credited with opening up the "crossover" market- for the seating reason you mention, which would be nice. My wife would probably pick one over my subie if she were the primary driver. She likes the upright view and higher seat, unlike the low-car seating and view.

I am very very perplexed why Chrysler didn't work to keep the Cruiser THE Crossover to have. It's like they birthed a cash cow and just let it go walk around in traffic on the interstate. Gonna get hit sooner or later...

BTW I'm comparing the Cruiser to what I think is one of the best cars out there, so that's kudos right there, instead of comparing it to some beater or whatever..

[Vinsanity]

They should have made a hybrid PT. Soo many people would've bought them, as I woudn't imagine it to be any more expensive than a hybrid Camry (might have even undercut the Prius). Would've made a good taxi, too.

[ifcar]

The Cruiser can totaly be credited with opening up the "crossover" market

Not really. I'd think of the crossover as something that at least pretends to be an SUV by offering AWD. It's the precursor to a few other stylized small wagons, like the Matrix/Vibe, HHR, or current xB, but it's pretty much irrelevant to the bigger-market crossover classes.

[ifcar]

They should have made a hybrid PT. Soo many people would've bought them, as I woudn't imagine it to be any more expensive than a hybrid Camry (might have even undercut the Prius). Would've made a good taxi, too.

If they could have somehow gotten the technology together and then given it a restyle (maybe a hybrid-only restyle, so everyone can know how green the owners are), that would have worked well. Certainly better than the Durango/Aspen hybrids, and on a product that at least at one point appealed to many consumers who wouldn't ordinarily buy Chrysler.

That's IF Chrysler could have pulled off a good hybrid quickly enough. A big if.

[Vinsanity]

If they could have somehow gotten the technology together and then given it a restyle (maybe a hybrid-only restyle, so everyone can know how green the owners are), that would have worked well. Certainly better than the Durango/Aspen hybrids, and on a product that at least at one point appealed to many consumers who wouldn't ordinarily buy Chrysler.

That's IF Chrysler could have pulled off a good hybrid quickly enough. A big if.

Somehow, I see it extremely fitting that a PT Hybrid look exactly like a modern-day reincarnation of this car:

[AutobahnSHO]

Not really. I'd think of the crossover as something that at least pretends to be an SUV by offering AWD. It's the precursor to a few other stylized small wagons, like the Matrix/Vibe, HHR, or current xB, but it's pretty much irrelevant to the bigger-market crossover classes.

When I say "Crossover" I mean all the "mini-minivans with swinging doors".
The PT Cruiser was the first taller "in between Station Wagon and SUV" vehicle out there.
(Which to me is what "crossovers" are.)

The tallness and seating worked, and opened up a whole generation of engineers trying to figure out how to emulate (to a small degree.)

[AutobahnSHO]

Somehow, I see it extremely fitting that a PT Hybrid look exactly like a modern-day reincarnation of this car:

No that would be the Caliber.
(At least the high beltline and small windows.. )

[ifcar]

When I say "Crossover" I mean all the "mini-minivans with swinging doors".
The PT Cruiser was the first taller "in between Station Wagon and SUV" vehicle out there.
(Which to me is what "crossovers" are.)

The tallness and seating worked, and opened up a whole generation of engineers trying to figure out how to emulate (to a small degree.)

1996 RAV4? 1997 CR-V?

[ChrisV]

1996 RAV4? 1997 CR-V?

Those are just small SUVs, designed to at least look like they have 4x4 offroad intentions and "ruggedness" in a small package. The PT definitely had no offroad pretensions.

A better set of examples would be the Nissan Axxess and the Mitsubishi Expo, which were real direct predecessors to the PT Cruiser, but without the attention grabbing style:

Mini-minivans or tall small wagons, the early ones didn't have sliding doors like "true" minivans:





Even the Civic Wagovan could be considered a direct predecessor, due to it's tall height in a small package.



But I daresay that being too conservative is what kept the predecessors from being anywhere near as popular or as long lived as the PT.

[ifcar]

The crossovers of today, too, have off-road pretensions.

[AutobahnSHO]

Ok so the PT Cruiser wasn't the first crossover.

It was the first AMERICAN Crossover though, dangit!!

And are 2009 crossovers built on car frames or truck frames?
If you say Car then I say it is NOT an offroader.



Unless it's a subie.  :-)

[Eye of the Tiger]

Ok so the PT Cruiser wasn't the first crossover.

It was the first AMERICAN Crossover though, dangit!!

And are 2009 crossovers built on car frames or truck frames?
If you say Car then I say it is NOT an offroader.



Unless it's a subie.  :-)

Wrong. Ford started building crossovers in 1908.