New PT cruiser

Actually I think its more to do with the length-to-girth ratio (aka "fineness" ratio). For a given cross section, there's a fairly large range of lengths where drag coefficient goes *down* or stays the same as you increase length, then goes up again because of "wetted area" drag (surface area). I suspect this is exactly the same reason Smart car highway fuel efficiency is so much worse than it should be for its weight and engine.

Also the 41TE transmission is a power soak, and its software is tailored to the EPA tests more than to the real world. Always has been, although it's much better than when it first came out. That's why the manual PTs got SO much better mileage in the real world, even though they were only EPA rated at a couple more MPG.

Now THAT is ridiculous. Something has got to be mechanically wrong- more seriously so than bad plugs or wires. Timing belt off a tooth? Dragging brake? Binding transmission? Leaking injector? Are you basing that on the computer mileage or by checking the fill quantity against the odometer?

I agree that the PT's 25 highway (we've gotten a max of 27) is surprisingly low given that our old '93 LH car would get 29-30 in its prime and had a 215 HP v6... but I honestly don't think I could *force* our PT to get below 20 on the highway without dragging the brake or disconnecting a spark plug. Heck, we get 21 in commuter traffic.

That lack of higher end power has a lot to do with the engine setup as well. Comparing my '95 Concorde 3.3L and my 300M 3.5L, there isn't much difference below 40mph, but above that speed is where the 300M's higher RPM torque really shows up. No comparison then, the 300M just keeps on accelerating strongly to the max speeds I want to go. The transmission is the same and the RPMs in each gear are very similar. You would need to try the Altima to get a more realistic comparison, the Sentra is more of an urban car.

I doubt the PT consumes enough fuel to qualify. To my surprise my '95 Concorde doesn't, it's just below the cut off for fuel consumption. There must be something wrong with your PT, unless you drive at 90 mph!

I tried to check a Journey out at the local Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep/Hundyi dealer.

He was pushing the Hundyi and a bunch of 09 Sebrings.

There was one Journey, already sold, on the lot. Did not get a chance to road test anything.

Guess I will check out the 3 other Chrysler dealers in my area after they get more than 2010 300's and minivans on the lot.

I've noticed that with my Dakota, simply with fly-by-wire throttle. I'm pretty well convinced that the engine controller wants to set the airflow based on pedal position, regardless of engine RPM (meaning a given pedal position has a radically wider open throttle at low RPM than high). I've been suckered an embarrassing number of times now, driving along in sixth gear with my foot barely on the throttle, only to discover that the engine must have actually been near full throttle since giving it more gas did *nothing*.

I'm moving a little off topic here, but 2 things move power into the lower speeds on the 300M: (1) Changeout the tranny-to-diff. chain sprockets to the higher ratio ones used in the 2.7L 2nd gen. LH cars (also used in the 300M Special), (2) Install an intake spacer that someone on the LH car forums (dodgeintrepid.net and lhforums.net) recently developed and currently sells.

Best thing is to drive one and decide for yourself. I read a ton of reviews on the PT and most of the owner reviews are reasonably useful. Most of the professional reviews are actually less useful as "impressions" although they may be more useful if they have actual test data. The pro's are using $50,000 cars as a baseline and they criticize the most minor faults in less expensive cars.

Did they change CVT's since it first came out? My indelible recollection of the original year was that it sat there and did nothing much while the pedal was carpeted.

Had you done that with the 2.5L, you would not only be a safe distance ahead of that truck, you would be most of the way out of the state and wondering where those flashing lights came from.

Yes, it's very rare to keep a body style for more then a decade so I don't think there is ever going to be any mechanical updates to the PT at this point in time. I will repeat that I've been shocked at how well I actually like the little puddle jumper - Chrysler really did an outstanding job tuning the suspension and designing the interior to make it look a lot more expensive then it sells for. The overall build quality seems excellent, all the gaps are straight, no funny noises anywhere, seats are comfortable and actually provide good lower back support, I never feel cramped, and even though it's not a hot rod it moves ok if you are willing to rev the engine.

They must be using the same team that handled marketing of the Pacifica.

Agree, wholeheartedly! We are even thinking about trading our Caliber in on a Journey. Does it come with a four cylinder, or only a six?

Either is an option, depending on the trim level. ALLPAR.com has an interesting review of the Journey R/T with a video. The video makes a point of showing us the v6 R/T getting 12MPG city.

Why the hell do these sites only show the "R/T" models and the ones with the "biggest" everything! What about the economy models that most people buy!

I think the computer scientist has nailed what I'm talking about! :-)

These TBW systems are tailored to make a very appealing throttle response, and sometimes it leaves you with nothing left in the bank when you *think* there should be based on where your right foot is sitting. Throwing CVT and VVT into the mix really lets the software do a lot of different things for a given right foot position, depending on road speed, engine temp, atmospheric pressure, and even your previous driving habits.

I'm not saying its bad, just different and something that I'm acutely aware of when I step into a modern car after driving my steam-age big-block cars, where right-foot position is DIRECTLY correlated to how hard you're backside is getting shoved forward.

Same JATCO transmission, much better software now.

Maybe with a THREE point 5, but I doubt the 2.5 in an Altima is substantially different than the 1.8 in a Sentra. But anyway, the point is that digitally controlled TBW/CVT/VVT does things behind the scenes that don't directly correlate with how hard you're mashing on the "loud" pedal. The net result with a bigger engine would have been faster acceleration, but perhaps still no difference before/after adding that last little bit of right foot.

Another bloody waste. The 4.0 Pacifica was *so* much better than its competition (stuff like the Murano) that it was no contest. Yet, they never even advertised the fact that the 4.0 had been introduced and that it solved the low-end torque shortage with the 3.5.

yeah i liked the Pacifica but i hear interesting stories about wheel speed sensors and transfer cases on the AWD model

Go rent one. You are in for a very big shock.