I am leaving in northern california and I was considering buying a used car (to use a a second commute car) around $8000 untilI found this ad for brand new 2006 PT cruisers at $13000. Of course it is $5000 more dollars but it's a new car.
I do not know anything about cars and actually do not really want to know but I would appreciate having any advice about this PT cruiser.
Any known issue with the 2006 edition justifying why they sell it at this price? Any major known major cons with the PT cruiser?
The PT Cruiser is the base model in the Chrysler line and serves as the loss leader. With incentives, they can be purchased relatively inexpensively.
One of the factors influencing the cost of the car is the amount of decontenting which has been done with it. In 2002 (my model year) even the base model came nicely equipped. Air conditioning, power windows and the radio/cd player were all standard. Now some of the past standard items such as a/c are extra cost options.
Historically, the PT Cruiser has been fairly reliable, both my wifes and mine have been very reliable and we are pleased with them. If you are planning to use the car as a commuting vehicle, be prepared for the gas cost, mileage on the PT Cruiser is poor, a factor of the heavy weight and large frontal area of the car. The PT is about as aerodynamic as a brick. If you were planning for commuting and didn't want your budget eaten up by fuel costs, you might want to consider another vehicle.
That said, I love mine. It has lots of room for a small car and gets reasonably good highway mileage. We just took a trip to Western NC and averaged about 28-30 mpg.
A base PT Cruiser with air and auto is $13,000 employee cost. I know I bought one 2 months ago before the employee price was given to everyone (my father is a retired Mopar employee). The car is great for the money- I get around 21mpg in mixed city/hwy. It is quiet and the interior is pretty upscale for a base model. They only downer for the base PT is that you cannot get cruise control for the base model. It is a fantastic car- much better than the Caliber IMHO (with the exception of mpg). It is a lot more refined.
The non smooth sides with 30s era fenders are a big aerodynamic problem. The VW new Beetle has a similar design, resulting in poor mileage for it's size.
I have a 1940 Chrysler Royal coupe with the big fenders and I get around 20-22mpg. That is the whole point of the PT's styling. My wife has a 2005 PT Convertible and it is getting around 21 around town and has gotten 32 on the road here in South Florida using 87 regular gas, it is the 180 turbo model.
That is hardly a huge difference. I wonder what that computes to in mileage difference? I'll bet it is small. I suspect the flat plate area difference is more significant than Cd due to fenders and "non smooth" sides.
Cd (the d is a subscript on the C) represents the coefficient of drag. It is a dimensionless value that is related primarily to the shape of an object and the influence of the shape on the drag of the object. To get total drag you need a few other parameters such as the frontal area of the object, etc.
For more than you'll ever probably want to know...
Going from a .32 Cd to .38 is an increase of almost 19%. Also, remember that total drag is proportional to the SQUARE of the velocity. Therefore, if you double the speed you quadruple the drag. It's easy to see why the PT does not get better mileage on the highway. It is pushing a lot of air.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.