PT Cruiser - Put One on My List

I just returned from a business trip that has made a lover of the PT Cruiser.

After flying into Montreal, I needed to rent a car so I could drive to remote upstate New York for a business meeting the next day. The Hertz folks had several different vehicles to choose from but not my old standby of the Chevy Impala (I love the power) so I decided to try something different and drove out with a PT Cruiser. I was reluctant at first as I never much cared for the boxy styling but once inside I was quickly in tune with the contemporary, Starbucks-Coffee house styling and open roomy feel. The power and very sensitive turning wheel also surprised a skeptic like me who always thought the retro styling probably extended to performance as well.

The real test however, was to come that night half-way between Montreal and Lake Placid when I hit a snow storm that could make a grown man cry. The car tunneled through the remote unplowed roads of southern Canada like it was on a mission and I never had the slightest feeling that I was not in control as I drove around some pretty sharp bends and steep inclines once I hit the New York Mountain area.

I've been driving a Camry for the last 7 years but I'm going out to some dealers this weekend to start eyeballing the Cruiser. The model I rented was a 2005 and I read a few negative reviews on Yahoo about the 2006 models (saying they were smaller inside, etc). What are your opinions of the 2006 Cruiser compared to the 2005?

Reply to
Joe Vitale
Loading thread data ...

have a 2001 PT 5 speed........a few minor complaints/observations...... overall visibility out the back window is limited due to the height of the window. Turning radius is very, very poor and where my other vehicles, a Subaru (92) and a Toyota (83) (both older and now gone 132K on the sub and 188K on the toy) easily made U TURNS in a space that takes the PT a careful 3 points to do. PT seems to fit any reasonable height person.....I am about 5 feet and my buddy who also has a 2001 is 6'2". We both are comfortable.

Unless you go all out to spend as much as possible on one, they seem to be a good value for the money in the $20,000 range.

I may look for a newer one in late 2006..........

howard

Reply to
howard

The models with 15" wheels have about a 36.5' turning radius -- with 16" or

17" wheels the turning radius gets larger -- as high as 40'. As long as you're aware of it from the start then it's fine.

I recently test-drove a new PT Cruiser Limited and found it very enjoyable overall. It's probably ideal as a commuter vehicle since it had 16" wheels and was well loaded with features such as the very nice turbo engine (producing 180hp and 215 lb-ft of torque) and sunroof, and was stickered under $23k. A bonus is that I believe the 180-hp turbo engine just calls for 87-oct fuel.

The GT Cruiser has 17" wheels and a sportier suspension and a high-output turbo with 230hp and 245 lb-ft of torque. As a daily commuter the firmer ride might get tiring. Premium fuel is called for with the HO turbo engine. That would run your cost up a bit, but if you're paying for the HO engine then I'd just enjoy the power and NOT cut back on octane with that engine. If you put lower octane fuel in it and put up with less power, then why buy the HO engine in the first place?

I'm really spoiled with the nearly nonexistent engine and road noise from the '05 Durango, but it would be very interesting to buy a PT and then treat it liberally with some Dynamat or other sound/vibration deadening product in the right places. Could probably make it very quiet.

Reply to
Marc

It's a real shame the automatic is still just a four-speed, though

Reply to
Marc

Right, because you "need" more gear ratios for purposes other than stroking the marketeers' egos. Not!

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

Reply to
Sean&Heather

More gear ratios can give better acceleration and fuel economy, depending on what ratios are used. A 5-speed automatic can be a nice improvement for any vehicle since it could use a numerically higher first gear and a numerically smaller 5th gear with a nice even spread of gears in between.

Of course it doesn't always turn out that way. >

Reply to
Marc

...and poorer reliability and durability, and more distracting shifts, and less transmission responsiveness.

Not for *any* vehicle, no. There are some vehicles in which 3 or 4 speeds are completely sufficient.

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

I wish that Chrysler would bring back the old Torqueflite, 3 speed for the PT Cruiser, or even the Prestomatic Fluid Drive would also be nice!

Reply to
Count Floyd

Really, I didn't experience any significant power in a 3.4L 2005 Impalla I rented last year. It suffered from poor gear ratios and a reluctance to downshift 4 to 3, making it a pain to drive on hilly roads. A good car for a taxi or a prairie highway cruiser.

Reply to
Spam Hater

UGH!

Triple UGH!

Reply to
Spam Hater

Have you ever driven an early sixities or seventies Chrysler with Torqueflite, it was a great gearbox. Also, have you ever driven Fluid-Drive? I have it on my 1940 Royal, and I had the dual-range Prestomatic Fluid-Drive on my 1949 Windsor. It was very smooth and trouble free. If you have not driven those type of cars, then the comment is juvenile.

Reply to
Count Floyd

Well-mannered, sturdy, dependable, long-lived, efficient, smooth, quiet...everything a transmission should be, the Torqueflite was. Spam Hater's "UGH!" is ignorance mixed with marketeering brainwashedness.

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

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.