PT Cruiser to live on

If they really wanted to make this car sell again all they would have to do is find a way to increase MPG. Great little car/truck/whatever EXCEPT for lousy gas mileage.

I'll drink to that!!

"Pete E. Kruzer" wrote in news:6fe5b14e-1e91-4f77- snipped-for-privacy@c34g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

The PT is just a shadow of it's former self.Late model PT's have been dumbed down and decontented so much, they are just a cheap but heavy econobox that gets bad gas mileage.

My 2001 Limited Edition has things in/on it that haven't been on PT's for a few years. The GT is gone, the ragtop is gone, options and packages are gone; Chrysler continues to strip it as Daimler did so the "new" Chrysler is no better than the company it broke away from. You just can't expect sales to maintain or grow when you continually strip a car to nothing much less update it like what most cars experience.

I bought my 2006 PT based on dexterity, something my daughter could drive to college, and not for ad ons. When needed it can usually carry my people, critter, or home depot loads. I like turbos and superchargers, but not the maintenance overhead so stuck with the N/A touring edition.

Only items I'm not thrilled about are the rear drum brakes (I prefer 4 wheel disk but didn't want a screaming yellow hot rod, prefer a stealth rod),and having to ignore the tire inflation sticker guidelines. If I ever put that much air into the tires the PT would be wiggling all over the highway every time I hit a bump. The dealer was trying to switch me to a version 1 Caliber, claiming the PT was not a cool car for my daughter to drive. That dealer went out of business a year ago.

Steve Stone wrote in news:h5etnl$5b2$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal- september.org:

Mine is pretty subdued, nothing screaming and not a GT either, But I have 4 wheel disc/ABS/traction control along with larger sway bars that were dropped on later models. Heated outside rear view mirrors, the rear shelf which was standard back then, overhead grab bars, (all standard equipment) and much more that have been dropped from later models and some stuff, like I said that's no longer available even as an option. Don't get me wrong, I really like my PT. One of the most versatile cars I've owned. Nine years later with 103,000 miles; it's just as squeek and rattle free as it was the day I got it. My complaint is that Chrysler continues to strip it of content until it's discontinued when it is still one of the most unique and versatile cars around.

A terrible rear seat back and rear styling that makes it look a funeral car.

Did they reverse the side view mirror setup. The last time I looked at it, only the drivers side view mirror was remotely controlled. If they had reversed that it would be OK. Perhaps it was designed in the UK.

It lives on as a door stop?

One has to wonder if they'll keep the old 2.4 and 41TE transmission in production *just* for the PT, or if they'll finally mate it with the new VVT "world engine" and CVT. That would fix the mileage problem (or at least help it a whole lot) and put that nice drivetrain in a vehicle much more worthy of it than the POS Caliber/Compass/Patriot.

Its a love-or-hate design, won't argue that. Fortunately there are way more of us that love it than there are of you who hate it ;-p

Look again. Both mirrors are electric.

Had two PT's: 2003 Sedan and 2005 Convertible, loved both of them, hated the mileage. The base 2003 could get only about 26 on the highway going

1. The 2005 convertible was lousy! 17-19 and maybe 22 if I was lucky. It had the 180HP Turbo version. Don't put the Caliber down, we traded the 2005 PT convertible in on a

2007 Caliber and am loving the high mileage: 27-33 around town, up to 36 on the road. I agree that the PT would benefit from the CVT a lot! Just as if would benefit if Chrysler would have sold the diesel version(48mpg) over here in America. Oddly, my 1941 Chrysler Windsor 4 door/241.5 flathead six/Fluid Drive is getting 16 in town and over 20 on the road. Now when a 68 year old car can beat a 2005 car in mileage, something is wrong!

I didn't just look I tried it. They must have upgraded it.

who wrote in news:i-D2D95C.11521424082009 @news.telus.net:

My 2001 Limited has elec remote mirrors on both sides. The base does not have elec remote mirrors on either side.

Speaking of 1941 Chrysler's with fluid drive..... I've read about those bad boys. Since a stick shift vehicle back then was as slow as a turtle, based on my limited experience with older straight sixes, how does that thing get out of it's own way when you are driving around in third gear from a stop??

My Fluid Drive was a four speed manual with dual ranges. Low range was

1-2. If you started out there, you "shifted" by lifting your foot off the gas at about 5-7, then it would go into second. The way to drive the car is to put it in "drive" High Range. Third gear is about 1.75 to 1, it gives about the same get away as a regular second gear. At 20mph or so, lift your foot off the gas and the transmission shifts into high. The M4/Vacamatic transmission, along with its successor the M6 are bulletproof in their reliabiltiy. Remember, in those days, "peeling out" was not common, and a steady getaway from a light/sign was the norm. It is the smoothest shifting car that I have ever had. The fluid coupling was not a torque converter, since it didn't convert any power to other gears, it was simply a fluid flywheel, simply transferring the motion to the gears and the clutch. Chrysler flathead sixes might be a little short in horsepower, but they had tons of torque, that was the secret to Fluid Drive.

I had a neighbor with one of those '41 fluid drive Cryslers. Being young and curious about cars, I found it surprising that the neighbor would pay so much more for his fluid drive Chrysler, when it was a noisy high rpm slug off the mark compared to our cheap 36 Chev 6 cyl .

They are actually fairly popular here in Vancouver, Canada, The wife of a friend of mine just bought a demo, being afraid she wouldn't be able to get one next year. I'm not that fond of them, but IMO it's looks far exceed the Caliber.

How about doing a 0 - 60 run in it and posting the results. I still see no way that it would not be a slug if the stick shifts were slugs using first and second gear and you are doing the same thing with third gear.