Chrysler PT Cruiser for daily driver?

[Spazdog]

I don't know what anyone is talking about with the "wonky shifting" Maybe that's just the N/A models. But I didn't notice that on the non-turbo models either. I just noticed how gutless they are when they don't have 245 ft-lbs of torque.

Originally Posted By: mgm13
I expect at that price they are not turbos. If you buy a turbo better off to get the 5 speed manual as the auto has 4th gear problems with boost

Not on mine. There are no boost problems in any gear. And if you don't like the gear, it's an AutoStick. You can select another gear.
Originally Posted By: Chris142
As mentioned maintenance is a chore. Changing the spark plugs requires the removal of the intake manifold upper part.

Not on a turbo. The sandcast aluminum intake is in the way a little bit but you can access the plugs. I don't know why the plastic intake on the N/A models wasn't made in a similar fashion.

But the timing belt is a real PITA.

$1000 is a couple hundred too high...even with the water pump and tensioner. But if you plan on doing it yourself, don't make any other plans that weekend.

Practicality? I has it.

Flick the lever pop the back seats out and embarrass some small SUVs with the amount of stuff that will fit back there. And even with the seats back there, the "trunk" area of the hatch is deceptive. It's a lot bigger than it looks like it would be from the outside. The cargo cover can be configured a lot of different ways including making a fairly solid table out of it.

My mpg is terrible. Maybe 17 city and a verified 26 freeway. About 20 combined. Plus it takes premium. I would hope the non-turbo model would be better.

I don't know about oil changes on the non-turbo. My filter is mounted on the oil cooler. If you use the wrong length filter, you won't be able to get a filter wrench back in there. I think it was the FL400S and the OCOD that were too long. I think I used a Bosch last.

But that timing belt.....

I would probably get an HHR instead. I've seen some affordable LS models. And who doesn't like a 2.2 ecotec? It's every bit as slow as the N/A PT Cruiser but no timing belt of Damocles hanging around to destroy a weekend or take a big bite out of your bank account.

 

[VNTS]

I have 3 Cruisers, two Turbo PT GT 5 speeds, 1 an 2003 and the other a 2006 Conv Gt. My 3rd is a 2006 Convertible base 2.4 Auto.

Standard maintenance is a piece of cake. Plugs and wires can be changed in 15 minutes on the turbos. On the base engine add 5 minutes to take out 6 bolts and bungy cord the upper intake and then toss in the plugs.

You can yank the Throttle bodies in 5 minutes to clean them.

Oil Filter is undereneath but easy to get to, just jack up the car, loosen drain plug and yank filter. The turbos have an oil cooler too

Coolant change is easy, you can get to the pet cock just jack up the car. Only more difficult thing is changing the upper Rad hose, have to remove the upper intake. Lower rad hose and heater hoses are easy.

Suspension is basic. Watch out for Lower control arms, bushings are junk. Most just replace with complete Moog units from ROck auto. They run about 80$ for the whole arm including new ball joints.

Other things to watch out for are the radiator fans on the base models, seem once they get up there they take a dump and cause overheats because one of the two speeds fail to function. I will throw a new on in at arounf 75Ksh on my new to me o6 base model.
I only have 10K on it now so have a ways to go.

Per the cars, the GT sticks are a blsat to drive, I dynoed my 03 and it put 227WHP and 254WTQ on a dyno jet, this is stock. On the GT Sticks my wife gets about 25 mpg day in day out with about 60% highway. On my Base convertible 2.4 auto, I get about 26 day in day out. This is calculated btw.

I am wary of the auto because everyone says they have issues. The car comes with an external cooler. I dropped the pan and changed the filter and used Redline C+. I only have 10K on it but shifts nice. I guess I will see how long it lasts, will drain the fluid once a year. It holds bout 8.6 Qts. I added a Dorma npan with drain plug.

I dont think you can go wrong with a Cruiser, as long your not looking for 35 mpg. They are built like a tank and are very dependable. Build quality is top notch and even the base models come with PS,locks, tilt,AC, decent radios etc

I am loving my Convertible. I picked it up for 9500$ with 4K miles on it. the best thing is the Cruisers have poor resale(or at least they did, noticed prices climbing) so I picked all mine up really cheap.

Only negative is timing belt job, PITA but probably the same as some other car.

My 03 GT has 110K miles. I have done brake job, snuck the timing belt job under my extended warranty(Dieter got to pay for that one), fluid changes. As a precasution I changed all the hoses. Also upgraded the suspension to Tokico Blues, Moog LCA, Moog Sway bar bushings and Moog tie rod ends. The 03 has the rear seat you can remove since it is the wagon. The Convertibles the rear seats flip forward but you can yank em out in 5 minutes by unscrewing some bolts.

Make sure you shop condition, check the LCA's, check the fans, peak under the oil fill cap. If varnished keep looking.

Oh, the 5 spd in the GT is the nice Getrag gear set. Has drain and fill plugs. Easy to service. I change the fluid every 20K with Amsoil MTF.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Based on a few Neons in my past years I can't see anything wrong with their PT Cruiser descendant. They would make a fine DD.

Turbo Neons are one of the few boosted vehicles I ever see with high miles. Definitely a good engine.

And if you paid someone a grand for a timing belt change in one you got hooked. that's about 40% too much money.

I know nothing about HHR's except my neighbor has one and loves it. He claims 28 mpg.

 

[UNC151]

Everyone,

Many thanks for the all of the information--learned quite a bit here. I drove an HHR and my right knee was hopeless banged up on the edge of the console; the Cruiser does not do this, so I would not consider an HHR.

Other than the timing belt being so difficult to change and bushings wearing, it seems that normal maintenance is quite routine on these cars. Since I am in stop and go traffic in Houston, I think an auto will get the nod (despite the weird shifting noted by some). Lack of power is ok (this is not a sports car) as long as I manage upper 20's on MPG, I will be happy for the price of the car.

Thanks again all!

 

[Rick in PA]

Yeah, I drove an HHR as a rental and found the drivers leg loom arraignment uncomfortable too. On that subject, the bottom of the dash on the PT Cruiser is a bit close to the clutch pedal. I remember noticing how the top of my foot would bump the bottom of the dash when I released the clutch, when I first got it. But I adapted to it and it became a non-issue.

 

[kb01]

My wife drive's a PT and we're both very happy with it.

Awhile back, we picked up a three year old car with very little mileage for next to nothing. It was so cheap, that I really don't mind spending $800 for a t-belt job in a few years. It's still a bargain either way. The original owner took a massive depreciation hit but it worked out well for the second owner.

I was dubious at first but so far, I'm actually impressed with it. There's a lot of room inside, a great deal of storage space, and many nice design perks -- I like having the power port inside the console, with a little notch for wires to leave it, as well as the fold down passenger seat, removable back seats, and adjustable shelf in the trunk. Visibility is very good, acceleration is reasonable, and I like having a 'normal' sized dashboard.

My only complaint is the abysmal gas mileage, which in part I believe is due to the Cooper CS4 tires I put on it -- We only get about 21 or 22 mpg with about 75% city driving. The OEM tires were terrible but that seems to be an issue for most newer cars. They were bad enough that I didn't feel safe with my wife driving it and we replaced them, even though they had a lot of tread left.

Other than that... The PT Cruiser is one of those cars that you either love or hate, with very little gray area in between.

 

[67lemans]

We got a 2001 model. I cant say for the newer models but the older ones are prone to bad tie rods, (had to replace ours at 45k) bad bushings in the control arms, and broken motor mounts.
So far the only problems we have had are the tie rods, broken motor mount, and the TCM went bad at 75k. Full mileage leaves a little to be desired for (ours averages between 20-23)

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: morris
isnt the pt mounted on the neon frame?


No, no, NO! NO!! NO!!!!

Will that stinking myth EVER die?

Look, the PROTOTYPE Plymouth Pronto show vehicle was built on Neon underpinnings for simplicity. The PT Cruiser, when it went into actual production, got its OWN chassis. It shares some drivetrain parts with the Neon (and Cirrus/Stratus), but since neither one has a "frame" at all, it cannot possibly share a frame, nor does it share unibody components. The rear suspension has more in common with a Minivan than with a Neon.

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog

I would probably get an HHR instead. I've seen some affordable LS models. And who doesn't like a 2.2 ecotec?


I thought I would prefer the HHR also... until I drove one

Don't get me wrong, I agree that the Ecotec and the automatic its paried with are much better matched than the Chrysler 2.4 and the 41TE... but the rest of the HHR didn't impress, especially the interior. IT just felt (and sounded) way "tinnier" and "buzzier" than a PT. It was a big disappointment to me.

 

[morris]

well well well 440Magnum straightened me out. you see i made the mistake of believing the first thing i heard about the PT. moe needs to check things out befor saying something. by the by 440Magnum what year was the last year that , chrysler, desoto , dodge, plymouth, has a full frame?

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: morris
well well well 440Magnum straightened me out. you see i made the mistake of believing the first thing i heard about the PT. moe needs to check things out befor saying something. by the by 440Magnum what year was the last year that , chrysler, desoto , dodge, plymouth, has a full frame?


Thanks for realizing I wasn't criticizing you personally, I should have worded my post better... I just get tired of that same old rumor going round and round and round the internet. Its one of those that won't die because there is a grain of truth about the prototype show car being based on the Neon in there somewhere. ;-)

Last full-frame year for Dodge, Chrysler, Plymouth, DeSoto was 1959, I think. Maybe some models may have carried on into '60, but I don't think so (not gonna cheat and Google it here ;p) I know for sure that the A-body (Valiant, Lancer, and later Dart and Barracuda) that came out in '60 was unibody.

HOWEVER, the last Chrysler-built passenger car to have a full frame was the D-body Imperial in 1966. Those are the Imperials that have been banned from demolition derbies for 30+ years. Full frame plus close to two feet of open space between the bumper and radiator made them pretty much un-killable in demo derby.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: VNTS

Per the cars, the GT sticks are a blsat to drive, I dynoed my 03 and it put 227WHP and 254WTQ on a dyno jet, this is stock. On the GT Sticks my wife gets about 25 mpg day in day out with about 60% highway. On my Base convertible 2.4 auto, I get about 26 day in day out. This is calculated btw...


227 WHP on a car that was rated at 215 by the factory

Lots of automotive magazines said that Chrysler was sandbagging the figures on the PT-GT and SRT/4. I guess that's proof.

 

[widman]

I bought one for my son in 2001 when he graduated from Tallahassee.
He called me the other day to ask whether he should have any maintenance done now that it was approaching 100,000 miles. Obviously I had some advice for him, but it runs fine.

When I visited him in San Diego about 5 years ago I changed the air filter and pcv, polished the headlights.

 

[VNTS]

That is called smart marketing, gotta keep the insurance rates low. They used the same engine in the SRT4, I think the first year or so the insurance on the SRT4 was cheap until the kiddies started to smash them up, then rates went up.

But our PT GT, old farts drive, so rates stay low. I dont think I have ever paid more than 400$ a year for full coverage, cant beat that. Nice to be in Grandmas demographic for car insurance purposes. Another advantage of the PT

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: VNTS

Per the cars, the GT sticks are a blsat to drive, I dynoed my 03 and it put 227WHP and 254WTQ on a dyno jet, this is stock. On the GT Sticks my wife gets about 25 mpg day in day out with about 60% highway. On my Base convertible 2.4 auto, I get about 26 day in day out. This is calculated btw...


227 WHP on a car that was rated at 215 by the factory

Lots of automotive magazines said that Chrysler was sandbagging the figures on the PT-GT and SRT/4. I guess that's proof.

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: VNTS

But our PT GT, old farts drive, so rates stay low. I dont think I have ever paid more than 400$ a year for full coverage, cant beat that. Nice to be in Grandmas demographic for car insurance purposes. Another advantage of the PT

Now that you mention it, the only cars I've ever had that are cheaper to buy up front (used) and insure than wife's PT are the two XJs (Cherokees.) Which is why I mention them EVERY time someone asks about a good used car. Gotta think total cost of ownership, not just up-front price, not just insurance, not just fuel economy.

And on that note, it brings me up to another comment on the PT: its got a bigger turning radius than the Cherokee. Its not as bad as a 77 T-bird, don't misunderstand my comment, its still a nimble, easy to park small car. It was just a bit of a surprise. I guess its more of a comment on how tight the XJ's turning radius is than how big the PT's is- you can practically rotate an XJ on its axis turning into a tight parking spot while the front tires scuff and moan and bits of pavement flake up. And the 4wd models turn just as tight as the 2wd.

 

[morris]

to:440Magnum well well well there are not very many people that know the full frame question. but you got it very right. if you note i listed the chryslers cars OTHER than the Imperials cause i knew the full frame on the Imperial was used longer than 1959. you put your self a notch above most chrysler guys. that was fun.

 

[Rumble]

We have an '04 with 65k miles. Although I like it ok, and the wife loves it (it's basically her work car), it has been one of the costliest cars we have ever owned repair-wise. When the water pump started going out at 35k miles we had it replaced under warranty, but were advised to add a new timing belt and tensioner. This was all around $800, we forked out over $300 for the stuff that wasn't covered.

Next up was a oil leak issue about a year ago. Head gasket I believe. Several hundred bucks, fortunately the warranty paid for this.

Next was a transmission issue. Would lose power occasionally. Dangerous when pulling out into traffic. The computer had to be reset. Cost us $75+.

Last week my wife called and said something was grinding under the hood while backing up. Had the car towed to the dealer. Turns out the electric fan went out. This cost a whopping $534 to have replaced, plus a $90 tow fee. Was not covered under warranty.

Got new tires this past weekend. The car needed an alignment. A special cam-bolt had to be ordered ($35 bolt!), and a special shim for the rear. This all added up to an extra $100+ with labor to install the "special" items.

Our warranty runs out in December when it hits 70k. Oh dear!

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: morris
to:440Magnum well well well there are not very many people that know the full frame question. but you got it very right. if you note i listed the chryslers cars OTHER than the Imperials cause i knew the full frame on the Imperial was used longer than 1959. you put your self a notch above most chrysler guys. that was fun.




My red blood cells are shaped like little pentastars. I've been a Mopar hobbyist since the mid 70s... wasted way too many brain cells learning trivia like that! But it is fun.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum

And on that note, it brings me up to another comment on the PT: its got a bigger turning radius than the Cherokee. Its not as bad as a 77 T-bird, don't misunderstand my comment, its still a nimble, easy to park small car. It was just a bit of a surprise....


Yeah, it's turning radius is pretty terrible. It's actually worse than my Mazda, which is pretty bad.
But I actually think the 3rd gen Eclipse we had before it was worse.