GT Cruiser...bad idea or the worst idea?

benzbaron wrote: I would personally stay away from anything dodge/chrysler makes. I haven't heard good stories from a couple owners. The person who had one die right out of warranty at 50k miles or all the ones you see broken down on the side of the road. Not to mention I rarely even see dodge work trucks out on the road. I have been in 2 newish dodges caravan and seebring, and was not impressed. The only one I'd consider is the crossfire st6 or whatever it is, a mercedes in chrysler trim. One of my uncles is on his second neon and he really likes the thing, but I think Dodge has lost their way.

My wifes 2004 Dodge Stratus 2.4L 4cyl automagic has needed a set of plugs, wires and a pair of rear strut mounts in 70K miles.

It is not a racing car, it is a dependable mode of transportation.

carlsandrews wrote: it' also the most popular car for lesbians I'm a dude so i got rid of mine

Wait, so this thread has had mention of both lesbians and Subaru Forresters yet they were in completely different posts?

Maybe quality is hit and miss. Like someone who said ducati bikes were very hit and miss, depending on whether the italians were hungover or not on that particular day.

Wow. A lot of hate for what most owners have found to be an outstanding small utility vehicle.

I had an '02 PT Cruiser Touring edition for 5 years and well over 70k miles. Never ONCE did it need repairs. For anything. It didn't squeak or rattle when new, and still didn't squeak or rattle at 70k miles. And my wife and I autocrossed it for a year when new. It also carried all manner of lumber (the entire load to build my deck), windows for the house (14 replacement windows, 36x52" inside the back with the hatch closed), 1200lbs of bagged crushed rock, the 60 gallon stand up air compressor, and of course when we went on a scouting camping trip with my stepson's troop, it carried myself, my wife, 3 scouts, and all our camping gear INSIDE.

Uncomfortable seats? I drove it regularly the 6 hours from Baltimore to middle CT to my in-laws. We took it to Maine and back, and to Orlando and back (18 hours one way straight driving). Never ONCE was I uncomfortable in it.

Piss poor turning circle? Never was an issue in parking lots or on the autocross track, where it was highly competetive even with stock tires!

I love the mini '37 Ford sedan looks. It's a great base to customize from, as well.

I've had over a hundred cars, from most manufacturers around the world. That PT was probably the best overall car I've had.

...next to the RX7 , the Bimmer, the Range and the white BMW 6 series!

Actually, it was better than all of them in that I didn't need to work on it. The rest of them (well, the 7 series and the RX7) were faster and handle better, but as for doing the job of being a car, the PT was still the best I've had. I definitely miss that little car.

This wont win me any votes but I've driven a new 5 speed cruiser before and it was mildly entertaining to drive. I've driven a turbo cruiser many years ago and it went like stink. My ex had one and you can really fit alot of crap in the back with the seats out if you pack creatively..

Just like the Neon, it's a car that some people take an instant dislike to, and not for any particularly real reason.

When we replaced my wife's Neon, we looked at the GT Cruiser and found it fun to drive, even with the automatic trans. We eventually bought elsewhere, but I had nothing against the GT. It looked quite practical, except in convertible form.

Tom Heath wrote: In reply to John Brown: It will still have horrible blind spots.

John Brown doesn't care about blind spots, he only looks forward

92dxman wrote: This wont win me any votes but I've driven a new 5 speed cruiser before and it was mildly entertaining to drive. I've driven a turbo cruiser many years ago and it went like stink. My ex had one and you can really fit alot of crap in the back with the seats out if you pack creatively..

That reminds me of a couple things I noticed about the PTs. The 5 speed versions were considerably quicker than the automatic versions, even in non-turbo form. the automatic versions road tested at like 11 seconds 0-60, while my 5 speed car notched sub 8 second sprints to 60. (and the 5 speed manual GT Cruiser I drove could light the tires easily if you punched the throttle at 35 mph in 3rd gear...). The second thing was that all of them seemed to have a "mandatory break in" period, wher the computer woudln't let the engines make full power until after 3000 miles. if you drove them relatively hard for the first 3000 miles, after that mark you got noticeably more hp. If you drove them real gentle, you never noticed a difference. I was rather shocked by it as we passed the 300 mile martk in ours.

So yeah, if anyone test drove a new automatic version, it was a real dog. A new 5 speed version was much better, and a slightly used 5 speed one was better yet.

i've driven sticks and autos in both turbo and NA. the turbo with the stick was pretty fun, but i thought the RPM drop from first to second was too big. the versatility was outstanding, and the handling was like a top-heavy neon, which it kinda is. engine noise is also neon-like. i didn't care for it, but i'm clearly a man of good taste.

my sister had a NA stick that never had a failure in better than 70k of washington DC commuting before being totalled by a DUI while parked in her driveway.

Travis_K wrote: Neons were the last good car that chrysler made in my opinion. They are perfect for what they are meant to be, a cheap car that gets good mileage and handles well.

I was under the impression the PT is a re-bodied neon.

So I can understand a loss in mpg due to a greater drag and a little more weight, but not much else that can be "worse" than a neon? Its still an economy car.

I think the crowd the cruiser attracts is not the type to give an economy car a decent review.

On the good side, Mopar's turbo "stages" when installed by a certified dealer often do not void the warranty. I don't know if they make the stage 3 w/toys for the PT, but that would be cool to have dial-a-boost and intercooler sprayers supported by a warranty. For however long Chrysler is around.

I had an auto NA one as a rental. It was slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwww

If it was a rental, I'll bet a few donuts that it wasn't the 2.4 turbo, just a base 2.4.

[edit] D'oh! Just saw that "NA" there.

daytonaer wrote:

Travis_K wrote: Neons were the last good car that chrysler made in my opinion. They are perfect for what they are meant to be, a cheap car that gets good mileage and handles well.

I was under the impression the PT is a re-bodied neon.

They shared 8 bolts with the Neon. The front was cribbed from Stratus and minivan parts (how many neons used the 2.4 other than the SRT/4?) and everything rear of the cowl was unique to the PT, including the rear suspension.

On the good side, Mopar's turbo "stages" when installed by a certified dealer often do not void the warranty. I don't know if they make the stage 3 w/toys for the PT, but that would be cool to have dial-a-boost and intercooler sprayers supported by a warranty. For however long Chrysler is around.

IIRC, they did, with the stage 3 being up around 300 hp.

ignorant wrote: I had an auto NA one as a rental. It was slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwww

My buddy got an automatic one after I got my manual trans one and wanted to know why it was so much slower than mine. Yeah, like i said, the automatic ones were real dogs. 10.5-11 seconds to 60 even after they were broken in. And hills were a bear if you had any load in them at all.

carlsandrews wrote: i had a pt gt HO it was FAST at first but with 60k it was suffering from turbo lag and the air filter had pools of oil under it and it stumbled from a stand still but when it was new it would roast both front tires when you got down on it even from a roll and that was with the automatic but the light that burns twice as bright burns half as long my 98 acura cl has 114k and runs WAY better then the pt that pt will be a dog at 114k like the muscle cars from the 60's 100k and your done if you have one GET RID OF IT it' also the most popular car for lesbians I'm a dude so i got rid of mine

First, that was difficult to read...how about a period after the end of a sentence.

Second, if you had issues after 60K miles, perhaps proper maintenance was the problem...pooling of oil under the air filter= maintenance issue...

My son had a regular version PT Cruiser and it ran for way more than 100K before he sold it to buy a van. No problems or extra cost other than normal maintenance...

I have been excorciated for this before but IMHO the PT is one of the ugliest things to ever surface from concept car primordial slime.

As noted earlier, the NA cars are not overly quick particularly with an automatic. The MT cars are much quicker and the turbo MTs can be downright entertaining. On that: the M/T shifter blows, it's one of the worst out there. I like it only slightly better than BMW's mashed potato stirrer which gets my vote as the most head scratching 'why da fug dey dint do no bedda dan dis?' piece of automotive controls ever built. I haven't had an opportunity to push one of the things to get an idea of how it handles under performance conditions but it seems OK for normal driving.

The interior is in line with other cars of its price range but I can't get comfortable in them and I dislike the shape of the cabin, it's just too narrow at the front. The majority of my customers who drive them seem to like the seats etc just fine, but very few of them are oriented toward the performance end of things, they are generally looking for a transportation appliance.

Mechanically, they are probably the most reliable thing in the Chrysler lineup. The #1 problems we see: the rear bushings in the front control arms will work their way out causing clunks and rattles and we see a fair number of front wheel bearings with big time slop.

Jensenman wrote: I have been excorciated for this before but IMHO the PT is one of the ugliest things to ever surface from concept car primordial slime.

The main problem I have with that statement is this: truly ugly does not sell, even if the vehicle under it is decent. That's been proven time and time again, decade after decade.

Case in point: the Aztek. Decent, and actually inexpensive minivan with a lot of clever features. 50k annual sales projections, barely made 14k sales in it's first year. Why? decent price, decent utility, completely ugly visuals. And even the people that bought them and liked them, admitted that they weren't pretty vehicles and they didn't buy them for the style, but for the cost/utility comparison

The PT, OTOH, had a 100k projected sales figure. First year there was a waiting list, they started a third shift at the plant and ended up selling 150k of them, half again as much as projected, and that sales pace kept up for a few years. While it was as useful as any other small 5 door hatch, it primarily sold ON style, not lack of it.

Unlike the Aztek, the PT was not truly ugly. If it had been, it would not have sold. People would not have loved it instantly, and clubs for it would not have sprung up worldwide (including places where it wasn't even officially going to be on sale for a while, like Japan and Germany). Stepping back and looking at the big picture, then, it could not have ACTUALLY been ugly.

And there are some really nice custom PTs out there.

Note the 'IMHO'.

FWIW I think the Daimler SP250 is probably the ugliest car ever built. (ducks rain of bricks and broken bottles from a torchlight procession of Daimler owners)

daytonaer wrote: I was under the impression the PT is a re-bodied neon. So I can understand a loss in mpg due to a greater drag and a little more weight, but not much else that can be "worse" than a neon? Its still an economy car.

It handles worse, its slower becasue its heavy, it doesnt get very good mileage, it holds at most 2/3 as much as a subaru legacy wagon, the seats are extremely uncomfortable, the door locks that think they are smarter than you are are annoying, and the jerky downshfting when you slow down is really unpleasant. Those are all things that are not an issue with the neon. I see no reason why someone shouldnt buy a PT cruiser if they are not bothered by any of those things. They are just my observations after my dad had one as a rental for a week, and I dont feel any need to have any further experience with one. lol

Travis_K wrote:

daytonaer wrote: I was under the impression the PT is a re-bodied neon. So I can understand a loss in mpg due to a greater drag and a little more weight, but not much else that can be "worse" than a neon? Its still an economy car.

It handles worse, its slower becasue its heavy, it doesnt get very good mileage, it holds at most 2/3 as much as a subaru legacy wagon, the seats are extremely uncomfortable, the door locks that think they are smarter than you are are annoying, and the jerky downshfting when you slow down is really unpleasant. Those are all things that are not an issue with the neon. I see no reason why someone shouldnt buy a PT cruiser if they are not bothered by any of those things. They are just my observations after my dad had one as a rental for a week, and I dont feel any need to have any further experience with one. lol

Never had a problem with any of those things in 70k miles of ownership. it handled good enough to get trophies in autocross, carried more lumber than most vehicles (except a certain jetta...j/k), was completely comfortable for more than one driver on extended road trips all over the east coast, never EVER had an issue with door locks (and i don't know of any other owners that did, either) And of course, with a manual the shifts were as smooth as the driver...

Maybe 70k miles and 5 years of ownership is a bit more experience that a rental for a week.

But go ahead, ignore experience. it's what people do best these days.

Jensenman wrote: Note the 'IMHO'. FWIW I think the Daimler SP250 is probably the ugliest car ever built. (ducks rain of bricks and broken bottles from a torchlight procession of Daimler owners)

It's definitely a contender. Cool, but ugly as homemade sin.

Not to hijack but what about the HHR SS - any better? Same designer penned the bodies but now GM sc/turbo & quality vs. Chrysler turbo & quality. I kinda dig the "panel van" versions of the HHR, if you could get them with the turbo and 5-spd that would be sweet.

EDIT - Oh wow, you can get that combo! Cool!

that HHR Panel SS is one of my dream cars.