PT Cruiser GT

Aeromoto wrote: As far as driving, when pushed to it's cornering limits, it had a frightening tendency to snap into a severe and sudden oversteer, which almost killed me at least 3 times.

bit of a slow learner are we?

tuna55 wrote:

Ranger50 wrote: In reply to Streetwiseguy: I'll bring the PT, you bring the tools. I want to see this. I've done them. Best I can do is 6hrs with a shop full of air tools, lift, and everything else imaginable.

For all of the Porsche/BMW/Land Rover love around here, you guys are seriously Bob Costas. 28 mpg highway and 22-24 around town? Not great for a compact, but no, it's not the same as a Suburban.

And by 22-24 you mean 18-20 right?

Porsche/BMW/ Land Rovers are at least decent vehicles to drive in one way or another. The PT is just an ugly, slow, bad handling POS that won't die but that are plenty of more appealing cars that will get as good a gas mileage and be unkillable but don't make you want to drive head first into a telephone poll just so you don't have to drive them anymore. There is nothing that would make me want to own one.

93EXCivic wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

Ranger50 wrote: In reply to Streetwiseguy: I'll bring the PT, you bring the tools. I want to see this. I've done them. Best I can do is 6hrs with a shop full of air tools, lift, and everything else imaginable.

For all of the Porsche/BMW/Land Rover love around here, you guys are seriously Bob Costas. 28 mpg highway and 22-24 around town? Not great for a compact, but no, it's not the same as a Suburban.

And by 22-24 you mean 18-20 right? Porsche/BMW/ Land Rovers are at least decent vehicles to drive in one way or another. The PT is just an ugly, slow, bad handling POS that won't die but that are plenty of more appealing cars that will get as good a gas mileage and be unkillable but don't make you want to drive head first into a telephone poll just so you don't have to drive them anymore. There is nothing that would make me want to own one.

That's awfully meaningful coming from a guy who's buddy owned one once.

I actually have owned, maintained, driven, and filled up mine. Reliable, easy to find parts for, decent handling, tons of cargo space. The cons are so-so mileage (and no, I mean 22-24. I measure, 28, highway) ugly and slow.

A Land Rover is ugly and slow, too. There are not a lot of options for those wanting a non European wagon for that little buy-in.

tuna55 wrote: I actually have owned, maintained, driven, and filled up mine. Reliable, easy to find parts for, decent handling, tons of cargo space. The cons are so-so mileage (and no, I mean 22-24. I measure, 28, highway) ugly and slow.

Not with the slutomatic. Best you can get with a tailwind, in neutral, and downhill net 25-ish, BTDT. If you want to spend some cash, the stock torque converter is garbage all the way around, like all Chrysler converters. If you want some MPG's with a 41TE, you have to put some decent components inside the converter for less slip and a different stall speed.

Ranger50 wrote:

tuna55 wrote: I actually have owned, maintained, driven, and filled up mine. Reliable, easy to find parts for, decent handling, tons of cargo space. The cons are so-so mileage (and no, I mean 22-24. I measure, 28, highway) ugly and slow.

Not with the slutomatic. Best you can get with a tailwind, in neutral, and downhill net 25-ish, BTDT. If you want to spend some cash, the stock torque converter is garbage all the way around, like all Chrysler converters. If you want some MPG's with a 41TE, you have to put some decent components inside the converter for less slip and a different stall speed.

I have the automatic. I measure, with actual gas in my actual car driven by my actual me on actual roads.

A manual would have been perfect, though. We looked, believe, me, but we were pressed to have a car within a week when we bought it.

In reply to tuna55:

Then you got one of the rare auto's that actually works how they are supposed to work on paper.

Buy V8 Grand Cherokee.

/problem solved

This thread got stupid.

Ranger50 wrote: In reply to tuna55: Then you got one of the rare auto's that actually works how they are supposed to work on paper.

Has GRM gotten so Bob Costas-fied that we're worried about the validity of a sub 30mpg claim out of a glorified econobox?

Really? Have we?

93EXCivic wrote: Porsche/BMW/ Land Rovers are at least decent vehicles to drive in one way or another. The PT is just an ugly, slow, bad handling POS that won't die but that are plenty of more appealing cars that will get as good a gas mileage and be unkillable but don't make you want to drive head first into a telephone poll just so you don't have to drive them anymore. There is nothing that would make me want to own one.

I HATE berkeleying ignorance like this from supposed knowledgeable car guys. I've autocross damn near everything with wheels, and posted pictures of me in my PT on a few autocross courses IN THIS THREAD. I have a bit of experience, winning against national champions, so I KNOW what is good and bad handling. You're full of E36 M3. Period. PERIOD.

Bob Costas.

I also happen to like the mini '37 Ford sedan styling. But I was raised on hot rods and street rods, not ricers and weedwhackers on wheels.

Ah berkeley it. My reply doesn't matter. Better to keep the peace.

To the OP try it out maybe you will like. There is obviously some people who and some who don't.

So is this what they mean when they say "polarizing styling" in car reviews?

bob costa?

beans wrote: bob costa?

GRM internet meme for female anatomy. I was saying they were being Bob Costas for not wanting to do a timing belt on a PT Cruiser