'07 PT Cruiser Touring

[F14CRAZY]

Less than 19 mpg under normal driving, awful shift programming, a weak 2.4L, uncomfortable seat position, huge steering wheel, window switches in the center of the dash...I don't understand why people buy these things other than their styling which is obviously subjective.

Enterprise rental, close to 19k miles.

I'll get some pix and go into more detail soon, but what a piece...

[Minnesota Nice]

I also had a PT Cruiser rental awhile back. Terrible car that thing was.

I had an Avenger not too long ago. Much better than the PT, but still lacking and questionable.

[EldoFan]

It's funny how Chevrolet ended up getting the better all around product (HHR) after stealing away the principal designer of the PT from Chrysler......

[F14CRAZY]

Considering the PT's exterior, and interior, hasn't really changed from 2001 I don't think you need pix...

It's off white with gray interior. It's a car in Enterprise's "intermediate" group. I asked to exchange it because I needed the extra cargo room; I had an '07 Cobalt LS sedan from them. Surprisingly, the PT has power locks, windows, mirrows, and basic things like that. The Cobalt was a stripper without all that. The PT is a 4 door hatch versus a sedan, but I don't think it would be odd to cross shop the two.

The PT has Chrysler's 2.4L DOHC and a 4 speed auto. The motor always feels taxed at any speed and RPM. It's pretty rough sounding and feeling at idle and isn't particularly quiet. It's acceptable when driving. There aren't any "dead spots" in the RPM range...its always dead. I'd consider the Cobalt with its 2.2L to be fast compared to the PT, including better low end torque and a great 4 speed auto.

I don't like the transmission's ratios or programming. On the freeway no matter how gentle I am I can't get the torque converter to just unlock and stay in overdrive, though there wouldn't be much acceleration anyway if it could due to the motor's weakness. When it upshifts to 2nd you have to give it quite a bit more gas for steady acceleration (I'm not even talking hard acceleration). It drops right off. This shift isn't smooth either.

It has rear drums but stopping performance is good. It seems to handle fairly well though to me steering is heavy at low speed. Its riding on Goodyear Eagles which grip pretty well when cornering and seems pretty good in snow.

Road and wind noise are acceptable, noticeably less road noise than the Cobalt. I find the seat uncomfortable, the front of it's too high so theres too much pressure on my hips. No adjustment is offered. Seating is fine except for this. Who the hell decided to put the window switches on the dashboard above the radio? Materials are typical Chrysler hard grey plastic with "casting flashing" visible in some obvious places. The texture isn't bad though. Audio system is comprised of 6 speakers and has an aux input. It sounds great and is quite better than the Cobalt's.

The rear cargo area has a "shelf" that can be placed to cover a "cargo well" between the back seats and tailgate. It's too flimsy. It flexes while carrying some weight that I wouldn't at all consider odd for someone to put in the back of a small hatch. I've been afraid of breaking it a few times and having to visit a junkyard for one before I bring it back to Enterprise.

I don't understand why these sell. I haven't driven one but considering its Delta platform I think the HHR would be a great vehicle in comparison. I wish Enterprise had them. I'm not going to miss this vehicle at all.

[Minnesota Nice]

I agree. Why someone would buy a PT in place of an HHR is far beyond my realm of comprehension. The HHR is superior in honestly every aspect.

[j_granlund]

Originally Posted by F14CRAZY

Considering the PT's exterior, and interior, hasn't really changed from 2001 I don't think you need pix...

It's off white with gray interior. It's a car in Enterprise's "intermediate" group. I asked to exchange it because I needed the extra cargo room; I had an '07 Cobalt LS sedan from them. Surprisingly, the PT has power locks, windows, mirrows, and basic things like that. The Cobalt was a stripper without all that. The PT is a 4 door hatch versus a sedan, but I don't think it would be odd to cross shop the two.

The PT has Chrysler's 2.4L DOHC and a 4 speed auto. The motor always feels taxed at any speed and RPM. It's pretty rough sounding and feeling at idle and isn't particularly quiet. It's acceptable when driving. There aren't any "dead spots" in the RPM range...its always dead. I'd consider the Cobalt with its 2.2L to be fast compared to the PT, including better low end torque and a great 4 speed auto.

I don't think the transmission's ratios or programming. On the freeway no matter how gentle I am I can't get the torque converter to just unlock and stay in overdrive, though there wouldn't be much acceleration anyway if it could due to the motor's weakness. When it upshifts to 2nd you have to give it quite a bit more gas for steady acceleration (I'm not even talking hard acceleration). It drops right off. This shift isn't smooth either.

It has rear drums but stopping performance is good. It seems to handle fairly well though to me steering is heavy at low speed. Its riding on Goodyear Eagles which grip pretty well when cornering and seems pretty good in snow.

Road and wind noise are acceptable, noticeably less road noise than the Cobalt. I find the seat uncomfortable, the front of it's too high so theres too much pressure on my hips. No adjustment is offered. Seating is fine except for this. Who the hell decided to put the window switches on the dashboard above the radio? Materials are typical Chrysler hard grey plastic with "casting flashing" visible in some obvious places. The texture isn't bad though. Audio system is comprised of 6 speakers and has an aux input. It sounds great and is quite better than the Cobalt's.

The rear cargo area has a "shelf" that can be placed to cover a "cargo well" between the back seats and tailgate. It's too flimsy. It flexes while carrying some weight that I wouldn't at all consider odd for someone to put in the back of a small hatch. I've been afraid of breaking it a few times and having to visit a junkyard for one before I bring it back to Enterprise.

I don't understand why these sell. I haven't driven one but considering its Delta platform I think the HHR would be a great vehicle in comparison. I wish Enterprise had them. I'm not going to miss this vehicle at all.

Enterprise does have them,at least around my area. I didnt get to drive it, but it rides decently well. Maybe that's because of its weight compared(sp?) to the cobalt i normally drive.

[LAMRONH]

I can see your points regarding the car, F14. You're used to more power, more space, more cylinders. In our case, the PT has proven an excellent workhorse and kewl car with unique looks.
We like our '01 PT Limited Edition. My wife had a '99 Sebring before that and it was a true, dictionary-definition POS. Huge reliability problems, everything from the AC to the sunroof to the windows. Well, I guess the radio never quit. Before that she had an Intrepid which was an excellent car.
The PT is utterly reliable, it has huge room and with the seats removed it's an excellent small-footprint cargo hauler. The seats are comfortable despite what I consider an odd shape. They are as good to my wife's back as the Sebring seats were damaging.
There was no HHR when we bought the PT. GM as usual was behind the power curve by a few years. The HHR's rear seats are not removable. In a small package like this, that makes a significant difference.
Other than wear-item brakes and tires and routine maintenance, we haven't had any issues with the car over 60,000 miles.
The standard-issue Mopar radio is not up to GM standards per my experience with my '04 Impala. The window switches are in a funny place, but if you own the car you adjust. Ours has all the toys, I like the compass/temp and the sunroof. There is lots of storage space under the seats, in fact you can get bins to keep junk in.
If you're not into super acceleration, which my wife is not, the car does fine. It has plenty of power to merge and cruise. I'd guess 0-60 is in the 11 second range. With 150 HP and the weight of an Impala, this puppy is not a rocket.
It does not like E15 at all, it runs like $#!~ on the E-fuels and has no power and no MPG.
I have issues with the powertrain. This car would benefit from a last-gen Accord 4/5-speed IMO. The extra 10+ HP and TQ and another gear would help this heavy (3300+) car immensely. MPG is only fair, I think 25 is the best we've gotten. With a 15 gallon tank, don't expect great range.
But it's versatile, comfortable, handy, funky, and it's paid for. Works for us.

[Buick61]

I think you need to live with one to appreciate it.

My sister bought one when they first came out (had to wait 10 months). So far, it's been extremely reliable. And we've removed the rear seats on occasion and it swallows up a lot of junk. On the road, it's quiet, handles well, and has more outward visibility than the HHR.

And the HHR's window switches are in the middle, too. So there you go.

[F14CRAZY]

Thanks for the additional comments. My observations and opinions stand though.

[F14CRAZY]

25 mpg seems like a fantasy. I can't get the info center to do over 21 on the freeway at 70 mph. My normally observed average is less than 19, both by the info center and manual calculation. It would help if I didn't have to step the pedal so far down for normal acceleration (that my chick friends and parents wouldn't think was fast at all).

My Forester, with AWD, towing my pair of jet skis at like 80 mph does 25 mpg.

The motor begins to give ok power at around 4k rpm. With "normal" acceleration, letting off the throttle when I reach cruising speed gets the tranny to give a reaction like "mmmkay, gimme a sec...k here's your upshift". For short periods I've left the trans in 3rd to keep the rpms up and so I won't have to sit and wait for the trans to figure out what its got to do to downshift.

I first experienced how bad the Chrysler 2.4L was when I test drove a 4x4/manual Patriot. Always slow, and really slow at low rpm.

[Buick61]

Originally Posted by F14CRAZY

I first experienced how bad the Chrysler 2.4L was when I test drove a 4x4/manual Patriot. Always slow, and really slow at low rpm.

That's a completely different motor altogether.

[F14CRAZY]

My bad, I just checked wikipedia. I guess the PT has the "Neon 4 banger" versus the "world" 4 banger.

They're both 2.4L, by Chrysler, and both equally suck.

(In no offense to you and pointing out my mistake however)

[LAMRONH]

Originally Posted by F14CRAZY

Thanks for the additional comments. My observations and opinions stand though.

Not disputing your observations and opinions. No problema, we all have our viewpoint.

Perhaps you got a bad example or one that had been abused.
I'm not claiming by any stretch that the PT is a mileage champ. But I calculate every fillup, and 25 has been repeatable road mileage. As I said, the car could benefit from a smoother, more modern mill such as Honda's last-gen four with 5-speed auto. I had an '03 and it was worlds smoother, and running about the same curb weight it got far better MPG, sometimes over 30 on the road.
FWIW, my '04 Impala got better highway MPG than the Accord, but typically less around town. But the nature of the towns the cars lived in was different.

We've had no problems with the trannie programming, shift points, or kickdown. But E10/15 was another case, like unplugging two spark plugs.

Hoping the HHR has a better powertrain with more gears. These cars may be small but they weigh like a mid-size.

[atomicshark]

Originally Posted by Buick61

I think you need to live with one to appreciate it.

My sister bought one when they first came out (had to wait 10 months). So far, it's been extremely reliable. And we've removed the rear seats on occasion and it swallows up a lot of junk. On the road, it's quiet, handles well, and has more outward visibility than the HHR.

And the HHR's window switches are in the middle, too. So there you go.

I like them both, although I do prefer the HHR. I had an HHR as a loaner for a couple of weeks and I averaged 27 MPG with my rough commute.

I found a ton of affordable PT Cruisers and a couple HHRs that I would have considered if they had abs.

I am amazed that so many manufacturers leave anti-lock braking systems off of their lower end cars like it is a luxury. If Honda and Hyundai can make it standard, than so can GM, Ford and Chrysler. They need to do it just to stay competitive.