Chrysler Discontinues PT Cruiser

[59-Desoto]

Well looks like the little under powered car is about to become a memory , kinda wish Chrysler had keep up with the times adding more power under the hood and a few upgrades over the years , I remember when it can out a lot of cars guys were adding some great paint scheme's to it. My daughter wanted one so bad , had some fun one Christmas and bought a die cast placed it under the tree after I had a friend at a Dodge dealer make me two new dummy keys. Gave her the key's and told her they were for her new PT Cruiser. Well to make a long story short it didn't go over well with her LOL.

The story ; http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1470/chrysler-discontinues-pt-cruiser/

[MikeMc]

BYE.......don't hurry back

It needed more than stones under the hood.....any 17 yr old can hop up a 4 banger these days!

had a couple....no thanks will fold up like a can....just what it is.....no loss!!!!

I do have and enjoy a Pacifica so I am not anti chrysler...just think the PT should be POS instead

[Zoom Zoom]

I test drove one the first year; I liked the style & utility a lot. It was so horrifically underpowered from a dead stop it was dangerous. I would hope a manual transmission would have been better (the one I drove was automatic; at the same event I drove a 300M...that car was the polar opposite...very quick, very nice). Hadn't driven a car so slow since the '80's. My old/slow Mazda 929 could out-accelerate it from a dead stop...starting in 3rd gear with 4 passengers. Seriously...I tried...no contest.

People I know who owned them had mixed reviews. One had a terrible transmission failure very early on that really messed up the car. Another said theirs got fairly poor fuel economy, no better than 24 on the highway while their more sprightly (!!) 4 cyl. Camry would get 32 MPG (not surprising, the PT is overweight, underpowered, and has the aerodynamics of a barn door). The ones who owned turbos liked their cars better. A lot of people paid waaaaay too much for them when they were new. A local dealership was refusing any offers that were less than the $10,000 premium they were demanding. Idiots were paying $30K for the early non-turbo PT Cruisers! Stupid is as stupid does. I'd consider a used one if the price was right.

Here's my model:

[59-Desoto]

Well most smaller cars folded like tin can's , always like the retro design but it was what it was a small under powered car that started with a bang and ended . Same as many cars in our life time , Edsel , Corvair and so on. If you were born in the 40ies or 50ies then you"ve seen a lot of then come and go. PT Cruiser will be just one more we'll add to the long list.

[High octane]

You mean no more PT losers? What a shame.

[whale392]

PT Cruiser non-turbo in the Mountains of Colorado. Faster than a speeding......................who am I kidding, I got passed by Grandma on a skateboard on I-25! Other than a complete lack of power, it was a fun little car, and the company I worked for at the time payed for the rental of it.

[iBorg]

I own a 2005 PT Cruiser Convertible with a five speed and a turbo. It was well equipped from the factory. It has had a few modifications to both the suspension and the engine. While stock may not be as quick as you'd desire, with a little work it can be a fairly fun car. One version of the turbo motor in the PT is the same basic motor as the NEON SRT-4. The SRT-4 is one of the best low cost performance cars that you can find.

Like most cars, the PT has a few drawbacks. First is the fact that as a niche car, it really didn't offer the potential for major design changes a trait it shares with the new VW Bug or Austin(?) Mini. There is no way to really change the car without taking it out of its niche. Chevy (can I still say that?) is going to have the same problem with the HHR. While the engine can be made quite strong (I know several owners of 300 plus horsepower PTs), it is an older design that suffers from poor fuel mileage. The fuel mileage issue of the PT is part poor weight, a common Chrysler trait, poor gearing (I'm turning 3300 rpm at 80 mph) and fuel management. I do not believe the fuel mileage can be attributed to aerodynamics as the HHR has to have equal or worse aero numbers but gets much better gas mileage with similar performance.

I know some will question my enjoyment of my PT. To each their own. For example, I don't understand people with four wheel drive who never use it, Cadillac Escalades for city driving or several other automobiles. I liked the original PT's styling but absolutely love the convertible's styling especially if the car is lowered. Plus where else can you get a four seat convertible excluding the BMW?

Finally until this past year, the PT was one of the top three selling models in the Chrysler lineup. Will I miss the PT? Yes I will. But I know I'll have the last laugh. In ten to fifteen years there will be a new model announced by whoever owns Chrysler, a retro PT Cruiser.

[63special]

I don't think there will be too many tears when the last PT rolls off the line

The running gear and platform came from the ridiculous Neon buzzbox to the best of my knowledge.

The best thing going for it was its body, minus the head and tail lights. They could've done with at least some chrome housing.

I never saw one built this way but I always thought one built with a '40 ford grille made to fit would look a little better...with '37 Ford headlights?

Goodbye Pt Cruiser.

James.

[crazyjim]

I've always liked the PT Cruiser and have rented one several times. In November 2008 we were involved in an auto accident (we were in the PT) an illegal immigrant with no drivers license or insurance decided to make a left right in front of us. It was a near head on collision at 45mph. We hit and the impact spun us around and the PT hit the other side of his car. The airbags deployed aall over the place and we were fine. The other driver was cuffed and taken to jail. Both vehicles were totaled. I like the PT Cruiser.

[Chuck Most]

To tell you the truth, I'm really kind of surprised it took so long. My local Chrysler dealer hasn't even had one in stock for ages.

Even though, strangely, the Chevy HHR, which looks so much like the PT I'm shocked Chrysler didn't sue GM for copyright infringement, seems to be flying off the lots. Well, at least selling as well as any of GM's anonymous transportation modules (Malibu, Impala, and so forth). And they aren't selling for 10% or more over sticker, as many of the early PTs did!

The PT Cruiser was a novel idea, but it always seemed to have a "For Best Results, Use Before 2005" label on it somewhere. At least, to me. It had the same kind of retro style as the (also soon to be dead) New Beetle, but gave you some practicality with it's 4 doors and ample rear cargo area, but a car like that just isn't meant to have a long production life. Shame it didn't have enough power to get out of it's own way, much less enough to put that people and cargo space to good use!

[sjordan2]

From a 2005 Motor Trend comparison of the 2006 PT Cruiser and HHR:

GM was so convinced of the PT's winning formula, it used the same designer who styled the PT to conceive Chevrolet's latecomer to the segment, the HHR.

You would think that Chrysler would have had some sort of non-compete agreement with the designer.

Edited July 10, 2010 by sjordan2

[Kaleb]

There not really that bad

There is another one i seen in a magazine a few years ago call the PT Bruiser, roll cage, nos, cant remember what else it did look pretty sweet.

[Harry P.]

I always enjoy uninformed, inaccurate, and flat-out ridiculous commentary whenever 1:1 cars get discussed on model message boards.

BTW... never drove one, so I can't comment on the performance, but I always thought they looked pretty cool. Nicer than the HHR.

[Jon Cole]

Chrysler didn't (or wouldn't) find the capitol to upgrade the PT. Then Cerberus came aboard and totally screwed the pooch. It has been written that its lack of development was its downfall. I loved the concept version, but the production car was underwhelming.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Jon Cole

[Peter Lombardo]

The PT Cruiser came out during the days that I was running a Chrysler Dodge Jeep store. I remember the lead-up to the release of the car. Most of the sales guys were pretty excited about the car. We had a lot, and I mean a lot of customer buzz and inquires about the car. There were many “older customers†who wanted the car because it reminded them of the ’40 Ford sedan that they remembered from their youth.

Chrysler was doing pretty well back then and after the success of the Viper (throwback Cobra) and the Prowler (throw back /modern Hot Rod) was hot to continue to cash in on the “Retro†craze vehicle market.

Remember, Chevy did the SSR which was a throw back of sorts to the 1950 pick ups that they were very successful with. They followed up with the HHR, Heritage High Roof (HHR) which was designed by the same guy that did the PT Cruiser. Ford did the “New†Thunderbird in the image of the ’55-57 two seater but also found limited success mainly do to the cars short comings. Ford also did the “Forty Niner†as a concept car that did not get built, but was a beautiful recreation of the 1949/1950 Shoebox.

Out of all of the retro cars, I thought the Ford ‘49’er was the best, but Ford did not have the chestnuts to pull the trigger on it…..too bad.

Back to the PT. When that car came out I said one thing about it….and it is true to this very day…â€You will never see one in my drivewayâ€. I for one was not very impressed by the car. The original Chrysler design concept car was a two door model. It was a little “shaper†and â€hipper†than the four door, but still not my cup of tea.

I can honestly tell you though, in the early days of the PT Cruiser, the customers loved them. Many accessorized the car and had a lot of fun with them. Sure, they were and still are woefully underpowered and they handle like a high center of gravity softly sprung sedan….but that is because that is what they are. They were not designed to be sports cars or boulevard cruisers, they were not meant to be “chick magnetsâ€â€¦.they were meant to be what they are.

Chrysler hit the nail square on the head. They did not intend this ca to be for everyone. The few people I know who have them, still enjoy the car, get great gas mileage and find the practicality of the vehicle a wonderful virtue. It is a great car for a retired guy living in Florida on a semi-fixed income. He can make runs to the Home Depot and to the Club House and even make it to the “Earlybird†diner on time.

The time and market for the PT Cruiser has come and gone. A convertible and a turbo helped sagging sales a bit, but in the end, the reason for the PT’s success, was also the reason for it’s cancellation. It fit a small niche market and when that itch was scratched, it was no longer needed. “Rest in Peace†little guy.

[george 53]

So, after rereading the entire thread, NOWHERE does it tell me if it's built on the Neon Platform or not. Some guesses I imagine, but NO definative answer. Is it, or isn't it???

[Joe Handley]

IIRC the PT and Neon were to share some parts, but it only had something like 20% parts compatibility. I swear that the rear suspension, save the Watt's Link, was very similar to that of the Lebaron and Shadow I used to own.

[Peter Lombardo]

If you are interested, here is the link to the Ford Forty Nine pictures....coupe and convertible. I know, this is one retro car I would have bought. http://www.seriouswheels.com/cars/top-Ford-Forty-Nine-Concept-Coupe-Convertible.htm

[Joe Handley]

I wouldn't mine one of the turbo GT models, it would make a nice, roomy, fair weather driver and companion to my Cherokee. Seeing as how heavy I am, I seem to fit nicely in it and it has a good amount of room in the back without being as "big" as my XJ and carry my RC stuff in it too. Of course, I'd probably want to bump the boost and try to run it on E-85 too, might as well make a hot rod out of it and take advantage of the high octane and the additional chemical intercooling the E-85 would offer too

[Jeff Sauber]

LOL.....Harry is that you reducing all the pic sizes?.....

[Harry P.]

LOL.....Harry is that you reducing all the pic sizes?.....

Show's over folks, nothing more to see here....let's move along...

[Harry P.]

Someone should call Ripley's, or PT Barnum. We got us "The Incredible SHrinking Thread" here.

No, we had a perfectly good thread–but a boatload of useless ###### attached to it.

[Jeff Sauber]

FYI!!.....*disclaimer*

[ This thread has been heavily modified from it's original format by the administration.]

It now reads quite incomplete, like a book missing several chapters...LOL...

[Joe Handley]

That explains why it went from 3 pages back down to 2 pages then

[Jeff Sauber]

That explains why it went from 3 pages back down to 2 pages then

You bet!!....

the thread has been so heavily watered down and G-rated, it would be best to just delete the whole thing now....