The Most Embarrassing Cars To Drive

[Tom Geiger]

I liked the little PT from day one. They're fun to drive, handle well, and are practical for families, or people who do things. The car represents Chrysler's dare-to-be-different period, and doesn't look like anything else, really. They can be a pain to work on, but that's another topic entirely.

I especially liked the convertible, about the only modern-day "phaeton" style vehicle you're likely to come across.

I've always been a PT Cruiser fan. I did get to rent one on a Florida vacation and enjoyed driving it for the week. It drove remarkedly like our Plymouth Breeze which is a fun car to drive. It took me a while to warm up to the convertible, it just looked like they lopped the roof off the wagon. I thought they could have done something cooler, like put a 1930s bustle back on it. But it's gotten to me over time, so when I do my usual browse through the car ads, I always look for PT convertibles.

The general premise of this thread was "The Most Embarrassing Cars To Drive" and I submit that most people who buy those aren't car savvy enough to know they're embarrassing!

Then there are cars that mellow with age... for instance, in 1976 you'd die a million deaths, driving mom's 1973 Chevy wagon with wood on the sides.... today we'd consider that a cool ride!

[jbwelda]

so isn't it true that a PT Loser, er, CRUISER, is in reality a Neon with a big big fat body and a bunch of extra weight that make them wallow like a wounded whale in a corner?

if so, I will take the Neon. if not...I will decline on the PTL.

jb

[Harry P.]

so isn't it true that a PT Loser, er, CRUISER, is in reality a Neon ...

From allpar.com:

Believe it or not, the company that produced 1,611 variations of the K Car did NOT use the Neon under its PT Cruiser...

The early Pronto concept cars were based heavily on the Neon's floorpan and mechanicals, but as the Pronto evolved into the PT, Chrysler found that it just couldn't get the Neon platform to work with the twist beam axle and Watts linkage. So, someone logged onto the CAD station and whipped up a new platform, which borrows from Mopars past and present, but shares very few parts-bin bits with them.

[Tom Geiger]

The PT Cruiser is more kin to the cloud cars (Breeze, Cirrus, Stratus) than the Neon. My two Breezes have the same 2.4 engine. And the PT Cruiser I experienced drove very much like the Breeze.

[jbwelda]

ok thanks for the correction, I must have gotten that into my head from the prototype.

still 2.4 litres are not much for that much weight. otoh its pretty easy to get 200+ horses out of that size engine so maybe its not so punky after all. all I know is my friend who has one has complained about it not being able to get out of its own way ever since he got it. and hes not really a "car guy" so for him to complain about performance, but especially the handling under power in corners, which he really despises, along with his impression of a Pokey Cruiser, made me think those cars were another lost opportunity like the HHR. I think both those cars could be hugely redeemed by the availability of some major horsepower under the hood. just like the Fiero and Miata (I own an early one) could have been. put 250 horses into a Miata and then you really got something to charm the ladies and impress the boys.

jb

Edited August 1, 2014 by jbwelda

[Ace-Garageguy]

so isn't it true that a PT Loser, er, CRUISER, is in reality a Neon with a big big fat body and a bunch of extra weight that make them wallow like a wounded whale in a corner?

They aren't sports cars, but the handling is crisp and responsive, the steering quick and direct, and the body lean not anywhere near as bad as you'd expect it to be with that much upper-body weight (including a lot of glass). Acceleration on the non-turbo cars is also plenty adequate for 'normal" driving. Again, they aren't sports cars, but they certainly handle much better than many vintage "purist" ones.

When they start wearing out, the suspension crashes, rattles and bangs something fierce, but returning the car to as-designed specs fixes everything.

The one huge drawback is the 70,000 mile timing belt replacement interval (folks who say 90,000 are living on borrowed time). It's a bugger of a job, the worst one I've EVER done (including many Ferraris, Maseratis, Porsches, Alfas, etc.). It's also expensive, running as high as $1500, as you need to do the water pump, idler and seals while you're in there.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Ace-Garageguy

[Ace-Garageguy]

put 250 horses into a Miata and then you really got something to charm the ladies and impress the boys.

I assume you've seen the smallblock Ford swaps into Miatas...

Edited August 1, 2014 by Ace-Garageguy

[jbwelda]

theres no reason in the world the current 1.8 couldn't be made to produce another 80 horses as far as I could see. you don't need a big heavy V8 in there...in fact a well prepped 1.8 should walk all over any V8 on anything but the most lax "road" courses (eg: NASCAR road course) and of course the 1/4 mile. and if Mazda ever manned up with a modern V6 turbo, that's all that would be needed imo. and you could probably reach the rear spark plugs, not that you would nearly ever need to.

jb

[Mark]

Comparing a PT Cruiser to a Miata cuts both ways...next time you need to get four people somewhere, the Miata is going to come up a bit short. If I were looking for a used vehicle, the PT would be my first choice...I'd make sure the maintenance issues were taken care of, though. Chrysler had a good thing going with the PT...a vehicle that sold well, with each sale helping their corporate average fuel economy. If not for the upheavals in the company's ownership and Daimler's looting of Chrysler, they should have invested in a next-generation version. Everyone I know who has/had one liked them, but the design got stale and they cheapened it over the years to keep prices down.

[Lunajammer]

Yes, Chrysler shot themselves in the foot revising later PT models on the cheap and essentially killing one of the most successful cars of the 2000s. I own one and I enjoy its innovations and well thought out utility. The bummer is its renown lackluster MPGs. During the summer I get about 18 in town, and a fair 25 on the highway. Worse in the winter and worse than the '96 Mustang it replaced. Heck, our family's '66 Catalina wagon got 17. I think (automatic) 2nd and 3rd gears are a little high.

[Harry P.]

Has anyone mentioned the Yugo yet?

[Ace-Garageguy]

theres no reason in the world the current 1.8 couldn't be made to produce another 80 horses as far as I could see. you don't need a big heavy V8 in there...in fact a well prepped 1.8 should walk all over any V8 on anything but the most lax "road" courses (eg: NASCAR road course) and of course the 1/4 mile. and if Mazda ever manned up with a modern V6 turbo, that's all that would be needed imo. and you could probably reach the rear spark plugs, not that you would nearly ever need to.

jb

I know this is getting farther away from the thread topic, but I was just talking to a Miata buddy and he seems to think the Ford V8 swap, if you use alloy heads, adds almost nothing to the car weight and supposedly slightly improves the overall balance. I know this was the case with the smallblock Ford swap into the old Z-cars. Vehicle weight went up by about 50 pounds, but it was farther back in the chassis (V8 being shorter than the inline 6).

Another hot swap for the Miata would be the 252 HP Ford EcoBoost all-aluminum 2 liter 4-cylinder. Crate motors, including the intercooler, are available for around 6 grand. Building the old Miata motor to make that much power, reliably, would cost at least as much.

Edited August 2, 2014 by Ace-Garageguy

[unclescott58]

I'd only be embarrassed by NOT having a car to drive. Any car is cool compared to using shoe leather only.

Scott

[Pete J.]

I am a bit late to this discussion, but my son(owns a new WRX) and I were having a chat the other day and he said something that got me to thinking and I think it applies here. He asked me "How do you think people can make the decision to buy a Prius." After thinking about it I came to the conclusion that we as a group love cars. We love to look at them, build model of them, even build the real deal from time to time. We have a lot of who we are wrapped up in our cars. On the other had there are a lot of people and I would guess it is the majority, that see the car as a tool! Something to get your around in reasonable comfort, it cheap to own, does all the stuff they want it to like haul a bunch of kids or stuff and is reliable. They could care less if it looks like a box with wheels or worse. It is a tool. So I have decided that those tools on the highway, belong to tools! I don't care about their vehicles as much as they don't.

[SSNJim]

I have a friend who is heavily into sports cars. He's had several Porsches, an Audi S5, and currently owns a Jaguar XF and XK-R, in addition to a Prius. I about fell out of my chair when he bought the Prius - he can afford just about any car he wants. Why a Prius? He is a computer guy, and loves the technology involved. He knows the car well, and can operate it to get peak efficiency. It's something of a challenge/game for him. It's not about the environment or utility for him, it's the techy factor. I know several people in IT tech jobs that have Priuses (Priusses? Prii? Priuss? whatever) for similar reasons. There is far more to being wrapped up in cars than racing between stop lights, running the Tail of the Dragon or adjusting the timing on a 50 year old V8.

[Ace-Garageguy]

I don't think the Prius is embarrassing so much as it is an expression of bland, insipid, crowd-dulled mass-appeal-striving. An eco-Camry.

I like the tech of these cars too, though it has a long way to go before it's fully evolved, and works well enough to really justify the expense and complication...but the only one I actually find myself kinda lusting after is the Honda Cr-z, purely because of its looks.

Edited August 2, 2014 by Ace-Garageguy

[cobraman]

Has anyone mentioned the Yugo yet?

Don't they have to run to drive them ? : )

[Craig Irwin]

As anyone seen those lime green metallic Chevy Sparks? Who in their right mind would pull onto a dealership .of full of 500 cars and say "That's the one!" ?

[unclescott58]

I don't thing the Prius is embarrassing so much as it is an expression of bland, insipid, crowd-dulled mass-appeal-striving. An eco-Camry.

I like the tech of these cars too, though it has a long way to go before it's fully evolved, and works well enough to really justify the expense and complication...but the only one I actually find myself kinda lusting after is the Honda Cr-z, purely because of its looks.

That's not bad. I too kind of like the looks of this one.

Scott

[Harry P.]

I don't think a Prius is an embarrassing car. Ugly, yes. But not necessarily embarrassing to be seen in. And as misguided as some (not all) Prius owners are about the actual impact their car has on the environment, hey... at least they're doing something (at least in their minds) to "save the planet."

The result might not be there, but the intention is.

IMO one of the most embarrassing cars to be seen in is a Hummer. Completely over the top, totally inefficient, impractical, a gas guzzler, and usually seen taking up two parking spots in any lot you see one in. The ultimate "look at me, I'm better (cooler, hipper, richer, whatever) than you" car that actually sends out just the opposite message.

[Mark]

The original Hummer was cool. Not practical as everyday transportation (I wouldn't want to park one), but its capabilities are intriguing. If I had a ranch or estate with a lot of land, it'd be interesting to have one just to play around with, just to see what it could or couldn't do. The H2, on the other hand, was just a wannabe. It had the appearance cues of the original, with few (if any) of its actual capabilities. Typical GM; let's drop a different body on a Chevy Suburban and ask a bunch more money for it.

[Harry P.]

The H2, on the other hand, was just a wannabe. It had the appearance cues of the original, with few (if any) of its actual capabilities.

What "capabilities" did the original have that anyone would ever need on public roads? The ability to cross a shallow stream? Yeah, I run across that problem all the time. I can't tell you how many times I've been on my way to the grocery store when I came to a river and had to turn around and go home...

[Mark]

Who says you have to use those capabilities on public roads? Some cars can go over 150 miles per hour...I can't remember the last time I saw a speed limit over 65. The H1 can be driven on a 45 degree slope: up, down, or sideways. It can be driven through water nearly as high as the top of the hood. You can inflate or deflate the tires from inside the vehicle. Those aren't capabilities that can be put to use in normal driving. If I had an H1, though, I wouldn't use it for normal driving.

Some folks buy a convertible and never put the top down. If I had one, I'd probably never put it up. A lot of people buy SUVs with four-wheel drive and never actually use it. One of my friends had a Geo Tracker (given to him by a relative), which I hear is actually pretty good in the snow. When he was selling it, I asked him how good it was in the snow. "I don't know...I've never put it in four-wheel drive". And he did use it during the winter. If I had the thing, after the first big snowstorm, I'd have gone out and tried to get it stuck somewhere, just to figure out what it could and couldn't do.

[Ace-Garageguy]

What "capabilities" did the original have that anyone would ever need on public roads? The ability to cross a shallow stream? Yeah, I run across that problem all the time. I can't tell you how many times I've been on my way to the grocery store when I came to a river and had to turn around and go home...

You do actually get that in Arizona (and the desert Southwest in general) sometimes. Local thunderstorms can turn dry washes into unexpected rivers pretty quick.

[Draggon]

As anyone seen those lime green metallic Chevy Sparks? Who in their right mind would pull onto a dealership .of full of 500 cars and say "That's the one!" ?

Ooooo those slanted eyes with mascara! Ugh!