Bring back the PT Cruiser!

Discussion in 'PT Cruiser' started by uglymichelemobile@gmail.com, Mar 17, 2009.

  1. Guest

    , Mar 17, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jerry - OHIO Guest

    I think the PT should have been built with better parts. I have a 2002
    that had a front wheel bearing fail at 15 K .My wife has an 03 with one
    otter tie rod failure ,and at 60 K the rear trailing arm bushings are
    shot.
    My son has an 1989 Aries with 200 K that I bought new and it has two
    sets of shoes & pads ,and had the timing belt changed twice so far. I
    owned allot of K cars in the 80's and only thing you had to do is not
    let them over heat They should have used better materials on the
    Cruisers .One good thing is used parts will be easy to find .There was
    only one change to front fenders & head lights.
    I belong to a PT CROUSER club in north east Ohio and allot of members
    also own Chevy H H R s. I call them the big brother to the PT s.

    Jerry


    http://community.webtv.net/awoodbutcher/MyWoodWorkingPage


    http://community.webtv.net/awoodbutcher/1974Tryke
     
    Jerry - OHIO, Mar 18, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Steve Guest

    wrote:
    > I think it is outrageous that they are discontinuing the PT Cruiser.
    >
    > These cars should receive status as historical landmarks, like the
    > bungalows of Chicago!
    >
    > http://ptcruiser-aka-uglymichelemobile.blogspot.com/



    Its a love it or hate it design- the best kind. Now that the "hate it"
    side has spoken, here's a comment from the other side: Frankly 10 years
    with only a very mild facelift is a good, long run for a car these days
    and proved beyond doubt that the "love its" outnumbered the haters by a
    huge margin. Anything in the way of a major re-design would make it no
    longer a PT. Its such a niche design that I think its fair to let it go
    (and let the ones we PT owners alredy have become more collectible ;-)

    What I REALLY wish is that Chrysler had any comparable-sized replacement
    for it. The Caliber is such a cheapened down vehicle that it reminds me
    of the 80s all over again.

    Speaking of the 80s- for the guy who thinks PTs are not built as well
    as a shitbox 80s K-car: step away from the computer and go actually
    drive a real car. Granted, there were plenty of Eaton-inspired cost-cuts
    that the PT would have been better without, but its still a well-
    assembled and very solid car. Very tight, very quiet, devoid of the
    acres of cheap, hard, grey/black Honda-esque interior plastics that the
    Caliber suffers. In short, Light years ahead of any of the
    sloppily-assembled, "random collection of parts from the supply bins to
    create a new model" K-derivatives.
     
    Steve, Mar 18, 2009
    #3
  4. CopperTop Guest

    I've had many cars ranging from Audi's to Volvo's to Olds and many more.
    I got a 2001 Limited Edition PT in late 2000. Still have it. It's THE
    most trouble free car I've ever owned. Still no squeeks or rattles.
    Early year PT's had so much content that were standard then and options
    now, plus things you can't even get on PT's now. Daimler did an
    excellent job of dumbing down the PT. The reason I don't have a newer
    one is because they have so little in them compared to early models.
    I'm still impressed with the ride, fit and squeekless body. We mainly
    just drive it now to car shows and to local cruise in's.

    It's still one of the most unique cars on the road. I've been the Audi,
    BMW, Volvo, MercBenz route. Never again. I sure wish Chrysler would
    put the same attention to detail and quality that's in my almost 10 year
    old PT into the new 300's.

    = = = = =


    Steve <> wrote in
    news::

    > wrote:
    >> I think it is outrageous that they are discontinuing the PT Cruiser.
    >>
    >> These cars should receive status as historical landmarks, like the
    >> bungalows of Chicago!
    >>
    >> http://ptcruiser-aka-uglymichelemobile.blogspot.com/

    >
    >
    > Its a love it or hate it design- the best kind. Now that the "hate it"
    > side has spoken, here's a comment from the other side: Frankly 10
    > years with only a very mild facelift is a good, long run for a car
    > these days and proved beyond doubt that the "love its" outnumbered the
    > haters by a huge margin. Anything in the way of a major re-design
    > would make it no longer a PT. Its such a niche design that I think its
    > fair to let it go (and let the ones we PT owners alredy have become
    > more collectible ;-)
    >
    > What I REALLY wish is that Chrysler had any comparable-sized
    > replacement for it. The Caliber is such a cheapened down vehicle that
    > it reminds me of the 80s all over again.
    >
    > Speaking of the 80s- for the guy who thinks PTs are not built as well
    > as a shitbox 80s K-car: step away from the computer and go actually
    > drive a real car. Granted, there were plenty of Eaton-inspired
    > cost-cuts that the PT would have been better without, but its still a
    > well- assembled and very solid car. Very tight, very quiet, devoid of
    > the acres of cheap, hard, grey/black Honda-esque interior plastics
    > that the Caliber suffers. In short, Light years ahead of any of the
    > sloppily-assembled, "random collection of parts from the supply bins
    > to create a new model" K-derivatives.
    >
    >
     
    CopperTop, Mar 18, 2009
    #4
  5. On Mar 18, 1:11 pm, Steve <> wrote:

    Anything in the way of a major re-design would make it no
    > longer a PT.



    Look at the change in design in the Corvette. And it's still a
    Corvette.
     
    Pete E. Kruzer, Mar 19, 2009
    #5
  6. CopperTop Guest

    "Pete E. Kruzer" <> wrote in news:5747c051-0fcd-4764-8dd1-
    :

    > On Mar 18, 1:11 pm, Steve <> wrote:
    >
    > Anything in the way of a major re-design would make it no
    >> longer a PT.

    >
    >
    > Look at the change in design in the Corvette. And it's still a
    > Corvette.
    >


    I had read in some article a couple years ago about a possible evolution of
    the PT. Since you couldn't modernize it and it remain a retro design, they
    considered a possible blending of key 30's Chrysler Aero model design
    elements into it. Also going up a size using the Sebring platform and
    offering a V6. That would have possibly been a very cool car.
     
    CopperTop, Mar 19, 2009
    #6
  7. Guest

    On Mar 19, 7:21 am, "Pete E. Kruzer" <> wrote:
    > On Mar 18, 1:11 pm, Steve <> wrote:
    >
    >  Anything in the way of a major re-design would make it no
    >
    > > longer a PT.

    >
    > Look at the change in design in the Corvette. And it's still a
    > Corvette.


    Your nickname rules! We need to pay homage to you in a future blog
    entry.....

    http://ptcruiser-aka-uglymichelemobile.blogspot.com/

    Rock on!
     
    , Mar 19, 2009
    #7
  8. On Mar 19, 1:26 pm, ""
    <> wrote:

    > Your nickname rules!  We need to pay homage to you in a future blog
    > entry.....
    >


    Thank you, thank you very much.
     
    Pete E. Kruzer, Mar 20, 2009
    #8
  9. Steve Guest

    Pete E. Kruzer wrote:
    > On Mar 18, 1:11 pm, Steve <> wrote:
    >
    > Anything in the way of a major re-design would make it no
    >> longer a PT.

    >
    >
    > Look at the change in design in the Corvette. And it's still a
    > Corvette.


    But it still LOOKS like a Corvette. The lines are a clear heritage all
    the way back to the first straight-six vettes, Mako Sharks and Stingrays
    too. What are they going to do to change the PT significantly? Pick yet
    another 40's Chrysler and refresh the style? The HHR is a decent
    modernization of an old GMC panel truck, but there are only so many old
    shapes to choose from before you run out. An evolutionary re-style of
    the PT would take it too far from its roots, IMO.
     
    Steve, Mar 23, 2009
    #9
  10. On Mar 23, 10:24 am, Steve <> wrote:

    >
    > But it still LOOKS like a Corvette. The lines are a clear heritage all
    > the way back to the first straight-six vettes, Mako Sharks and Stingrays
    > too.


    Still looks like a Corvette? i think I'll disagree on this point.

    Check 'em out through the years.

    http://www.web-cars.com/corvette/1953.php
     
    Pete E. Kruzer, Mar 23, 2009
    #10
  11. Steve Guest

    Pete E. Kruzer wrote:
    > On Mar 23, 10:24 am, Steve <> wrote:
    >
    >> But it still LOOKS like a Corvette. The lines are a clear heritage all
    >> the way back to the first straight-six vettes, Mako Sharks and Stingrays
    >> too.

    >
    > Still looks like a Corvette? i think I'll disagree on this point.
    >
    > Check 'em out through the years.
    >
    > http://www.web-cars.com/corvette/1953.php


    No need for me to go look, I can visualize every major Corvette body
    style just fine. They all have a certain commonality, an evolution of
    the theme. The "Stingray" theme exaggerated some elements of the style,
    the "Mako Shark" others, the C4, C5, and C6 each evolved the theme their
    own way (well, the C6 is really more like a C5.5 because its so similar
    to the C5). But they're all instantly recognizable as members of the
    same family. You can do that with a new design as you evolve it, but the
    PT's whole appeal is that it cloned a particular vintage model in
    miniature. You can't really evolve that. Well you could, and some might
    like it. But I would rather pick another retro theme altogether than try
    to evolve the PT in a way that the original design couldn't/didn't go.
    Someone said that the "next" PT might have been slightly larger and a
    clone of an Airflow model. That would have been absolutely wondeful IMO,
    but it wouldn't have been an evolution of the current PT.
     
    Steve, Mar 23, 2009
    #11
  12. Joe Pfeiffer Guest

    The other thing is that the Corvette is intended to be a modern style
    (and has been, since the Sting Ray). You can make some pretty radical
    changes, and so long as you leave some pretty general styling cues
    intact, it's still "the same car". Something deliberately retro
    becomes either boring or self-parody pretty quickly (we'll leave the
    question of whether the Mako Shark Corvette was self-parody
    alone...).

    I keep wondering what's going to happen when it's time for a major
    facelift on the Mustang.
     
    Joe Pfeiffer, Mar 24, 2009
    #12
  13. Steve Guest

    Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

    > I keep wondering what's going to happen when it's time for a major
    > facelift on the Mustang.


    Well... They've borrowed from every previous mustang except the
    MustangII, so I guess it'll come back next :-D

    (ducking as all the Ford guys throw 9" ring gears in my direction....)
     
    Steve, Mar 24, 2009
    #13
  14. Joe Pfeiffer Guest

    Steve <> writes:

    > Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
    >
    >> I keep wondering what's going to happen when it's time for a major
    >> facelift on the Mustang.

    >
    > Well... They've borrowed from every previous mustang except the
    > MustangII, so I guess it'll come back next :-D


    I'm not even a Ford guy, and I'm tossing one at you!
     
    Joe Pfeiffer, Mar 24, 2009
    #14
  15. Steve Guest

    Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
    > Steve <> writes:
    >
    >> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
    >>
    >>> I keep wondering what's going to happen when it's time for a major
    >>> facelift on the Mustang.

    >> Well... They've borrowed from every previous mustang except the
    >> MustangII, so I guess it'll come back next :-D

    >
    > I'm not even a Ford guy, and I'm tossing one at you!


    I remember back in the mid 90s I ran across an online Mustang mailing
    list and the home page had words to this effect:


    To register for the Classic Mustangs list (1965-1972) click here.

    For the Modern Mustangs list (1979 and later) click here.

    Don't even ask about the Mustang II because nobody cares.
     
    Steve, Mar 24, 2009
    #15
  16. Josh S Guest

    In article
    <>,
    "" <> wrote:

    > I think it is outrageous that they are discontinuing the PT Cruiser.
    >
    > These cars should receive status as historical landmarks, like the
    > bungalows of Chicago!
    >
    > http://ptcruiser-aka-uglymichelemobile.blogspot.com/


    I agree. They could upgrade it's drive train with that in the Caliper
    and I'm sure it would continue to sell well.
    Cerberus seems determined to finish the destruction of Chrysler, that
    Daimler started.
     
    Josh S, Mar 29, 2009
    #16
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Nomen Nescio

    Bring Back the High Compression Hemi V-8

    Nomen Nescio, Nov 27, 2003, in forum: General Motoring
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    319
    Hemi4268
    Nov 28, 2003
  2. George Orwell

    Bring back the station wagon!

    George Orwell, Sep 22, 2006, in forum: General Motoring
    Replies:
    106
    Views:
    1,675
    Bill Putney
    Sep 27, 2006
  3. George Orwell

    Bring back the pretty cars

    George Orwell, Nov 3, 2006, in forum: General Motoring
    Replies:
    38
    Views:
    779
    Bill Putney
    Nov 8, 2006
  4. George Orwell

    Chrysler: Bring back a basic car

    George Orwell, Dec 18, 2006, in forum: General Motoring
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    272
    Adam H
    Dec 19, 2006
  5. MoPar Man

    I say - bring back the 1970's

    MoPar Man, May 27, 2011, in forum: General Motoring
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    1,606
    Ashton Crusher
    Jun 7, 2011
Loading...