PT Cruiser to live on

Chrysler confirms what Fiat already announced:

Chrysler confirmed today on its Twitter page what we already had heard
from Fiat: It intends to continue producing the PT Cruiser. Though no
longer a hot seller – and criticized by many for being well beyond its
sell-by date – the car appeals to Chrysler’s new owner, Fiat, because
it is inexpensive to build.

The PT Cruiser is expected to live on through the 2010 model year and
possibly into 2011. Production is likely to wrap up in late 2010 and
no successor is planned. Fiat would probably convert the PT Cruiser’s
Toluca, Mexico, assembly plant into a production facility for Fiat-
engineered, Chrysler-badged vehicles.
The PT Cruiser has been on the market since the 2001 model year and is
currently Chrysler’s second least expensive car after the Jeep
Patriot.

 

If they really wanted to make this car sell again all they would have to
do is find a way to increase MPG.
Great little car/truck/whatever EXCEPT for lousy gas mileage.

 

I'll drink to that!!

 

The PT is just a shadow of it's former self.Late model PT's have been
dumbed down and decontented so much, they are just a cheap but heavy
econobox that gets bad gas mileage.

My 2001 Limited Edition has things in/on it that haven't been on PT's for
a few years. The GT is gone, the ragtop is gone, options and packages
are gone; Chrysler continues to strip it as Daimler did so the "new"
Chrysler is no better than the company it broke away from. You just
can't expect sales to maintain or grow when you continually strip a car
to nothing much less update it like what most cars experience.

 

My 2001 Limited Edition has things in/on it that haven't been on
PT's for

I bought my 2006 PT based on dexterity, something my daughter could
drive to college, and not for ad ons.
When needed it can usually carry my people, critter, or home depot loads.
I like turbos and superchargers, but not the maintenance overhead so
stuck with the N/A touring edition.

Only items I'm not thrilled about are the rear drum brakes (I prefer 4
wheel disk but didn't want a screaming yellow hot rod, prefer a stealth
rod),and having to ignore the tire inflation sticker guidelines. If I
ever put that much air into the tires the PT would be wiggling all over
the highway every time I hit a bump. The dealer was trying to switch me
to a version 1 Caliber, claiming the PT was not a cool car for my
daughter to drive. That dealer went out of business a year ago.

 

Mine is pretty subdued, nothing screaming and not a GT either, But I
have 4 wheel disc/ABS/traction control along with larger sway bars that
were dropped on later models. Heated outside rear view mirrors, the rear
shelf which was standard back then, overhead grab bars, (all standard
equipment) and much more that have been dropped from later models and
some stuff, like I said that's no longer available even as an option.
Don't get me wrong, I really like my PT. One of the most versatile cars
I've owned. Nine years later with 103,000 miles; it's just as squeek and
rattle free as it was the day I got it. My complaint is that Chrysler
continues to strip it of content until it's discontinued when it is still
one of the most unique and versatile cars around.

 

A terrible rear seat back and rear styling that makes it look a funeral
car.

 

Did they reverse the side view mirror setup.
The last time I looked at it, only the drivers side view mirror was
remotely controlled.
If they had reversed that it would be OK. Perhaps it was designed in
the UK.

 

It lives on as a door stop?

 

One has to wonder if they'll keep the old 2.4 and 41TE transmission in
production *just* for the PT, or if they'll finally mate it with the new
VVT "world engine" and CVT. That would fix the mileage problem (or at
least help it a whole lot) and put that nice drivetrain in a vehicle
much more worthy of it than the POS Caliber/Compass/Patriot.

Its a love-or-hate design, won't argue that. Fortunately there are way
more of us that love it than there are of you who hate it ;-p

 

Look again. Both mirrors are electric.

 

Steve wrote:

Had two PT's: 2003 Sedan and 2005 Convertible, loved both of them, hated
the mileage. The base 2003 could get only about 26 on the highway going
60. The 2005 convertible was lousy! 17-19 and maybe 22 if I was lucky.
It had the 180HP Turbo version.
Don't put the Caliber down, we traded the 2005 PT convertible in on a
2007 Caliber and am loving the high mileage: 27-33 around town, up to 36
on the road.
I agree that the PT would benefit from the CVT a lot! Just as if would
benefit if Chrysler would have sold the diesel version(48mpg) over here
in America.
Oddly, my 1941 Chrysler Windsor 4 door/241.5 flathead six/Fluid Drive is
getting 16 in town and over 20 on the road. Now when a 68 year old car
can beat a 2005 car in mileage, something is wrong!

 

I didn't just look I tried it.
They must have upgraded it.

 

My 2001 Limited has elec remote mirrors on both sides. The base does not
have elec remote mirrors on either side.

 

Speaking of 1941 Chrysler's with fluid drive..... I've read about
those bad boys. Since a stick shift vehicle back then was as slow as
a turtle, based on my limited experience with older straight sixes,
how does that thing get out of it's own way when you are driving
around in third gear from a stop??

 

My Fluid Drive was a four speed manual with dual ranges. Low range was
1-2. If you started out there, you "shifted" by lifting your foot off
the gas at about 5-7, then it would go into second.
The way to drive the car is to put it in "drive" High Range. Third gear
is about 1.75 to 1, it gives about the same get away as a regular second
gear. At 20mph or so, lift your foot off the gas and the transmission
shifts into high. The M4/Vacamatic transmission, along with its
successor the M6 are bulletproof in their reliabiltiy. Remember, in
those days, "peeling out" was not common, and a steady getaway from a
light/sign was the norm. It is the smoothest shifting car that I have
ever had. The fluid coupling was not a torque converter, since it
didn't convert any power to other gears, it was simply a fluid flywheel,
simply transferring the motion to the gears and the clutch. Chrysler
flathead sixes might be a little short in horsepower, but they had tons
of torque, that was the secret to Fluid Drive.

 

I had a neighbor with one of those '41 fluid drive Cryslers.
Being young and curious about cars, I found it surprising that the
neighbor would pay so much more for his fluid drive Chrysler,
when it was a noisy high rpm slug off the mark compared to
our cheap 36 Chev 6 cyl .

 

They are actually fairly popular here in Vancouver, Canada,
The wife of a friend of mine just bought a demo, being afraid she
wouldn't be able to get one next year.
I'm not that fond of them, but IMO it's looks far exceed the Caliber.

 

How about doing a 0 - 60 run in it and posting the results. I still
see no way that it would not be a slug if the stick shifts were slugs
using first and second gear and you are doing the same thing with
third gear.