PT Cruiser...I don't get it

zcookie49 · Aug 27, 2001

I'll make a prediction. 3 more years tops that chrysler runs that platform. All the PT is a shell dropped on the Neon.. They will get what they want out of it, but they will probably drop that format once the Neon gets a major overhaul for the "FAD" will wear off...just my input..

motopuffs · Aug 27, 2001

I think the whole "Z71" theory is cheezy! The hee haw off road magazines even say that the non Z71 trucks do hard core off road better than the Z71s, because the suspension is more compliant, and meanwhile the Z71 rides way rougher on the street. I'm still trying to figure out why 90% of the 4x4 chevies I see have that big sticker, but spend about 1% of their time off road.

It may be a bit different in other parts of the country, but around here within the last 5 years, everyone has decided they HAVE TO HAVE a four wheel drive vehicle, but most of these people end up staying home the 3 days of the year you really need 4 wd because "the roads are too slippery". Go fixure.

Back in the muscle car era, much fuel was wasted and much pollution was made, but at least it was for a good cause...the cars were fast! Now we do the same thing only it's to pull around the extra weight of a three ton SUV or full size, four wheel drive, extended cab truck.

(flame mode off)

DougRoost · Aug 27, 2001

Amen motopuffs. I'm a musclecar and sportscar and dirt bike guy myself! Still have a '73 Z28 Camaro but miss that big block Chevelle SS I had to part with while in college. Meanwhile I keep seeing gussied up 3 ton gas guzzling SUVs. Worse, people fell for the marketing campaigns of toughness and safety (people must have flunked physics) and are buying them at the expense of more useful vehicles. Thus, the cycle continues and the automakers keep making them and advertising them, sacrificing cool cars such as the Impala SS (in that case to make more Tahoes). Even the Camaro is no longer a sure thing! I do like it when I see a pickup with a couple dirt bikes in it because at least that's real.

motopuffs · Aug 27, 2001

Here in IOwa, it's getting to the point where if you buy a 2 wheel drive truck, you'd better get it very cheap, because it sure won't be worth anything when you sell it. Everbody gotta have that fo by fo!

Coincidently, the winters have become milder over the last 20 years.

I miss my '66 Chevelle (454 with some pretty wild heads)...you know you have a good motor when you can't keep a tranny in her!

DougRoost · Aug 27, 2001

Motopuffs, that does sound like a monster 454! The built 402 in my '72 Chevelle was backed by an M22. I had to put a torque strap on the left head because the torque would cause the clutch linkage to bind under acceleration, but I never broke a tranny. I only had 3.31 gears but could still pull the wheels in first (ever so slightly but it did!). Had the build sheet and everything for that car....

Now that you mention it, people here in Central Texas are buying 4x4s like crazy, too. Of course there's about zero use for it here, except perhaps occasionally pulling a boat up a slippery ramp. I've heard from a couple friends who bought 4x4 SUVs that they wanted it since they come higher from the factory (the better to roll over I guess). Unbelievable. I'm in sales and marketing and the power of advertising still amazes me.

Neil Wig · Aug 28, 2001

Well, Motopuff, I live in CANADA, where that white stuff falls from the sky, and I actually use 4WD. I wouldn't consider buying a truck that wasn't 4x4. It's not a dick measuring competition, just a necessity for the places I go, both summer and winter.

So far as old muscle goes, I used to run a '73 Challenger with a steel crank 340, 4spd. The factory hurst vertical pistol grip shifter was simply awsome. Used to love hunting mustangs....but $500 a month for gas was a little hard to swallow. And no, it wasn't stock, not by a stretch.

Later

motopuffs · Aug 28, 2001

The measuring competition comment is pretty funny...I think the "4x4" or "z71" emblems are worth at least 3 inches!

Doug, I wanted to put a four speed like that in my car too, but my mentor, who had seen my shifting antics with the previous 350 4 speed chevelle, "banned" me from having a manual with the big block. I had the chain hoding the motor down too. It would rip the mounts right out otherwise. Also, if you had the stock throttle linkage (rather than a cable) things could get exciting real fast!

Spontaneous fishtailing with a blip of the throttle at 30 mph and only 2,000 rpm (and the stock torque converter) is cool...hard to explain to people who haven't been around a good big block chevy! I miss that alot...

Speaking of hurst shifters, the inline shifter with the t-handle was pretty cool too.

MikeT · Aug 29, 2001

My comments on the PT Cruiser.

That thing needs to be almost the size of a full size van just a little shorter with a big V-8 in it. Then you'd have a cool vehicle. It is just too small and too slow. Period.

DougRoost · Aug 29, 2001

More importantly it would need to be rear wheel drive. The only way to do that in the current Neon platform would be to build a tube frame, which is probably why nobody's done it yet.

Dash Riprock · Aug 29, 2001

Originally posted by XRpredator

Exactly.

I gotta give it up to Mopar, they at least have the balls to build some different stuff. They stepped up to the plate, and now the other 2 of the "Big 3" are playing catch up. Ford redid the Mustang a couple years ago, and now they have the new T-bird coming. Chevy's got that new little pickup thing coming out, which looks way cool (kinda like an ol' 50 Chev pickup).

I like the new throw back cars. I'm not a big Ford fan, but I saw photos of a Ford Concept Mustang Mach I, complete with the satin black hood with scoop and old style gauges. I'm still holding out that Chevy will redisign the Camaro with some new version of the 67-69 RS hidden headlights setup. Or maybe the two round taillights on the SS.

Dash

DougRoost · Sep 23, 2001

Viper V10 engine source

HiG4: I'm vindicated on this one -- it's truck derived and American all the way (no Italian anything). Last week's American Musclecar on Speedvision covered the Viper from beginning to the new one. I taped it and just got caught up watching it.

They said from the get-go this car was to be a true sports car but had to come in around $50K. V10 power was planned from the beginning, but it had to be relatively inexpensive so no exotic things like DOHC would be used. Viper #1, the original prototype, had a V10 in it that was the result of grafting 2 additional cylinders to the 360. Thus, it was cast iron and a V10, though its heritage was from the old 360 V8 (perhaps leading to the confuion that Viper #1 had a V8).

When the Viper was given the go ahead, the cast iron truck V10 existed. But the Dodge engineers couldn't live with the weight of this engine so they saved 100lbs by casting it in aluminum. Thus it was the same basic engine, though of course cam, heads, etc. were all optimized for the Viper vs. low end grunt of a pickup.

Doug

yzracer49 · Oct 5, 2001

All cars are slow

You are right, the PT is slow. But it is not ment to be a race/sportscar. It just looks way cool and is priced right. Nowadays you can't touch a decent car for less than 25k, trust me, I'm tring.

If you want pure acceleration and speed, get a street bike. For $6-7k you can have a bike capable of a 10sec 1/4mile. To do that in a car, you need to spend close to 10x more. Heck, even an air cooled Harley can beat up on all but the very high end ($80k+) cars.

Personaly I have wanted a Pt since I saw them. They have style. You don't look like every other car on the road. Also on my list is an Audi TT or A6, Subaru WRX, or the new Lexus mid-sized wagon with +200hp. Because sometimes the road turns, and who wants to slow down?

Don't get me wrong, I would also love a Hemi 'Cuda, '50 Merc or my favorite, '59 Caddy convert. :cool:

motometal · Oct 7, 2001

You're only "different" until your neighbor buys one:p

J_dem_Bones · Oct 8, 2001

Originally posted by DougRoost
the PT Cruiser is at least more distinctive than the "New Beetle". Let's face it, both of these are image cars (as are the Viper and Prowler). But the New Beetle is the real disgrace. It's a reskinned, front drive Golf that weighs an additional 400 lbs while giving up cargo capacity/internal volume, and still uses the same Golf engine, so it is slower than a Golf! Talk about all go and no show, that's the one to rag on. Further, it shares nothing mechanically with the rear-drive, rear engine, air cooled Beetle.
I would never buy a PT Cruiser since it is front drive and indeed based on a Neon. But hand it to Chrysler: when is the last time anyone lined up to buy an economy car? Good design and some risk taking paid big here. Not only that, but it's TWO FEET SHORTER than a Neon yet can swallow an 8' 2x4 whole, with the doors shut. It really is more like a mini-minivan, but isn't that a lot more useful than the New Beetle or any other economy car for that matter? And the aftermarket response has been huge, with the Bruiser and many other concepts built off it.

BTW, in case you didn't know it GM recently snagged the Chrysler designer responsible for this cutting edge styling and he's now responsible for Chevy styling. This is great news for all of us Chevy enthusiasts since they build great vehicles but have been pretty stodgy and evolutionary, vs. truly new styling.

The one car I was sad Chrysler didn't get to build due to their acquisition by Benz was the Pronto Spyder. This was a hot little mid-engined, rear drive, supercharged convertible that Chrysler promised to bring out for less than $20K. It looked more like a Porsche Spyder than the Boxster did and I would have lined up to buy one in a heartbeat (no pun intended Chevrolet!).

The new Beetle is one one of the highest rated in a Crash test! While the PT Crusier is THE LOWEST! Both are ugly, but the beetle is designed with some thought of personal safety!;) The PT Crusier just crumbles you in and smashes you!:scream:

DougRoost · Oct 8, 2001

That's good to know but I noted I'd never buy a Cruiser. Besides, my point that you referenced was that the New Beetle was a reskinned Golf and in doing so gave up both performance and practicality, all for the sake of image. Thus, the fair comparison of crash test results would be the Golf vs. New Beetle (in the hope that perhaps they picked up some safety in the trade-off).

zio · Oct 9, 2001

Originally posted by IDkTm
If you're going to drive a car it better have something special, like some motor.

Let me amend your statement to read "a car like that"- my personal opinion is that form should follow function. Therefore, if a car looks fast or mean, it should be because that's how it's made. I love the way those things look- the way they remind me of the chopped rods of the 50's (and thankfully Chrysler didn't add any stupid plastic gizmos or nutball angles like GM would have). Just clean lines & a bulldog stance. But everybody and their brother knows there's nothing substantial under the skin, and that instantly paints a whole different picture of the car and it's owner. :(

IM12RSPCT · Oct 12, 2001

I thought the PT cruisers were the funeral transports for the midgets. Hm. Go figure.

PT Cruiser...I don't get it

zcookie49

Seven OUT!

motopuffs

DougRoost

motopuffs

DougRoost

Neil Wig

motopuffs

MikeT

DougRoost

Dash Riprock

DougRoost

yzracer49

motometal

J_dem_Bones

DougRoost

zio

Mr. Atlas

IM12RSPCT

Similar Topics

PT Cruiser...I don't get it

Seven OUT!

Mr. Atlas

Similar Topics

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency