I say chump. They are tremendously popular in the Chicago area. See them every day.
My dislike for them is based upon the fact that they are primarily an imitation of something they are not. Excalibur redux. Or a roadster based on a VW platform.
I like them and have started seeing more and more of them on the roads here. I haven’t driven one so cannot determine what people consider underpowered. You can get a lot of bang out of a 4 cylinder but cars with 4’s are generally designed for economy. (I have a turbo Thunderbird that will light up the tires through three gears.)
It sure looks better than that abortion they call the Toyota Echo…
I can’t help but say that if I wanted a 40’s lookin’ car I’d buy a car built in the 40s. There are enough classic dealers that I could pick up one of those steel monsters any time I felt the need.
Heck! I’d get myself a fedora and a trenchcoat too! That way women would SWOON for me because I’d be a Humphrey Bogart lookin’ man!
The PT Cruiser is merely a retro-looking design on a Dodge NEON chassis. The shape is interesting, but the NEON has not garnered any prizes for reliability and quality!
I had a friend who had a Neon, and it has numerous quality problems-ranging from warped brake discs, to interior trim falling off. in addtion, the engine is quite noisy, and the standard chrysler AT has had some problems.
All in all, it is not a bad design (although rear visibility might be an issue). BUT-you would most definately NOT want to have a 1940’s vintage car today! Such a car would be very unsafe (no seat belts) and a nice metal dashboard to split your skull on!
Automobile technology is lightyears ahead of what was available in the 1940’s (or even the 1980’s!).
Just to clear something up: the PT does NOT have the Neon chassis. A common misperception, but its chassis is a brand new design.
Same here. And that’s why I like it.
I think the “purple only” was the Dodge Prowler.
The PT is coming out in a turbo charged edition, and many more improvements are on the way for it also. We have been looking at it for a few months now - I want one. But I think I’ll wait until the 2001 models hit the floor.
It’s also rated as a light pick-up truck, not a car, for those interested. I’ve seen them in several colors too, I don’t know why it is said to only come in purple.
I love the look of this car. It has now become my first and only fantasy car. Now if only I could afford a car and the insurance. Arrgh, even if I could, I wouldn’t be able to get one of these things until 2002 with the waiting list on them.
I’ve had many discussions about this very topic with my husband (he loves it). I think he’s nuts. This is such a “wannabe” design - almost radical and interesting, but it falls short. It looks to me like the designers had a eally great idea, and then the car went through several management committees, and came out a pale, sad, flavorless shadow of something that might have had style.
-
-
- It’s too small inside for me; it needs to be about a foot and a half wider and three feet longer. -As to the power problem, small turbo engines tend to die young expensive deaths.
-
If I had them, I think I’d rather spend the time and money fixing up a real actual '50 Mercury and be cool instead of trendy. - MC
It is watered down. But still… I don’t like but, I have to give them points for trying to make a feul efficient station wagon popular, and for not doing a completely boring design. I support them. The fact that it is popular will encourage other car makers to come up with more innovative designs.
Well I would have to say Champ. I hated the new Beetle, don’t care for the Audi TT. But if are wondering what the next car that folks will be putting their downpayments months early on, check out the 2002 Thunderbird (the actual model released may differ slightly from this).
http://www.thunderbirds.org/slideshow.asp
How’s that for neo-retro?
Champ
Most cars are so boring as to be indistinguishable. I applaud Chrysler for putting together something different, practical, and affordable. Yes, it could have more power, but it is a great entry level car for folks who want to carry stuff but don’t want a CRV/RAV4/SUV clone.
Re the Thunderbird:
Nice enough, but do we really need portholes to come back?
I’d rather have a late 30s-early 40s Ford sedan with a 289 flathead V8 and rear wheel drive (IOW, the real thing that the PT kinda-sorta-almost looks like).
I’ve had a woody for Chrysler ever since I laid eyes on the Concord, and the PT just upped that woody an inch or two.
I’ve noticed that most “retrofication” usually consists of taking a boring ol’ “general” car design, and just adding a bunch of roundiness to the edges. Anyone else notice this, or am I just nuts?
I liked the look of the PT cruiser. I LOVED the versatility. My wife was hooked on the thing, and we were almost certain that we were going to buy one when they became available.
Then I took one for a test drive.
Sorry, but the thing has ‘econobox’ written all over it in terms of the way it drives. Harsh ride, poor handling, uncomfortable seats, and a gutless, loud engine. That would be acceptable if the thing was in the price range of the Neon or other similar economy cars, but it’s not. The one we test drove was $30,500 here in Canada, when a loaded Ford Focus is about $21,000. And the Focus wagon is just about as versatile but is much more car for the money.
The absolute base model of the PT Cruiser here lists at about $24,000, and because they are in such demand you can’t get any kind of discount off the list price. For the price of the PT Cruiser Limited that we test drove, we bought a Ford Windstar SEL with 200HP, power seats, power doors, CD player, dual-zone stereo so the kid can listen to different music, rear sonar for backing up, trailer tow package, etc. It’s twice the vehicle. The gas mileage is slightly worse, but then it has about twice the interior volume and can carry seven people.
The PT cruiser is not that efficient a vehicle, BTW. It’s very heavy, which is why it’s so gutless. It’s about the same weight as your average luxury sedan, and maybe 500lbs lighter than a typical SUV like a Grand Cherokee.
Well speak of the devil. I was reading this week’s issue of People Magazine when lo and behold, they have a short story called “They Want a Cool Rider”:
“Forget $70,000 Porches and $50,000 Lexuses. The real star vehicle in Hollywood these days is Chrysler’s PT Cruiser, a fancy model that recalls the classic roadsters of the '40s and '50s and can be had for less than $20,000. The car, which hit showrooms last spring, has been snapped up b Tom Hanks, and Jay Leno was spotted driving one. “Even celebrities who could afford anything are buying this car,” says DaimlerChrysler spokeswoman Ann Smith. Cher recenly bought one each for kids Chastity and Elijah. “It’s the best of all possible worlds,” she raves. “Style, safety and a great price.””
Ack! :rolleyes:
Well, IMHO, anythign the car companies can do which shows some innovation and thought in the design of cars is a plus. I was glad the new VW Bugs were such a hit as well, since a highway of carbon-copy cookie-cutter clones is BORING!!
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Three months, four weeks, two days, 4 hours, 1 minute and 59 seconds.
4846 cigarettes not smoked, saving $605.84.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 2 days, 19 hours, 50 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!*[/sub]
Well, the PT Cruiser kinda reminds me of the shape of one of my turds this morning…