PT Cruiser

Lloyd wrote:
> On Feb 5, 6:40 pm, "Even Stephen" > wrote:
>> I like may PT cruiser but I wonder if there is a comparable auto (with the
>> high sitting driver's seat and easy load hatchback) that I should look at
>> before I buy a PT again? Suggestions? Thanks.
>
> This is the last year for the PT, so for that alone, you might look at
> others (resale values often drop for discontinued models).

All the more reason to grab one while you can. Deals have never been
better. Screw resale value, keep the car until its worn out- better
economics all around.

Even Stephen wrote:
> ...for the record, I get 22 city and 26 mpg's highway. Thanks all!
>
> > wrote in message
> news:550tSrEzP8dG-pn2-KmM8sRWMfwGV@localhost...
>> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 18:10:02 UTC, Steve > wrote:
>>
>>> I've heard a few similar stories about low PT mileage, but our (new to
>>> us) 2005 2.4 normally-aspirated version is getting between 22 and 24 in
>>> town, and about 25-27 on the highway so far.
>>
>> You're lucky! To be fair, we rented a 2008 PT sedan at the Pensacola
>> airport
>> for the 50 mile drive to Mobile, and it got around 26mpg, but that was
>> driving
>> 55/60. Some people say it is the weight of the body, the "bad"
>> styling, etc. I
>> also wondered what would happen if they put the CVT transmission in
>> instead of
>> the 4 speed automatic. I think it would increase the mileage.

Well, wind drag is certainly a big part of it- that's the price you pay
for all the nice headroom inside. We drove ours from Austin To Corpus
Christi on saturday morning, and we were driving into a steady 15-20 mph
(gusting higher) headwind the whole way. With the cruise set at 70, that
made for a "through the air" speed on the order of 85 mph, and it
showed- that tank was 20.2 MPG. The return trip that night was about 28
MPG, but the wind had died way down so we didn't have the benefit of a
tailwind headed home.

I was pleasantly surprised that the PT didn't get blown all over the
road in the wind- it was pretty much immune to the gusts, at least as
stable if not moreso than the 93 Vision it replace. I didn't expect that.

As for the transmission- the old 41TE (which the PT has) has always been
known as a bit of a power hog since it runs full hydraulic pressure all
the time and then lets the electronics regulate the pressure down as
needed, rather than having a throttle-position controlled line pressure
like older Chrysler automagics did. At least they seem to have it pretty
bullet-proof now, unlike its early days. Isn't it true that the
Caliber's CVT is configured to "behave" more like a conventional
automatic with fake "shift points?" That's one reason that the Caliber
doesn't tempt me much- if its got a CVT, it should BE a CVT.

Steve B. wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:10:02 -0600, Steve > wrote:
>
>
>> I've heard a few similar stories about low PT mileage, but our (new to
>> us) 2005 2.4 normally-aspirated version is getting between 22 and 24 in
>> town, and about 25-27 on the highway so far.
>
> So does my Lincoln Town Car.

A) I'm not surprised that a Town Car could at least match the highway
mileage but I'd be surprised if it gets as good as the PT in the city,
and B) how do you wash the old man funk off yourself after driving one
of those ;-)


Seriously, the Panther-chassis Fords are very aerodynamic since they're
so long compared to any compact car as well as having a very tall final
drive ratio and efficient driveline and *should* get outstanding highway
mileage. A short vehicle is hard to make as low-drag as a long one (you
can't achieve the same fineness ratio), which is why Smart cars get such
horrible mileage for the size and weight they are. You'd expect 60 mpg
looking at them, but in fact you can do as well or better mileage-wise
and carry more with a Yaris or Fit than with a Smart. Lighter weight
only comes into play when there's a lot of stop-and-go driving, which is
where the Town Car would have more trouble matching the PT.

On Feb 8, 9:24*am, "Pete E. Kruzer" > wrote:
> On Feb 7, 11:51*am, Lloyd > wrote:
>
> > This is the last year for the PT,
>
> For all PTs or just the convertible?

2008 was the last year for the convertible; it's been reported 2009 is
the last year for the hatchback.

Lloyd wrote:
> On Feb 8, 9:24 am, "Pete E. Kruzer" > wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 11:51 am, Lloyd > wrote:
>>
>>> This is the last year for the PT,
>> For all PTs or just the convertible?
>
> 2008 was the last year for the convertible; it's been reported 2009 is
> the last year for the hatchback.

As much as I like the car, its probably about time. Its had a remarkable
run, and only the most minor of facelifts (2006) during that run.

wrote:

> We have the 2.0 CVT combination, and with very careful driving, we don't push
> the engine or the car, we are getting the above mentioned mpg.

Wow! Is that hand calculated or the dash display?