Why does PT foglight come on with right turn signal?

On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 13:06:15 UTC, Steven Stone
> wrote:

> I bought our 2006 PT Cruiser not for mpg but because it seemed like a
> fairly safe car for my daughter to drive, could carry her entire dorm
> room in the back with the seats removed, and was the right price point
> for me. I do get grief from the Accord / Honda owners over how loud the
> engine sounds and what they consider **** poor mpg (about 10 mpg less
> than their rice wagons)
I agree with all that you say about the safety, the style, the
reliability, etc. The gas mileage was killing us: what with gas here
in South Florida at $3 and sometimes over, it was costing us $400 a
month just to commute 200 miles a week, not counting going to the
store or to eat locally. I am saying that the PT should have been
designed with an engine that gets better mileage to go with its great
looks. I also own a fully restored 1940 Chyrsler Royal coupe with
overdrive,and it can get 21 on the road with a 241.5 c.i. flathead
six. I would have purchased another PT if it would have had a
different engine/transmission combination.

--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"

In article >,
says...
|I bought our 2006 PT Cruiser not for mpg ....

I forgot to mention the first dealer I went to was pushing the new
Caliber at the time.. It didn't seem to be able to carry as much
"stuff" as the PT Cruiser would, but I was told my daughter would love
being seen in the Caliber and it had all this whiz bang neato stuff..
like the glove box cooler and drop down rear thumper speakers and lots
of cup holders and power outlets.. whoopee !

On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 13:21:16 UTC, Steven Stone
> wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> |I bought our 2006 PT Cruiser not for mpg ....
>
> I forgot to mention the first dealer I went to was pushing the new
> Caliber at the time.. It didn't seem to be able to carry as much
> "stuff" as the PT Cruiser would, but I was told my daughter would love
> being seen in the Caliber and it had all this whiz bang neato stuff..
> like the glove box cooler and drop down rear thumper speakers and lots
> of cup holders and power outlets.. whoopee !
My wife and I had 2003 and 2005 PT's. We got a new Caliber SXT and
are loving it. You do not need to get the R/XT with all the bells and
whistles.

--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"

"Steve B." > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 13:21:15 GMT,
> > wrote:
>
>
> >I agree with all that you say about the safety, the style, the
> >reliability, etc. The gas mileage was killing us: what with gas here
> >in South Florida at $3 and sometimes over, it was costing us $400 a
> >month just to commute 200 miles a week, not counting going to the
> >store or to eat locally. I am saying that the PT should have been
> >designed with an engine that gets better mileage to go with its great
> >looks. I also own a fully restored 1940 Chyrsler Royal coupe with
> >overdrive,and it can get 21 on the road with a 241.5 c.i. flathead
> >six. I would have purchased another PT if it would have had a
> >different engine/transmission combination.
>
> 200 miles a week
> x5 weeks in a long month
> 1000 miles
> add in a couple hundred miles for the store and stuff
>
> 1200 miles
> /15mpg if you drive like a maniac
> 80gals gas per month
> X $3 a gallon
> $240 for an absolute worst case month with a maniac driver.
>
>
> You better buy a locking gas cap!
>
> Steve B.

Save you money on the cap!!

Glenn Beasley
Chrysler Tech

On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 20:06:59 UTC, Steve B. > wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 13:21:15 GMT,
> > wrote:
>
>
> >I agree with all that you say about the safety, the style, the
> >reliability, etc. The gas mileage was killing us: what with gas here
> >in South Florida at $3 and sometimes over, it was costing us $400 a
> >month just to commute 200 miles a week, not counting going to the
> >store or to eat locally. I am saying that the PT should have been
> >designed with an engine that gets better mileage to go with its great
> >looks. I also own a fully restored 1940 Chyrsler Royal coupe with
> >overdrive,and it can get 21 on the road with a 241.5 c.i. flathead
> >six. I would have purchased another PT if it would have had a
> >different engine/transmission combination.
>
> 200 miles a week
> x5 weeks in a long month
> 1000 miles
> add in a couple hundred miles for the store and stuff
>
> 1200 miles
> /15mpg if you drive like a maniac
> 80gals gas per month
> X $3 a gallon
> $240 for an absolute worst case month with a maniac driver.
>
>
> You better buy a locking gas cap!
>
> Steve B.
Steve,
I am not complaining about the PT. However, what you didn't know is:
$500/month payment on the turbo PT, yea, my wife wanted her first
"expensive" car, gas running close to $400 bills a month, in South
Florida, you don't go anywhere without a car and gas is the most
expensive here in Palm Beach and Martin County, maybe because they
think that just because Tiger Woods lives on Jupiter Island, we all
can pay high prices. Last night, just to meet friends for a weekend,
we had to drive to South Broward, that was 70 miles one way,of course
we didn't have to do that. So, I hope that where you live, that a car
is not so important. As I stated, we really only have one car, the
antique has been around for a long time and is used for car shows and
our club hobby, only driven to shows and maybe for a Sunday drive.
So, when you add up my figures for the PT, it was getting close to
$900 a month just to drive the thing! Now with the Caliber, $141 a
month less, and our gas bill has been cut, so far in half. If the PT
Cruiser had that mileage and payment, I would still be driving one.

--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"

"Steve B." > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 09:01:11 GMT,
> > wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 20:06:59 UTC, Steve B. > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 13:21:15 GMT,
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >I agree with all that you say about the safety, the style, the
> >> >reliability, etc. The gas mileage was killing us: what with gas here
> >> >in South Florida at $3 and sometimes over, it was costing us $400 a
> >> >month just to commute 200 miles a week, not counting going to the
> >> >store or to eat locally. I am saying that the PT should have been
> >> >designed with an engine that gets better mileage to go with its great
> >> >looks. I also own a fully restored 1940 Chyrsler Royal coupe with
> >> >overdrive,and it can get 21 on the road with a 241.5 c.i. flathead
> >> >six. I would have purchased another PT if it would have had a
> >> >different engine/transmission combination.
> >>
> >> 200 miles a week
> >> x5 weeks in a long month
> >> 1000 miles
> >> add in a couple hundred miles for the store and stuff
> >>
> >> 1200 miles
> >> /15mpg if you drive like a maniac
> >> 80gals gas per month
> >> X $3 a gallon
> >> $240 for an absolute worst case month with a maniac driver.
> >>
> >>
> >> You better buy a locking gas cap!
> >>
> >> Steve B.
> >Steve,
> >I am not complaining about the PT. However, what you didn't know is:
> >$500/month payment on the turbo PT, yea, my wife wanted her first
> >"expensive" car, gas running close to $400 bills a month, in South
> >Florida, you don't go anywhere without a car and gas is the most
> >expensive here in Palm Beach and Martin County, maybe because they
> >think that just because Tiger Woods lives on Jupiter Island, we all
> >can pay high prices. Last night, just to meet friends for a weekend,
> >we had to drive to South Broward, that was 70 miles one way,of course
> >we didn't have to do that. So, I hope that where you live, that a car
> >is not so important. As I stated, we really only have one car, the
> >antique has been around for a long time and is used for car shows and
> >our club hobby, only driven to shows and maybe for a Sunday drive.
> >So, when you add up my figures for the PT, it was getting close to
> >$900 a month just to drive the thing! Now with the Caliber, $141 a
> >month less, and our gas bill has been cut, so far in half. If the PT
> >Cruiser had that mileage and payment, I would still be driving one.
>
>
> My point was that you are either driving a lot more than you said you
> are or you had an issue with gas theft as there is no way you could
> get a PT to use that much gas in so few miles.
>
> I agree that mileage on a PT sucks. I drive a '95 Fleetwood for work
> and regularly get better mileage than my friend gets out of their two
> PT's. My car weighs twice as much and has an LT1 higher performance
> 350 in it so I just can't figure out what the heck a PT can do with
> all that gas.
>
> Steve B.

The only way to remove fuel from this vehicle would be to pop a hole in the
fuel tank or actuate the fuel pump with the line disconnected from the fuel
rail and pump it out. Just about every one( 2001 to present) of Chrysler
vehicles has a ping pong type roll over ball in the bottom of the fuel
inlet. This ball is used to seat the fuel tank and prevent fuel from
spilling out in case of a vehicle rollover. A siphon hose will not get past
this ball and into the tank to remove the fuel
Just a thought

Glenn

On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 13:04:49 UTC, Steve B. > wrote:

> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 09:01:11 GMT,
> > wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 20:06:59 UTC, Steve B. > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 13:21:15 GMT,
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >I agree with all that you say about the safety, the style, the
> >> >reliability, etc. The gas mileage was killing us: what with gas here
> >> >in South Florida at $3 and sometimes over, it was costing us $400 a
> >> >month just to commute 200 miles a week, not counting going to the
> >> >store or to eat locally. I am saying that the PT should have been
> >> >designed with an engine that gets better mileage to go with its great
> >> >looks. I also own a fully restored 1940 Chyrsler Royal coupe with
> >> >overdrive,and it can get 21 on the road with a 241.5 c.i. flathead
> >> >six. I would have purchased another PT if it would have had a
> >> >different engine/transmission combination.
> >>
> >> 200 miles a week
> >> x5 weeks in a long month
> >> 1000 miles
> >> add in a couple hundred miles for the store and stuff
> >>
> >> 1200 miles
> >> /15mpg if you drive like a maniac
> >> 80gals gas per month
> >> X $3 a gallon
> >> $240 for an absolute worst case month with a maniac driver.
> >>
> >>
> >> You better buy a locking gas cap!
> >>
> >> Steve B.
> >Steve,
> >I am not complaining about the PT. However, what you didn't know is:
> >$500/month payment on the turbo PT, yea, my wife wanted her first
> >"expensive" car, gas running close to $400 bills a month, in South
> >Florida, you don't go anywhere without a car and gas is the most
> >expensive here in Palm Beach and Martin County, maybe because they
> >think that just because Tiger Woods lives on Jupiter Island, we all
> >can pay high prices. Last night, just to meet friends for a weekend,
> >we had to drive to South Broward, that was 70 miles one way,of course
> >we didn't have to do that. So, I hope that where you live, that a car
> >is not so important. As I stated, we really only have one car, the
> >antique has been around for a long time and is used for car shows and
> >our club hobby, only driven to shows and maybe for a Sunday drive.
> >So, when you add up my figures for the PT, it was getting close to
> >$900 a month just to drive the thing! Now with the Caliber, $141 a
> >month less, and our gas bill has been cut, so far in half. If the PT
> >Cruiser had that mileage and payment, I would still be driving one.
>
>
> My point was that you are either driving a lot more than you said you
> are or you had an issue with gas theft as there is no way you could
> get a PT to use that much gas in so few miles.
>
> I agree that mileage on a PT sucks. I drive a '95 Fleetwood for work
> and regularly get better mileage than my friend gets out of their two
> PT's. My car weighs twice as much and has an LT1 higher performance
> 350 in it so I just can't figure out what the heck a PT can do with
> all that gas.
>
> Steve B.
Steve,
We seem to be getting into agreement here on the fact that the gas
mileage on the PT sucks big time. There was no gas theft, and the
mileage I stated that we drove was correct. The 180hp turbo Touring
Edition was supposed to get better than the 150hp standard that I had
in my 2003, but did not! I drove a 1949 Chrysler with a 135hp
straight eight and got better mileage! I, and many others on PT
forums cannot understand how the car will just not get the gas
mileage. I realize that it is an "emotional" buy and not one for pure
mileage, but come on! A 2.4 four cylinder that cannot get better than
22! Just refilled my Caliber today, got 28.115mpg, now that is
getting some good mileage! I used and am using Mobil One synthetic
oil in all my cars, except the 1940, and even used the K & N air
filter in the PT's because I read that it did increase the mileage by
a little bit, which it surprisingly did, but not much. I had a 1992
Lincoln Continental V-6 that would get 30 mpg on the road and 24 in
town, so something is very wrong here.

--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"

wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 13:04:49 UTC, Steve B. > wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 09:01:11 GMT,
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 20:06:59 UTC, Steve B. > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 13:21:15 GMT,
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I agree with all that you say about the safety, the style, the
>>>>>reliability, etc. The gas mileage was killing us: what with gas here
>>>>>in South Florida at $3 and sometimes over, it was costing us $400 a
>>>>>month just to commute 200 miles a week, not counting going to the
>>>>>store or to eat locally. I am saying that the PT should have been
>>>>>designed with an engine that gets better mileage to go with its great
>>>>>looks. I also own a fully restored 1940 Chyrsler Royal coupe with
>>>>>overdrive,and it can get 21 on the road with a 241.5 c.i. flathead
>>>>>six. I would have purchased another PT if it would have had a
>>>>>different engine/transmission combination.
>>>>
>>>>200 miles a week
>>>>x5 weeks in a long month
>>>>1000 miles
>>>>add in a couple hundred miles for the store and stuff
>>>>
>>>>1200 miles
>>>>/15mpg if you drive like a maniac
>>>>80gals gas per month
>>>>X $3 a gallon
>>>>$240 for an absolute worst case month with a maniac driver.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You better buy a locking gas cap!
>>>>
>>>> Steve B.
>>>
>>>Steve,
>>>I am not complaining about the PT. However, what you didn't know is:
>>>$500/month payment on the turbo PT, yea, my wife wanted her first
>>>"expensive" car, gas running close to $400 bills a month, in South
>>>Florida, you don't go anywhere without a car and gas is the most
>>>expensive here in Palm Beach and Martin County, maybe because they
>>>think that just because Tiger Woods lives on Jupiter Island, we all
>>>can pay high prices. Last night, just to meet friends for a weekend,
>>>we had to drive to South Broward, that was 70 miles one way,of course
>>>we didn't have to do that. So, I hope that where you live, that a car
>>>is not so important. As I stated, we really only have one car, the
>>>antique has been around for a long time and is used for car shows and
>>>our club hobby, only driven to shows and maybe for a Sunday drive.
>>>So, when you add up my figures for the PT, it was getting close to
>>>$900 a month just to drive the thing! Now with the Caliber, $141 a
>>>month less, and our gas bill has been cut, so far in half. If the PT
>>>Cruiser had that mileage and payment, I would still be driving one.
>>
>>
>>My point was that you are either driving a lot more than you said you
>>are or you had an issue with gas theft as there is no way you could
>>get a PT to use that much gas in so few miles.
>>
>>I agree that mileage on a PT sucks. I drive a '95 Fleetwood for work
>>and regularly get better mileage than my friend gets out of their two
>>PT's. My car weighs twice as much and has an LT1 higher performance
>>350 in it so I just can't figure out what the heck a PT can do with
>>all that gas.
>>
>> Steve B.
>
> Steve,
> We seem to be getting into agreement here on the fact that the gas
> mileage on the PT sucks big time. There was no gas theft, and the
> mileage I stated that we drove was correct. The 180hp turbo Touring
> Edition was supposed to get better than the 150hp standard that I had
> in my 2003, but did not! I drove a 1949 Chrysler with a 135hp
> straight eight and got better mileage! I, and many others on PT
> forums cannot understand how the car will just not get the gas
> mileage. I realize that it is an "emotional" buy and not one for pure
> mileage, but come on! A 2.4 four cylinder that cannot get better than
> 22! Just refilled my Caliber today, got 28.115mpg, now that is
> getting some good mileage! I used and am using Mobil One synthetic
> oil in all my cars, except the 1940, and even used the K & N air
> filter in the PT's because I read that it did increase the mileage by
> a little bit, which it surprisingly did, but not much. I had a 1992
> Lincoln Continental V-6 that would get 30 mpg on the road and 24 in
> town, so something is very wrong here.
>


All I know is that both of our PT's had 5 speed sticks in them and both
ALWAYS get 30 to 31 MPG with mostly highway miles (which is how my wife
uses it for going to work). It doesn't matter if the A/C is on or not.
Even city driving only drops it to the to high 20's. We don't have a
turbo, just the standard 2.4 and 5 speed. I'm seeing something about 15
mpg ??? I don't believe that. Even the 21 mpg sounds wrong, or else
something is wrong with the engine or someone has a lead right foot.
I have an old '94 Plymouth Acclaim that I use for back and forth to work
.. It has the 2.4 and auto and even that thing gets around 28 mpg in
mixed driving.

On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 13:16:56 UTC, "Ron S." >
wrote:

> wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 13:04:49 UTC, Steve B. > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 09:01:11 GMT,
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 20:06:59 UTC, Steve B. > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 13:21:15 GMT,
> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>I agree with all that you say about the safety, the style, the
> >>>>>reliability, etc. The gas mileage was killing us: what with gas here
> >>>>>in South Florida at $3 and sometimes over, it was costing us $400 a
> >>>>>month just to commute 200 miles a week, not counting going to the
> >>>>>store or to eat locally. I am saying that the PT should have been
> >>>>>designed with an engine that gets better mileage to go with its great
> >>>>>looks. I also own a fully restored 1940 Chyrsler Royal coupe with
> >>>>>overdrive,and it can get 21 on the road with a 241.5 c.i. flathead
> >>>>>six. I would have purchased another PT if it would have had a
> >>>>>different engine/transmission combination.
> >>>>
> >>>>200 miles a week
> >>>>x5 weeks in a long month
> >>>>1000 miles
> >>>>add in a couple hundred miles for the store and stuff
> >>>>
> >>>>1200 miles
> >>>>/15mpg if you drive like a maniac
> >>>>80gals gas per month
> >>>>X $3 a gallon
> >>>>$240 for an absolute worst case month with a maniac driver.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>You better buy a locking gas cap!
> >>>>
> >>>> Steve B.
> >>>
> >>>Steve,
> >>>I am not complaining about the PT. However, what you didn't know is:
> >>>$500/month payment on the turbo PT, yea, my wife wanted her first
> >>>"expensive" car, gas running close to $400 bills a month, in South
> >>>Florida, you don't go anywhere without a car and gas is the most
> >>>expensive here in Palm Beach and Martin County, maybe because they
> >>>think that just because Tiger Woods lives on Jupiter Island, we all
> >>>can pay high prices. Last night, just to meet friends for a weekend,
> >>>we had to drive to South Broward, that was 70 miles one way,of course
> >>>we didn't have to do that. So, I hope that where you live, that a car
> >>>is not so important. As I stated, we really only have one car, the
> >>>antique has been around for a long time and is used for car shows and
> >>>our club hobby, only driven to shows and maybe for a Sunday drive.
> >>>So, when you add up my figures for the PT, it was getting close to
> >>>$900 a month just to drive the thing! Now with the Caliber, $141 a
> >>>month less, and our gas bill has been cut, so far in half. If the PT
> >>>Cruiser had that mileage and payment, I would still be driving one.
> >>
> >>
> >>My point was that you are either driving a lot more than you said you
> >>are or you had an issue with gas theft as there is no way you could
> >>get a PT to use that much gas in so few miles.
> >>
> >>I agree that mileage on a PT sucks. I drive a '95 Fleetwood for work
> >>and regularly get better mileage than my friend gets out of their two
> >>PT's. My car weighs twice as much and has an LT1 higher performance
> >>350 in it so I just can't figure out what the heck a PT can do with
> >>all that gas.
> >>
> >> Steve B.
> >
> > Steve,
> > We seem to be getting into agreement here on the fact that the gas
> > mileage on the PT sucks big time. There was no gas theft, and the
> > mileage I stated that we drove was correct. The 180hp turbo Touring
> > Edition was supposed to get better than the 150hp standard that I had
> > in my 2003, but did not! I drove a 1949 Chrysler with a 135hp
> > straight eight and got better mileage! I, and many others on PT
> > forums cannot understand how the car will just not get the gas
> > mileage. I realize that it is an "emotional" buy and not one for pure
> > mileage, but come on! A 2.4 four cylinder that cannot get better than
> > 22! Just refilled my Caliber today, got 28.115mpg, now that is
> > getting some good mileage! I used and am using Mobil One synthetic
> > oil in all my cars, except the 1940, and even used the K & N air
> > filter in the PT's because I read that it did increase the mileage by
> > a little bit, which it surprisingly did, but not much. I had a 1992
> > Lincoln Continental V-6 that would get 30 mpg on the road and 24 in
> > town, so something is very wrong here.
> >
>
>
> All I know is that both of our PT's had 5 speed sticks in them and both
> ALWAYS get 30 to 31 MPG with mostly highway miles (which is how my wife
> uses it for going to work). It doesn't matter if the A/C is on or not.
> Even city driving only drops it to the to high 20's. We don't have a
> turbo, just the standard 2.4 and 5 speed. I'm seeing something about 15
> mpg ??? I don't believe that. Even the 21 mpg sounds wrong, or else
> something is wrong with the engine or someone has a lead right foot.
> I have an old '94 Plymouth Acclaim that I use for back and forth to work
> . It has the 2.4 and auto and even that thing gets around 28 mpg in
> mixed driving.
Ron,
I don't want to get into an emotional discussion here, my two PT's
both had the 4 speed automatics, air, power windows, seats, etc. My
driving habits are the same ones that I use on my 1940 Chrysler Royal
with Fluid Drive, very conservative. I got as low as 17mgp, but could
not get higher than 22, that is not a lie, my wife does not "jack
rabbit" either! As I stated, I went on forum after forum and did what
they suggested, the K & N which upped it to about one mpg, kept the
tach as close to or below 2,000 rpms as humanely possible, etc. One
month ago, we flew into Pensacola and rented a 2007 PT Sedan, with the
usual equipment, non-turbo, the highest we got was 25 on Interstate
10, driving a steady 60mph with the cruise control on. Coming back,
we upped it to 65 with cruise and got 23mpg. That is not acceptable.
As I stated, I love the car's design, the utility, etc. When my 1940,
with 3 speed overdrive can get 20mpg with a 108hp, flathead six, then
I think that Chrysler should use a different engine combination, such
as in the Caliber. I and my family have driven Chrysler cars since
the 40's: 46 Windsor, 47 and 48 Plymouths, 49 Windsor, 49 Plymouth, 51
Dodge, 55 Dodge, two 64 Dodge Darts, 67 Plymouth Fury, 70 Dodge Dart,
86 Dodge Lancer, etc. so I am not a Chrysler basher, far from it. You
stated that you had the five speed manual, well, if that makes the
difference, then that must be it. The only time that I can drive a
manual is when I have to use the clutch once/twice to get the 40 Fluid
Drive into gear, then it stays there. The engine on both PT's were
serviced every three thousand miles with synthetic Mobil 1, the
transmissions were serviced by the Chyrsler dealer, so these cars were
immaculate. If you want to really discuss why these cars do not seem
to get the mileage, then fine, but I can match you mile for mile if
you want to go back 60 years or more. BTW, the Darts, had 225 slant
sixes and got over 30 on the highway, but we are talking 2007 here,
not the old days.

--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"

wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 13:16:56 UTC, "Ron S." >
> wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 13:04:49 UTC, Steve B. > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 09:01:11 GMT,
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 20:06:59 UTC, Steve B. > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 13:21:15 GMT,
m> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I agree with all that you say about the safety, the style, the
>>>>>>>reliability, etc. The gas mileage was killing us: what with gas here
>>>>>>>in South Florida at $3 and sometimes over, it was costing us $400 a
>>>>>>>month just to commute 200 miles a week, not counting going to the
>>>>>>>store or to eat locally. I am saying that the PT should have been
>>>>>>>designed with an engine that gets better mileage to go with its great
>>>>>>>looks. I also own a fully restored 1940 Chyrsler Royal coupe with
>>>>>>>overdrive,and it can get 21 on the road with a 241.5 c.i. flathead
>>>>>>>six. I would have purchased another PT if it would have had a
>>>>>>>different engine/transmission combination.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>200 miles a week
>>>>>>x5 weeks in a long month
>>>>>>1000 miles
>>>>>>add in a couple hundred miles for the store and stuff
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1200 miles
>>>>>>/15mpg if you drive like a maniac
>>>>>>80gals gas per month
>>>>>>X $3 a gallon
>>>>>>$240 for an absolute worst case month with a maniac driver.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You better buy a locking gas cap!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steve B.
>>>>>
>>>>>Steve,
>>>>>I am not complaining about the PT. However, what you didn't know is:
>>>>>$500/month payment on the turbo PT, yea, my wife wanted her first
>>>>>"expensive" car, gas running close to $400 bills a month, in South
>>>>>Florida, you don't go anywhere without a car and gas is the most
>>>>>expensive here in Palm Beach and Martin County, maybe because they
>>>>>think that just because Tiger Woods lives on Jupiter Island, we all
>>>>>can pay high prices. Last night, just to meet friends for a weekend,
>>>>>we had to drive to South Broward, that was 70 miles one way,of course
>>>>>we didn't have to do that. So, I hope that where you live, that a car
>>>>>is not so important. As I stated, we really only have one car, the
>>>>>antique has been around for a long time and is used for car shows and
>>>>>our club hobby, only driven to shows and maybe for a Sunday drive.
>>>>>So, when you add up my figures for the PT, it was getting close to
>>>>>$900 a month just to drive the thing! Now with the Caliber, $141 a
>>>>>month less, and our gas bill has been cut, so far in half. If the PT
>>>>>Cruiser had that mileage and payment, I would still be driving one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>My point was that you are either driving a lot more than you said you
>>>>are or you had an issue with gas theft as there is no way you could
>>>>get a PT to use that much gas in so few miles.
>>>>
>>>>I agree that mileage on a PT sucks. I drive a '95 Fleetwood for work
>>>>and regularly get better mileage than my friend gets out of their two
>>>>PT's. My car weighs twice as much and has an LT1 higher performance
>>>>350 in it so I just can't figure out what the heck a PT can do with
>>>>all that gas.
>>>>
>>>> Steve B.
>>>
>>>Steve,
>>>We seem to be getting into agreement here on the fact that the gas
>>>mileage on the PT sucks big time. There was no gas theft, and the
>>>mileage I stated that we drove was correct. The 180hp turbo Touring
>>>Edition was supposed to get better than the 150hp standard that I had
>>>in my 2003, but did not! I drove a 1949 Chrysler with a 135hp
>>>straight eight and got better mileage! I, and many others on PT
>>>forums cannot understand how the car will just not get the gas
>>>mileage. I realize that it is an "emotional" buy and not one for pure
>>>mileage, but come on! A 2.4 four cylinder that cannot get better than
>>>22! Just refilled my Caliber today, got 28.115mpg, now that is
>>>getting some good mileage! I used and am using Mobil One synthetic
>>>oil in all my cars, except the 1940, and even used the K & N air
>>>filter in the PT's because I read that it did increase the mileage by
>>>a little bit, which it surprisingly did, but not much. I had a 1992
>>>Lincoln Continental V-6 that would get 30 mpg on the road and 24 in
>>>town, so something is very wrong here.
>>>
>>
>>
>>All I know is that both of our PT's had 5 speed sticks in them and both
>>ALWAYS get 30 to 31 MPG with mostly highway miles (which is how my wife
>>uses it for going to work). It doesn't matter if the A/C is on or not.
>>Even city driving only drops it to the to high 20's. We don't have a
>>turbo, just the standard 2.4 and 5 speed. I'm seeing something about 15
>>mpg ??? I don't believe that. Even the 21 mpg sounds wrong, or else
>>something is wrong with the engine or someone has a lead right foot.
>>I have an old '94 Plymouth Acclaim that I use for back and forth to work
>>. It has the 2.4 and auto and even that thing gets around 28 mpg in
>>mixed driving.
>
> Ron,
> I don't want to get into an emotional discussion here, my two PT's
> both had the 4 speed automatics, air, power windows, seats, etc. My
> driving habits are the same ones that I use on my 1940 Chrysler Royal
> with Fluid Drive, very conservative. I got as low as 17mgp, but could
> not get higher than 22, that is not a lie, my wife does not "jack
> rabbit" either! As I stated, I went on forum after forum and did what
> they suggested, the K & N which upped it to about one mpg, kept the
> tach as close to or below 2,000 rpms as humanely possible, etc. One
> month ago, we flew into Pensacola and rented a 2007 PT Sedan, with the
> usual equipment, non-turbo, the highest we got was 25 on Interstate
> 10, driving a steady 60mph with the cruise control on. Coming back,
> we upped it to 65 with cruise and got 23mpg. That is not acceptable.
> As I stated, I love the car's design, the utility, etc. When my 1940,
> with 3 speed overdrive can get 20mpg with a 108hp, flathead six, then
> I think that Chrysler should use a different engine combination, such
> as in the Caliber. I and my family have driven Chrysler cars since
> the 40's: 46 Windsor, 47 and 48 Plymouths, 49 Windsor, 49 Plymouth, 51
> Dodge, 55 Dodge, two 64 Dodge Darts, 67 Plymouth Fury, 70 Dodge Dart,
> 86 Dodge Lancer, etc. so I am not a Chrysler basher, far from it. You
> stated that you had the five speed manual, well, if that makes the
> difference, then that must be it. The only time that I can drive a
> manual is when I have to use the clutch once/twice to get the 40 Fluid
> Drive into gear, then it stays there. The engine on both PT's were
> serviced every three thousand miles with synthetic Mobil 1, the
> transmissions were serviced by the Chyrsler dealer, so these cars were
> immaculate. If you want to really discuss why these cars do not seem
> to get the mileage, then fine, but I can match you mile for mile if
> you want to go back 60 years or more. BTW, the Darts, had 225 slant
> sixes and got over 30 on the highway, but we are talking 2007 here,
> not the old days.
>

I stand by what I said fuel mileage. Just for the hell of it, I went
to the AllPar site (here's the link : www.ptcruizer.com/cruize.html) and
looked at their road test of an '02 PT. Check it out, at the begining of
day 3 he refilled the tank and was getting 30 mpg. Also, there's a
couple guys in our car club (with an '04 and an '06) and they get
slightly less mileage than ours (27-29), but we chalked it up to the
automatic.

I mean think about my '94 Acclaim getting high 20's (2.5 with no o/d).
That Acclaim was not unusual as the public utility co. I work for used
to have a whole fleet of those Acclaims and Spirits with the 2.5 and 3
speed automatic and they all got that kind of mileage. Those cars were
15 year old tech with no o/d's and throttle body fuel injection. I would
expect new 4 banger tech with o/d's to at least deliver fuel mileage to
match.

BTW, I'm 56 and have had ChryCo products since the 60's, even before
Uncle Sam gave me a free all expense paid trip to Southeast Asia. After
I got out I used my mustering out pay and bought a new '71 Road Runner
(which still sits in my garage today along with a '69 GTX and a '71
Demon 340). I've owned so many hi-performance MoPars I have literally
lost count. I've always turned my own wrenches on them and have rebuilt
a half dozen big blocks and a couple small blocks in the past 20 years,
along with T-flites, 833's, and 8 3/4 rear ends. I know real well what
ChryCo cars and trucks are capable of. For example I remember a '66
Belvedere I had with a 383 4 bbl and 833 4 speed and 3.23 rear end that
would get nearly 20 mpg all day long on the Thruway (as long as I kept
my foot out of the secondaries). My buddies were running around in big
block Chevies and they never would believe me regarding my gas mileage.