Re: New PT cruiser

#11

I think the insurance company will total our 2006 PT Cruiser after it
was rear ended last week.
I'm wondering if I should replace it with a 2010 PT Cruiser or the Dodge
Journey.
The Journey doesn't have the same personality of the Cruiser but may do
a better job carrying "stuff"
and pulling out on the interstates with a V6 engine.
AWD might be a better choice for coping with winter in New York.
Negatives I've read about the Journey are mushy handling and feeling
like it will roll over.

Any one here know more about the Dodge Journey or can compare one to the
PT Cruiser?

Steve

#12

Steve Stone wrote:

Quote:

It's been living on borrowed time for the last several years. I think
the Caliber (which I believe has CVT) was supposed to replace it but
people kept buying the PT.

In 2006 the sales droids at one dealer were pushing me to buy the
Caliber instead of a PT Cruiser.
Their reasoning was a college kid wouldn't be caught dead in an stodgy
PT Cruiser, and look at all the extra
cup holders, the built in AC inverter, the drop down rear tailgate
speakers, the glove box that doubled as a cooler!

I stuck with the Cruiser because it seemed to be better able to handle
the load of "stuff" my daughter stuffed into her college dorm, and she
liked the slightly higher seating position.
Our 2007 Caliber sits as high as our 2003 and 2005 PT Cruisers. I

agree, I like the body style of the PT, it is like my 1941 Windsor!

#13

Brian Priebe wrote:

Quote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:52:39 -0400, Steve Stone <n2ubp (AT) hotmail (DOT) com
wrote:

I stuck with the Cruiser because it seemed to be better able to handle
the load of "stuff" my daughter stuffed into her college dorm, and she
liked the slightly higher seating position.

I've had occasion to rent both the PT and the Caliber over the years
as the PAC was in the shop. The early Caliber CVT you couldn't pay me
to own. Floor it and it took eons to rev the engine. I've heard it's
improved a lot since. But the PT was peppy even without the turbo,
comfortable, as as you note has relatively cavernous cargo area. But
gas mileage has always sucked.

Now what they really need is that Nissan 2.5L with their CVT that I
drove in an Altima over the weekend. Miserly on gas (32MPG EPA on the
highway) and when "required" embarrasses just about anything else on
4 wheels that isn't a sports sedan. Nissan could learn a great deal
from Chrysler about how to set up suspensions though. (And the tires
were garbage.)
My wife says that her 2007 Caliber with the CVT has a lot of pickup,

more than the base 2003 sedan and as much as her former 2005 Turbo PT
Convertible. You are right about the lousy mileage. The Nissan Murano
has the CVT as well as the Caliber. Chryslers have always handled
better, going back to the torsion bar days. Hell, my 1941 Windsor as a
front and a rear anti-roll bar, all standard from the factory, it is all
original, 23K miles! The Fluid Drive does move off slowly, but who
cares, gives me more time to smell the old car interior!

#14

Steve Stone wrote:

Quote:

I think the insurance company will total our 2006 PT Cruiser after it
was rear ended last week.
I'm wondering if I should replace it with a 2010 PT Cruiser or the Dodge
Journey.
The Journey doesn't have the same personality of the Cruiser but may do
a better job carrying "stuff"
and pulling out on the interstates with a V6 engine.
AWD might be a better choice for coping with winter in New York.
Negatives I've read about the Journey are mushy handling and feeling
like it will roll over.

Any one here know more about the Dodge Journey or can compare one to the
PT Cruiser?

Steve
The Journey is nice, we were thinking about trading in our Caliber for

the new one. However, after looking at the payments, we decided to
stick with the Caliber for a while longer. The Journey rode very
smoothly and had good pickup.

#15

In article <hbmukq$k1n$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>,
Steve Stone <n2ubp (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

I think the insurance company will total our 2006 PT Cruiser after it
was rear ended last week.
I'm wondering if I should replace it with a 2010 PT Cruiser or the Dodge
Journey.
The Journey doesn't have the same personality of the Cruiser but may do
a better job carrying "stuff"
and pulling out on the interstates with a V6 engine.
AWD might be a better choice for coping with winter in New York.
Negatives I've read about the Journey are mushy handling and feeling
like it will roll over.

Any one here know more about the Dodge Journey or can compare one to the
PT Cruiser?

Steve

The Journey is a very good value vehicle.
I'm 5'-11" and I found it a bit high for easy entry.
IMO the Journey is actually a small van. Not surprising Chrysler dropped
their short Van when the Journey came out.

#16

In article <6g3kd5943u0s6cqa9v04shu47u2po8f8e8 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
Ashton Crusher <demi (AT) moore (DOT) net> wrote:

Quote:

Looks like I can figure on 22 mpg for my mostly commuting use. If it
was all city it looks like it would be closer to 19. All highway
perhaps 25 on a long trip. Pretty close to what the EPA estimates
are.

The urban/city mileage is reasonable.
That 25 mpg highway mileage is poor.
My 300M (3.5LV6, 250HP) gets a consistent 28 mpg (US gal) on the highway
at 60 to 70 mph on regular fuel. I'm quoting actual measured fuel &
distance for a long trip, although the digital mpg read out shows about
the same.

It's likely the the poor body side streamlining that causes the low
highway fuel mileage. The VW New Beetle has the same problem.

#17

Brian Priebe wrote:

Quote:

Now what they really need is that Nissan 2.5L with their CVT that I
drove in an Altima over the weekend. Miserly on gas (32MPG EPA on the
highway) and when "required" embarrasses just about anything else on
4 wheels that isn't a sports sedan. Nissan could learn a great deal
from Chrysler about how to set up suspensions though. (And the tires
were garbage.)

The World Engine is already as good or better than the Nissan 2.5, and
the CVT in the Caliber/Patriot is the same one (JATCO) as Nissan uses.
All they need to do is put Iit in the PT Cruiser in place of the 1995
tech (and very good for 1995) 2.4/41TE.

I haven't had an Altima rental yet, but I've had a Sentra and was very
impressed with the Jatco CVT. The engine (a 1.6 or 1.8 IIRC) was only
decent- not amazing- but it did have VVT and combined with the CVT it
always managed to be pretty much able to deliver optimum torque. The
only time it suckered me was when I used about 60% of the accelerator
pedal merging onto an interstate, and then went for the remaining 40% to
keep a safe distance ahead of an approaching truck.... and it had
NOTHING left to give. That's part of how the drivetrain controllers in
VVT/CVT cars work- the percentage of the total available power they're
giving doesn't always correspond to your right-foot position, which
makes them seem peppier than they should in casual driving and you only
discover what's going on when you ask for the rest of the power that
isn't really there.

#18

Some O wrote:

Quote:

In article <hbmukq$k1n$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>,
Steve Stone <n2ubp (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Any one here know more about the Dodge Journey or can compare one to the
PT Cruiser?

Steve

The Journey is a very good value vehicle.
I'm 5'-11" and I found it a bit high for easy entry.
IMO the Journey is actually a small van. Not surprising Chrysler dropped
their short Van when the Journey came out.

IMO, Dodge should be advertising the bloody HELL out of the Journey. Its
a very un-recognized, under-the-radar vehicle and a real little gem that
nobody seems to know about. A real bright spot in the pretty dismal
lineup at the moment.

#19

Some O wrote:

Quote:

It's likely the the poor body side streamlining that causes the low
highway fuel mileage. The VW New Beetle has the same problem.

Actually I think its more to do with the length-to-girth ratio (aka
"fineness" ratio). For a given cross section, there's a fairly large
range of lengths where drag coefficient goes *down* or stays the same as
you increase length, then goes up again because of "wetted area" drag
(surface area). I suspect this is exactly the same reason Smart car
highway fuel efficiency is so much worse than it should be for its
weight and engine.

Also the 41TE transmission is a power soak, and its software is tailored
to the EPA tests more than to the real world. Always has been, although
it's much better than when it first came out. That's why the manual PTs
got SO much better mileage in the real world, even though they were
only EPA rated at a couple more MPG.

#20

In article <W4KdnSInCqXOFH3XnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d (AT) texas (DOT) net>,
Steve <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote:

Quote:

I haven't had an Altima rental yet, but I've had a Sentra and was very
impressed with the Jatco CVT. The engine (a 1.6 or 1.8 IIRC) was only
decent- not amazing- but it did have VVT and combined with the CVT it
always managed to be pretty much able to deliver optimum torque. The
only time it suckered me was when I used about 60% of the accelerator
pedal merging onto an interstate, and then went for the remaining 40% to
keep a safe distance ahead of an approaching truck.... and it had
NOTHING left to give. That's part of how the drivetrain controllers in
VVT/CVT cars work- the percentage of the total available power they're
giving doesn't always correspond to your right-foot position, which
makes them seem peppier than they should in casual driving and you only
discover what's going on when you ask for the rest of the power that
isn't really there.
That lack of higher end power has a lot to do with the engine setup as

well.
Comparing my '95 Concorde 3.3L and my 300M 3.5L, there isn't much
difference below 40mph, but above that speed is where the 300M's higher
RPM torque really shows up. No comparison then, the 300M just keeps on
accelerating strongly to the max speeds I want to go. The transmission
is the same and the RPMs in each gear are very similar.
You would need to try the Altima to get a more realistic comparison, the
Sentra is more of an urban car.