Re: New PT cruiser

#1

rob wrote:

Quote:

ok i wondered, since i have heard the mileage on these could be better.
best mileage ratings from the guv-ment seems to be on the stick cars.....

My daughter can get a solid 25.5 mpg highway out of our 2006 PT Cruiser

#2

What engine size do you (and Ashton Crusher) have?

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Steve Stone" <n2ubp (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

rob wrote:
ok i wondered, since i have heard the mileage on these could be better.
best mileage ratings from the guv-ment seems to be on the stick cars.....

My daughter can get a solid 25.5 mpg highway out of our 2006 PT Cruiser

#3

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:

Quote:

What engine size do you (and Ashton Crusher) have?

My daughter can get a solid 25.5 mpg highway out of our 2006 PT Cruiser

The base, no frills, non turbo model for that year.

#4

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:36:16 +0100, "Dori A Schmetterling"
<nobody (AT) spam (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

What engine size do you (and Ashton Crusher) have?

It's teh base 2.4 liter.

Quote:

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Steve Stone" <n2ubp (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:hbddth$oqb$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org...
rob wrote:
ok i wondered, since i have heard the mileage on these could be better.
best mileage ratings from the guv-ment seems to be on the stick cars.....

My daughter can get a solid 25.5 mpg highway out of our 2006 PT Cruiser

#5

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:34:56 -0700, 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.

That's frankly awful when a 3.5L AWD Pacifica weighing 4,675lb before
I sit in the driver's seat gets 21MPG (US) on the highway in real
world driving. And that's with nearly 110,000miles on the odometer.

#6

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 01:21:05 -0400, Brian Priebe <'> wrote:

Quote:

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:34:56 -0700, Ashton Crusher <demi (AT) moore (DOT) net
wrote:

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.

That's frankly awful when a 3.5L AWD Pacifica weighing 4,675lb before
I sit in the driver's seat gets 21MPG (US) on the highway in real
world driving. And that's with nearly 110,000miles on the odometer.

I agree with you. It's offset by the low price, they almost give them
away. My Crown Vic gets 25 mpg on highway trips. My Mustang GT often
gets 20 for my commute if I baby it, otherwise 18. The saving grace
of the PT is that in town it looks like I can count on between 18 and
21 depending on how heavy traffic is. I got 21 tonight on a 15 mile
in town trip with light traffic.

#7

Ashton Crusher wrote:

Quote:

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 01:21:05 -0400, Brian Priebe <'> wrote:

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:34:56 -0700, Ashton Crusher <demi (AT) moore (DOT) net
wrote:

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.
That's frankly awful when a 3.5L AWD Pacifica weighing 4,675lb before
I sit in the driver's seat gets 21MPG (US) on the highway in real
world driving. And that's with nearly 110,000miles on the odometer.

I agree with you. It's offset by the low price, they almost give them
away. My Crown Vic gets 25 mpg on highway trips. My Mustang GT often
gets 20 for my commute if I baby it, otherwise 18. The saving grace
of the PT is that in town it looks like I can count on between 18 and
21 depending on how heavy traffic is. I got 21 tonight on a 15 mile
in town trip with light traffic.
That car really needs the CVT transmission! Wonder why they didn't do

it two years ago!

#8

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.

#9

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

Quote:

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.)

#10

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:44:01 -0400, 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.)

I read a lot of complaints about the CVT like you mentioned. I was
originally going to buy a Patriot instead of the PT but there were
none left. Anyway, I rented a Patriot to see how I liked them and the
2009 models seemed to have had the CVT problems ironed out IMHO. It
worked very well and I would love to have the Patriot
engine/transmission setup in the PT. But the transmission in the PT
shifts very nicely. For FWD the PT feels pretty good, I generally
hate FWD vehicles because of how they "feel".