You are here: Forums Wagons Chrysler PT Cruiser Chrysler PT Cruiser (2005 and earlier) 

Chrysler PT Cruiser (2005 and earlier) - READ ONLY

879 messages,  Last post on Oct 14, 2006 at 9:08 AM

You are in the Chrysler PT Cruiser Forum. Your Host is kcram

What is this discussion about? Chrysler PT Cruiser, Wagon

Messages Page 82 of 88 1 ... 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 ... 88 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#810 of 879 comments on post 809 by fndlyfmrflyr Jun 03, 2004 (10:39 am)
Most PTs are very reliable and most people have few, if any, problems with them. Every manufacturer produces cars that are problem prone (lemons), especially during the first model year of a car.   I've never had a car that met the EPA mpg numbers. These numbers are good to show how one car compares to another, but not for real world mpg. Certainly agree that Cruisers are not mpg champs, they are heavy for their size and don't get economy car mpg, but they they aren't worse compared to the EPA numbers than other brands.   Referring to post 809, I have a Toyota and a Honda along with my Cruiser. All three cars average about what the EPA 'city' mpg number is and all three usually get a couple of mpg less than the EPA highway mpg number when on extended freeway driving.   My Cruiser was assembled better than the Toyota (Avalon) and the Honda (Acura MDX) with no rattles and no reason to go back to the dealer for repairs. By comparison, both the Toyota and the Honda rattled and both needed a few visits to the dealer to fix assembly problems. The transmission on the Avalon needed repair at 30K miles and the brakes gave problems. Windows stick shut too. My Honda product, the MDX, still rattles, has had engine and transmission recalls, has rear brake problems, and a third row seat that won't stay flat when stowed. Honda is in the midst of a big transmission problem, with nearly 2 million cars involved during the last five model years. Toyota had problems a couple of years ago with oil gelling in some of their engines (so did Mercedes).   The point is that no manufacturer is immune to problem cars, and that a bad experience with one particular car doesn't mean all, or even a majority, of that make and model are bad.   I do agree with post 809 that both Honda and Toyota sell cars that give better mpg than a Cruiser. With today's high gasoline prices it is understandable that mpg receives a higher priority than it did a few years ago. A couple of years ago I didn't care much about mpg. Utility, comfort, performance, and fun to drive were more important. Our PT GT blew the doors off all of the Hondas and Toyotas we looked at. Today, mpg would be number one on my list and a Cruiser, unless the Euro Turbo Diesel becomes available here, would not be on the list.
#811 of 879 thanks fndlyfmrflyr by norrmanndo Jun 04, 2004 (6:32 am)
I'm not a die hard fan of any vehicle make and have driven Toyota (2), Honda (1), Subaru (1), Mazda (2), Pontiac/GMC (1), and Chrysler (2) in the last 20 years. Of the 90s or later models my Toyota Corolla probably needed the most repairs (the alignment went out every 6 months), but in general they weren't as expensive as the Mazda 626 repairs. My two 80s vehicles (Subaru and Chrysler) were terrible and I think they have both improved their reliability since then. I don't buy Toyotas anymore because I think they are over priced. My father-in-laws Avalon has a lot of interior stuff falling apart, but it's quiet and smooth. My old Corolla was always rattling. My 2003 PT GT still has low miles so it's not a good comparison yet (no problems so far). I want to thank fndlyfmrflyr when he posted that the mileage will improve after the engine is broken in. The first time I looked at my mileage it was 15 mpg city. This includes a lot of idling in bumper to bumper traffic and a heavy foot. I was bothered, but the next time I got 19 mpg city which is close to the EPA estimate (21 city). Given the traffic patterns where I live, I don't expect to do any better. I always try to get manual transmission and know how to use it, so sometimes I have beaten EPA estimates (in my old Corolla). For example, I always coast towards a red light, and if I have the air conditioner on, I always shift down to slow down (make the alternator put out more power even if no extra fuel is going in). I also give myself a little more stopping distance than most drivers so I'm not always slamming on my brakes.
#812 of 879 More on gas mileage by crkeehn Jun 05, 2004 (12:12 pm)
I have been pleasantly surprised, that my 2002 5 speed is the first car I have ever owned that not only will match, but has exceeded the EPA mileage estimates. In 2002, the car was rated 21 mpg city/29 mpg highway. On a trip last summer to NC, the car averaged 30 mpg, recently on a shorter trip which involved some urban driving along with the highway driving, I was averaging 28-29 mpg. For a heavy car with the frontal area of a brick I can't complain.
#813 of 879 crkeehn by fndlyfmrflyr Jun 05, 2004 (10:07 pm)
At least it is a curved brick.   I wonder if the different gasoline formulas make much of difference in mpg. Around here we have oxygenated gasoline.
#814 of 879 Oxygenated Gasoline by crkeehn Jun 06, 2004 (2:44 am)
We have had Oxygenated gas in this area for a number of years. The Baltington (Baltimore/Washington) area has been cited for poor air quality forever. We just blame it on the tourists passing through
#815 of 879 Wheels by jvk104 Jun 09, 2004 (5:56 am)
Has anybody replace wheels on their car
#816 of 879 MPG IMPROVEMENTS by frenchcar Jun 21, 2004 (8:45 pm)
Have any of you figured out a way to improve the gas mileage on your Cruiser??
#817 of 879 how to improve mpg by fndlyfmrflyr Jun 21, 2004 (11:37 pm)
Coast. Kidding aside, Cruisers are somewhat heavy for their size. This hurts stop and go mpg. The retro style results in a lot of air drag at speed, also hurting economy.   The Euro turbo diesel does a lot better in the economy end than the gasoline engine models we have here.   The EPA numbers aren't that much worse than a lot of other cars one thinks of as being fuel efficient. I can report, based on our GT, that mpg does increase over time - at least for the first 15,000 miles. Still not great, but close to the EPA numbers.   Notes: Some tires roll easier than others = better mpg. A dirty engine air filter hurts mpg. Low tire pressures hurt mpg. PTs don't come with platinum spark plugs so PTs require a plug change every 25K miles or so to maintain peak mpg. Driving with the windows open at freeway speeds uses more fuel than using the A/C (air drag). Don't carry extra stuff in the car. Added weight costs mpg. Use the correct gasoline. In cars that require or suggest premium (like my PT GT) using lower octane gasoline results in lower mpg - In my test on one of my cars the result using regular instead of premium was not only a loss in mpg, but a higher per mile fuel cost.
#818 of 879 PAINT & MPG by msu1 Jun 30, 2004 (1:58 pm)
My 2001 blue PT has a lot of chipping on the front. The MPG is OK,24mpg overall. I had a ford T-bird that got 30 mpg on the highway. I did have some of my sensor replaced under warranty. but the yellow engine still comes on when the fuel tank gets below a 1/3 tank. MSU
#819 of 879 I have by boaz47 Jul 04, 2004 (9:47 pm)
been getting 24 MPG average just about from the beginning but I have a manual. The Cold air intake and improved exhaust hasn't hurt or helped much in fuel mileage I don't think but just putting the cold air on my friends automatic has saved her 1 to 2 MPG over the last few months.   For the manual you have to stay under 3000 rpm when you shift to get good mileage. Shifting at 4000 just eats more gas even if it does make a cat back sound pretty good.   Paint chips are a fact of life for a car with a wide flat hood with a lip. I keep a bottle of touch up and some rubbing compound and have been able to fight them off for almost two years now. If all else fails try a good quality bra. I would take it off when going to club meets but for daily driving they work pretty well.   About the post on head room? I have never met anyone that said the PT was short of head room. I can't remember any other car in its class having much more. Maybe in inch or two but I am not sure. All I know is that I have had several people over six feet tall tell me it has plenty of room.

Messages Page 82 of 88 1 ... 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 ... 88 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Wagons Chrysler PT Cruiser Chrysler PT Cruiser (2005 and earlier)