Different but I think if I wasn't satisfied with the way my PT cornered I would rather have an after market sway bar and strut support anyway. If the mounts are still there all the better. I agree that it isn't cool to list something that isn't there or at least they should explain that it is no longer necessary.
The threaded holes for the upper part of the links are there, the retainer (the part that holds the bar to the rear axle) bolt holes are there, and there is a notch for the lower part of the retainer on both sides. Doesn't take long to install.
In the case of the factory rear bar, which was installed yesterday, I found it isn't so much the way the car corners with the rear bar (much flatter) compared to without, but the overall tied to the road feeling, even on bends in the road and freeway lanes changes. The change is dramatic enough that it was noticed immediately when I made the turn out of the dealer's driveway into traffic.
Just because one dealer doesn't warranty the rear bar doesn't mean others don't also. Before "buying" a bar a check of other dealers may be the thing to do.
Have you tried installing a strut brace and if so do you think it is worth the extra effort? So far I have a K&N cold air and a Dynomax exhaust system. Car pulls a bit stronger and has a nice little bellow when get on it a bit. I live in the mountains so I have a nice winding drive every day. I am not looking for a road racer but I do like it to corner well.
Had the rear sway bar installed by the dealer yesterday. I have to say that it does make a positive difference in the way the car handles. While a very good handler before, it feels "glued" to the road with the rear sway bar. I can take sweepers 10 MPH faster than before with no "lean" whatsoever.
I don't know what Chrysler was trying to do in introducing the alleged "sway bar in the axle" story, but I would have to guess it was a cost cutting move.
Long story short, dealer treated me right and gave me a loaner (a new Jeep Grand Cherokee that the general manager uses, no less) while they did the install. The car handles better. So much for the theory that the handling would be somehow negatively affected by the rear sway bar installation. It was a warranty issue so Chrysler had to pay for it afterall.
Bar. When I look at the after market sway bars they seem a bit thicker to me. I would think they would make the car even stiffer in a turn. I just wonder if they might not make it corner too harsh. We had a little coupe not too long ago that my son talked me into lowering and adding a heavy duty sway bar and performance springs. On a smooth freeway the car was fine and it cornered like a slot car. But I could feel every bump in every corner.
I'm drawing closer to a decision in my search for a car that combines style, utility, and reliability, and I think that I have narrowed my choice down to 2 options: the PT Cruiser and the Protege5. I am a 30 year old teacher who drives minimal miles (8k per year) and plans to buy this next vehicle with the hope of keeping it for 7-10 years. So, my question to the forum is why should I choose the PT over the P5? Thanks in advance for your responses.
Ride: A sway bar will stiffen a ride over "one wheel" bumps. The addition of the factory rear bar on the PT doesn't seem to change the ride much at all. The thicker the bar the more roll stiffness and if one gets too thick handling "balance" can be changed in a negative way.
Suggest if you go with a thick bar in back you might want to consider a thicker front bar too - for balanced handling.
PT vs. P5: The PT rides better and for me is much easier to enter and exit. The P5 will probably do better on mpg, but you don't drive much. Both are assembled well. If you carry people in the back seat the PT is better. In short, the PT feels and is bigger inside, and rides better. The P5 rides hard by comparison, but feels a bit more sporty when cornering. You will probably be happy with either one.
Room. The simple answer and after market support the second. I crossed shopped the PT, Matrix, Suzuki, Focus, and Subaru Impreza. Even JD powers and CR, have praised the PT for utility and dependability. The P-5 is more sports sedan like and doesn't have the seating position so many seem to be looking for. everyone that has taken a ride in my PT comments that the seats are easy to get in and out of. They are more like sitting in a chair than the average on the floor seats in so many cars today. The P-5 is far more traditional small Japanese car in that respect. The P-5 is a fine car it is just not in the same class as a PT or even a matrix/Vibe. I think the Focus wagon might even have a bit more room, not sure. If you need a wagon for utility the PT is a better choise. If you only need a sedan with a bit more room than a traditional 4 door, the P-5 might be your ticket.
I noticed in your posts that your previous vehicle was a 300M. The lease on my 2000 300M is expiring in February, and the PT Turbo is top on the list of replacement vehicles. I have not had a chance to drive a Turbo yet, but took a regular cruiser out for a spin during the summer.
How did you find the transition from 300M to PT Turbo. I know the Turbo isn't a 300M, but some of your comments imply it is actually faster and handles better than the 300M.
What is the biggest difference between the two cars, what do you miss the most about the 300M, and what is the best improvement the Turbo gives you over the 300M?
(I've also posted this in the new PT Cruiser Problems and Solutions area) Hi all...I have a 2002 Limited Edition 5 spd in Steel Blue for about six weeks now. Great car! I am starting to notice a curious situation after filling the gas tank. Sometimes, within 20 miles of filling the tank, the gas gauge shows 3/4 tank, and other times, it takes 60 miles to get to 3/4. All with the same type of driving, and I usually get gas at the same station. This is not a comment about MPG, rather about getting a full tank when I get gas. It seems that it is hard to get a full tank. Has anyone else experienced this? The next time I refuel, I plan to keep clicking on the handle (topping off) several times to see how much more gas I can get in the tank. Has anyone else experienced this? Also, I recently parked overnight on a slight up hill, with the gas gauge indicating 1/4 tank when I shut it off. When I started up in the morning, the low fuel light came on instantly, and the gas gauge showed in the red zone, less than 1/8 tank. After driving on a level road for several miles, the gauge was back at 1/4 tank, but low fuel light stayed on. OK, the incline caused the gauge to read low, I figure...no problem. I shut off the car, parked on level ground, and later in the day, the gauge was still at 1/4, and low fuel light stayed on. Doesn't the light reset with the ignition if it is now above the trigger point? Thanks for any input.
jbollt: Mine is hard to fill completely too. Maybe half to three quarters of a gallon less than full, though filling is possible if extra time is taken. Not worth the extra time to me. The extra fuel would only add 8 to 12 miles, on average, to the cars's fuel range.
Light did that once on me. It didn't go off till I fueled the car. But then it was low just not as low as I thought. Once it hits that red line it seems to need at least a few gallons to get the light off. It did mine anyway.
That's the way the guage works, If you park on an incline, you will get a false reading as the guage is registering high or low. It takes a couple of minutes of driving before the guage will register an accurate reading. My wife and I fight over a one car carport. If she gets in first, her car gives an accurate reading, mine,which is on a small incline, reads a gallon or so low. Generally she beats me in.
Actually, I still own the 300M, but my wife drives it now. 300M has been a great car. It's closing in on 85,000 miles with no trips to the dealer other than maintenance items. It's on its 2nd set of tires, one tune-up, 3,000 mile oil changes, filter changes, tire rotations....that's it. Still is rattle free.
PT GT and the 300M are really two very different cars.
At first, it took me about a week to get used to the window switches being on the dash as opposed to the door (as on the 300M). It took me a couple of days to get used to adjusting the heat/AC myself (as the 300M did this for me). The thing I miss the most, believe it or not, was not having the mirrors adjust themselves when in reverse as the 300M does. I wish that they would have put the audio controls on the back of the steering wheel as they do on the 300M. All this is very minor and I don't even miss all those things now.
While the 300M is quick, the PT GT is flat out fast. I'm still amazed at how well Chrysler engineered the performance of the PT GT's turbo motor. The turbo spools up immediately. Torque is available from any speed to any speed. It feels like it just wants to keep pulling and pulling no matter what speed you're going or where you are in the rev range.
The 300M is quieter, but the PT GT has that "snarl" that seems to be in character of the car. There's more "wind noise", but the PT isn't a "wind tunnel" design so I didn't expect it to be as quiet as the 300M. I haven't found the PT to be objectionably loud, though. I like the sounds it makes.
The PT GT seems to feel made from a solid block of metal. This could be because it's only got 2,000 miles on it as opposed to the 85,000 I have on the 300M. Still, the solidity is impressive.
I find the sport seats in the PT GT to be more comfortable than the ones in the 300M, strange as that seems.
Handling is as good as some of the "high buck" sport sedans and would embarras some so called sports cars. Ride isn't as compliant as the 300M, but it's not uncomfortable at all.
Stereo will give the 300M's a challenge. It's better than any standard stereo I've heard in any "Camcord", Ford or GM product. My dealer says that the PT GTs speakers are made by Infinity (like in the 300M). The biggest difference is that the 300M's stereo has more power. I've not found the need to have more power available for the stereo. Of course, I don't play "hip hop" in either car, however.
The guages are vastly different in the PT GT vs the 300M. I really like the "big" guages in the 300M with the electroluminescent lighting. Guages in the PT are smaller, but the lighting has it's own "coolness" factor. During the day, the guages have a light silver background with black numerals. At night (and any time the lights are turned on), the background turns black with green luminated numerals.
Ergonomics in both cars are top notch (only exception being getting used to the window switches). Materials used in the 300M are better, but I'm also impressed with the materials in the PT given the price point.
I can certainly haul a boatload more in the PT than in the 300M. The reconfiguration of the seats and the room you get by doing so, is great. I actually was looking at SUVs and trucks before deciding the PT gave me all the hauling room I needed. I've hauled a 36" TV (in the box) in the back of the PT with all the doors closed.
I just filled up the tank last night. While I was getting exactly what the sticker said for MPG from day one, the last tankful yielded 25 MPG in a 50/50 mix of highway/town driving. And I "stick my foot in it" quite a bit. I'm very pleased. Of course, some of that is offset by the fact that the 300M takes mid-grade gas while the PT GT takes premium.
Reporter for a major business daily seeks drivers of the PT Cruiser ASAP, to share your experiences with the car and possibly mention your name in the weekly auto feature that I write. Please email me at lori_f@eudoramail.com
Sounds like your 300M is newer than mine. The reversing mirrors and steering wheel audio controls were not out when I bought mine. From your experience it sounds like the drop in HP from 253 to 215 will not be an issue.
How do you find the visibility in the Cruiser when parking? That is the one major complaint I have against the 300M. You can never tell when you are about to back into something. I'm told that I usually rob myself of about 2 feet of room when trying to parallel park because I stop backing up once I can't see the car behind me anymore. Is the configuration of the back window on the Cruiser such that you can see what is behind you while backing up, or is it the same as the 300 and leaves you guessing?
If manual heater controls are the biggest downgrade I will have to get used to, then I think I can live with it.
Truth is, I used to be a BMW fanatic. Over the last 5-6 years, their prices have risen to the point that I no longer would consider them. To invest $40K for a 330i opens up a whole lot of competive cars that can do the same thing for less money.
My wife had always owned Toyotas and Hondas. In recent years, I've noticed that American branded cars have caught up in quality and reliability...to the point that, in some cases, surpassed the Toyotas and Hondas.
I inherited the 300M. Never thought I'd like it considering it was a Chrysler. Now, I think that Chyrsler is one of the most exciting car manufacturers out there. That's obvious by what's sitting in my garage.
I was amazed how cramped the 3 series BMWs are. One of my coworkers is a diehard BMW owner and I have had to ride in her cars a few times. For a 6+ foot person, headroom and kneeroom were virtually nonexistant.
That's what I love of the PT. The interior space is certainly more than ample for my family, allowing me more than enough headroom and legroom without robbing from the backseat where my sons have to sit.
For what it's worth I've owned a 2000 300M for two years until trading it in on a different car. After my experience with the 300M I'd pretty much sworn off ever buying a Chrysler again (the car was nicknamed "rattle trap" due to the numerous creaks and squeaks that were present from day one). My wife had always wanted the PT Cruiser and it seemed like a practical car that would fit our needs; with that in mind I decided to throw away my anti-Chrysler bias and go ahead with the PT Cruiser purchase. We bought the Touring edition (no turbo) and to date have been VERY happy with the PT. As far as I'm concerned I'd rather be driving the PT Cruiser than my previous 300M. Fit and finish seem to be good on the PT and I feel that I got my money's worth where with the 300M I always felt that I was driving a $30K Neon. As for parking rear visibility in either car is poor but the PT's wheelbase is much shorter making it easier to park.
If the first few weeks of ownership are any indication I might change my negative view of Chrysler thanks to the 'PT'. So far the Cruiser seems like a solid, well-built, fun to drive car! I would recommend it over the 300M any day.
As for BMW's I looked at them for a 300M replacement but I just couldn't bring myself to buy one. In my opinion the styling was boring and they are overpriced. In the end it came down to the Jaguar X type vs. the Cadillac CTS. I went with the CTS and have been very happy with my purchase decision. Like it was said...there are many other good cars in the $30K price range that are competing with the BMW.
The BMWs are fine cars...overpriced, but still fine cars. Service is costly, too.
Automole...can you give me a brief "likes-dislikes" of the CTS? My wife will be selling her 300M in about a year (we set a limit of 100,000 miles for our cars). I find the CTS intriguing.
Another point I looked at when I got my PT. Having had a Saturn before I got the PT I was worried that I would have to put up with traditional service departments again. It seems as if you have to have a Lexus, Saturn or Cadillac to get good service today. That is if all the surveys are correct. But I decided that because I could easily do all the servicing up to 30,000 miles myself this would not be a problem. Once I got the filter wrench that fits on the end of my socket wrench to get the original filter off, must have been put on by a weight lifter, I have changed the filters and oil myself. I wanted to use synthetic even if it was more expensive. I must say that the servicing I do get at the dealer is pretty good even if a bit slow.
I don't want to get too off-topic talking about the CTS but briefly:
Likes: I LOVE the exterior/interior styling...I wouldn't change a thing. The handling is incredible and I like the brake feel...both were a huge improvement over the 300M. Fit and finish also seems to be good although I've experienced an occasional slight rattle from the dash area and drivers door, neither of which have been bad enough to warrant a trip to the dealer. The car feels and drives solid and I can't believe the number of approving 'looks' I get. The stock stereo is decent and the programmable steering wheel controls and onstar phone service is cool. The transmission is incredible for an automatic...when in 'sport' mode it feels like you're driving a stick, compression braking and all! It doesn't have 'autostick' but I found that feature useless anyway on the 300 since it wouldn't let you hold a gear at redline and forced a shift regardless of if you were in autostick mode. The CTS also has better rear legroom (important if you install a babyseat like I do) than most of the other competing cars in its class.
Dislikes: The seats could use more lumbar support and the leather seems to stretch a bit too easily in the butt region considering I'm 6'1'' and only weigh 150lbs. The engine could use more power and tends to idle a little rough at times when cold (this should be fixed next year with the introduction of a better V6). Although you get quite a lot for your money compared to BMW there are some features (dual power seats, homelink transmitter, compass, fold-down rear seat, multi disc CD changer, 17" wheels, heated seats) that I feel should have been included as standard equipment on the base model.
The fact is...I love driving BOTH the CTS and the PT cruiser for entirely different reasons. The PT is a cool retro ride with comfy seats and good versatillity for hauling stuff. The CTS is a fun futuristic coupe with sporty handling characteristics and a feeling of quality. Both fit my needs because I can fit a baby seat and two adults in the back with room to spare and neither looks like ANYTHING else on the road.
I average 24 city and highway. I drive mountain roads and average about 50 miles a day. If I get on the freeway I get 25 to 27 mpg. Haven't had any long trips to see if I can do better than that or not.
Yeah I test drove the 03 Corolla (LE) and the new Saturn Ion. To me the Cruiser beat them hands down!!
If my plans to purchase a PT Cruiser somehow fall through, then I'll try for a Corolla. My main issue with the Corolla was the seating. While it was sitting high, my knee kept hitting the center console of the dashboard (if that makes sense).
The Cruiser is so much more roomier. Hey if you're in the Philly, PA area and you have a Cruiser, can you recomend a dealer? And if you're willing to share- how much did you pay for your Cruiser. I want to get a real good idea.
But several dealers are selling base models at just over $14,000. Depends on what you want. It seems as if the average price starts at about $17,000 plus dealer prep and tax. I got the manual because it just seemed so retro and I live in the mountains. If you want to add after market goodies like I did then you can get one with as few factory additions as you like. I didn't want to have to shave too many emblems off for a custom pin stripe flame job and it comes with a lot of stuff standard. To me the after market support is about as good as it gets so that is the direction I was interested in. Every dealer I know is now offering cars at less than MSRP so you should have no problem getting a deal.
To tell you the truth, with two young children in back, I keep the rear window controls locked out. My six year older is a bit impulsive, (come to think of it, so is my eight year older) we have had to activate the child safety lock on the youngest child's door as he would open the door and leap out without looking to see if anything was coming.
Both children love the PTs, each of them gets more than adequate room and a storage cubby for their precious treasures, In addition the one that sits behind the passenger seat gets the neat net storage area.
After a year+ on my wifes car and about 10 months on mine, I am pleasantly surprised how well put together they are. They have been virtually trouble free and rattle free. My wife puts a lot of miles on her car and it does just fine.
My wife has the automatic and she does about 23 mpg in mixed driving. The times we have taken it on a trip she's done about 25 mpg. I do a bit better with my 5 speed, however my foot tends to be heavier. I do about 24 mpg in mixed driving and about 28-29 in highway driving.
Hello all: I am new to the Town Hall area and I have been reading with great interest all the info on the PT Cruiser that is in this discussion and I have decided to trade my 2000 Dodge Dakota in on a PT. What I would like to know is, I live in Plainville, MA on the MA/RI line. Are there any Chrysler dealers in my area who don't try to play games with you. There is one dealer I stopped at and they had another sticker on the window (Additional Dealer Mark-up) of $1999. The salesman didn't want to lower the price at first until I told him that no other dealers are inflating the price like that. I finally got him to take $400 off the sticker, plus $1500 off for the rebate. I didn't buy the car from him and after thinking it over, I would never purchase anything from this dealer if they try things like that. Sorry for the long post, but I guess my question is if anybody can recommend a dealer in my area that will give me a fair deal on a car? Thanks
I've found buying via the internet much better than buying the traditional way. Many dealers have their inventory on line and getting a price via internet is usually fast and hassle free. I've found the internet price is frequently lower than the price I get walking in the door at the same dealer and talking to a salesman.
Well I can tell what I have been doing wrong. Went on my first cruise with more than one club this weekend and had a blast. We had 42 to 46 PTs and it was quite a sight. However because we were doing a lot of freeway driving, about 350 of the 450 miles I put on that day, we had a steady speed of 70 0r less. When I gassed up on the way home it took 10.6 gallons to go 318 miles. That was 30 MPG and I have to admit I was a bit surprised. I think the steady speed had a lot to do with it. I wasn't close enough to draft the car in front of me so I doubt that was part of the effect.
The nearest dealer offered me $12k for a 2002 PTC (Base, 5 speed, silver, msrp 16,990). I did not sign because I was not sure if this is the best price I can get, and also was thinking about Civic Si, for which also dealers are offering huge discount.
Could anybody please help me to figuar out if this is a good deal ?
That is a big question for many that cross shop. The Civic SI is a nice little car. It tends to be a bit more than 12K for the SI and it only has 2 doors. It is one of the few cars you could cross shop that has the after market support even close to a PT. It list for a bit more standard I believe and there isn't quite as much car is stock form. But it is all up to what Honda is willing to do for you. Most Honda dealers in our area aren't very helpful. If they don't have the color you want you have to go to a dealer that has what you are looking for. Honda doesn't allow trades between dealers here. 12k is a very good deal and the PT is a lot more flexible than an SI with more room and more doors. If warrantee means anything to you my PT came with a standard 7 year 70,000 mile powertrain and it was extended to 100,000 miles. I think Honda offers 3 year 36,000 miles.
I just traded one in after 6 trouble free years of fun driving. In 2002 it was renamed the RSX. Worth a look in the same class as the Civic SI but nicer inside.
RSX a 2 door also? I have only seen a few and they were listed as about 19k base. When I was cross shopping for the PT I tended to look at other 4 doors. I have had my share of 2 doors and while they are fine for most cases I do like the access with the rear doors. I looked at a P-5, Matrix/Vibe. Focus wagon, Saturn LW300, and a Suzuki Aerio wagon when I got the PT. I thought about a Honda CRV but Honda wasn't dealing on them at all.
I am cross shopping for PT and Civic-si because of the huge discounts (about $5000 off msrp for 02 models) and fun to drive feelings. I have not test drove SI, so I do not know the exact driving feel, but I am sure it would be great. I think I like both cars, so the only factor for my decision is price.
Now, if I get 5k discount, which do you think will hold resale value better? (I am talking about 2 - 3 years period.) My guess is Civic Si will do bad for Hondas, on the other hand PT seems doing OK for Chrystlers, so it is difficult for my judgment.
As for RSX, my very first car was 86 Integra, which I bought in 90 for 6k in US$ and I loved it very much. But to me (I am Japanese), Hondas have to be cheap and fun to drive. RSX is just too expensive. I also thought about P5 and focus too, but I dropped because I thought PT and Si will be better considering discounts.
It depends on what you like to do. If you like to go places with friends and flexibility is a concern, the PT is your ticket. If you are single and keep a bit more to yourself the SI will be fine. If you could get either out the door after tax and everything for 16k give or take you have a killer deal. Toss in the fact that the PT will still be under warrantee in three years so resale should be pretty good. Sitting side by side with both at the same price you have more room and flexibility with the PT and better fuel mileage with the SI. It all comes down to, two doors verses four doors. Classic style verses modern digital. You know what I picked but now the choice is yours.
While I'm a PT lover too, Civic's are supposed to be good reliable cars (although they've taken a bashing with their most recent iterations).
If you want the hauling flexibility and a bit of "panache", the PT is the choice. If you go the "car as an "appliance" route, then the Civic is the choice.
first PT cruise with a club last week. It was a blast. 46 PTs and not one was the same. Everyone had done something to make the car their own, even the GT guys. There were cars with paint jobs, flames, pin stripping, custom hoods, exterior goodies and interior goodies. This car has an effect on whoever buys one.
I realized that the interior color for 2003 model is different from 2002 model. It changed to darker, but why ? IMO, beige interior was somewhat able to covered up the cheap interior quality, but now it really looks cheap. May be I am the only person who feels in this way.
By the way, I want ask some of you who have driven both base model and upper grade models with better suspension. In several reviews, editors stated that PTs do very good at corners. (I believe all of them drove non-base models.) Can we say this to the base model PTs too ?
I still can not decide which one to take, PT or Civic Si. But I think I will buy either one this weekend.
Both of my cars are 02, a classic and a touring edition. The touring edition shares the same "touring suspension" with the limited edition. The ride is a bit firmer, there seems to be a bit less body roll. I feel (personal opinion) that the handling on both is fine, certainly, I have no difficulty in taking on/off ramps.
Disagree with you about the interiors being "cheap" on the PTs. If anything, I find them to be better than anything else at their price point ($16K-$20K). Materials are all of good quality with careful attention to fit and finish.
Best way to decide about the suspensions between the Civic and PT is to drive both of them while you are out test driving.
I like the firmness and handling of my PT GT. That said, mine has the upgraded suspension of the GT configuration.
I test drove 02 base PT before purchasing it, and unfortunately, I found I do not like it. They gave me grate price ( just as little as 12k!), but I just could not make me buy it. Am I crazy ?
It looks really nice outside, but I thought compare to my wife's Jetta, I felt the ride quality and noise (engine, road noise) are very cheap. I know a lot of people chose this car for the quality, so my opinion may be minority, but.. I really thought I will like this car, so very sad.
Sounds like it needed to be "broken in" a bit. although I haven't used the A/C in the midwest for a few months, when I did use it, mileage was the same with or without it.
Looked at the new navigation radio that replaces the factory radio. Fits many Chrysler cars, but in a PT it looks like it was installed at the factory. Interface very similar to Acura navigation systems. Intuitive and very easy to use. In spite of the small screen and low location it is easy to see and read. Voice directions are clear and easy to understand. It is a DVD system so it has the whole country on one disk. The antenna for the navigation system fits under the dash above the driver side inboard A/C vent and is completely hidden.
All radio functions as well as the clock are still available while in nav mode. The only down sides seem to be that it doesn't have a touch screen (or voice activation) and one can't use the navigation and listen to a CD unless the remote CD stacker/changer is also installed in the car.
There was no great loss in usability without the touch screen. Because the DVD must be in the nav radio for the nav to work, the DVD has to be removed to listen to a CD unless the remote stacker/changer is installed in the car.
The U.S. gov't classifies the PT Cruiser as a truck for purposes of fuel economy classificaton.
So my question is why isn't it in the SUV section instead of here and in Wagons?
Actually I do know this as it really is a big wagon on a car platform but the lawyers at DCX persuaded our civil servents that it was a truck because they were too lazy to develop cars that meet CAFE requirements.
Could it be that DCX wants to have their cake and eat it too?
In other words if you got the money and influence you can get around pesky gov't regulations. I'd guess DCX would rather let someone else build fuel efficient hybrid and diesel vehicles. The last laugh might be on them when the horsepower wars subside and people start prizing efficiency once again.
Comments
In the case of the factory rear bar, which was installed yesterday, I found it isn't so much the way the car corners with the rear bar (much flatter) compared to without, but the overall tied to the road feeling, even on bends in the road and freeway lanes changes. The change is dramatic enough that it was noticed immediately when I made the turn out of the dealer's driveway into traffic.
Just because one dealer doesn't warranty the rear bar doesn't mean others don't also. Before "buying" a bar a check of other dealers may be the thing to do.
I don't know what Chrysler was trying to do in introducing the alleged "sway bar in the axle" story, but I would have to guess it was a cost cutting move.
Long story short, dealer treated me right and gave me a loaner (a new Jeep Grand Cherokee that the general manager uses, no less) while they did the install. The car handles better. So much for the theory that the handling would be somehow negatively affected by the rear sway bar installation. It was a warranty issue so Chrysler had to pay for it afterall.
I think the stiffer springs you added to your coupe had more to do with the harsh ride than anything else.
P.J.Heff
Suggest if you go with a thick bar in back you might want to consider a thicker front bar too - for balanced handling.
PT vs. P5: The PT rides better and for me is much easier to enter and exit. The P5 will probably do better on mpg, but you don't drive much. Both are assembled well. If you carry people in the back seat the PT is better. In short, the PT feels and is bigger inside, and rides better. The P5 rides hard by comparison, but feels a bit more sporty when cornering. You will probably be happy with either one.
I noticed in your posts that your previous vehicle was a 300M. The lease on my 2000 300M is expiring in February, and the PT Turbo is top on the list of replacement vehicles. I have not had a chance to drive a Turbo yet, but took a regular cruiser out for a spin during the summer.
How did you find the transition from 300M to PT Turbo. I know the Turbo isn't a 300M, but some of your comments imply it is actually faster and handles better than the 300M.
What is the biggest difference between the two cars, what do you miss the most about the 300M, and what is the best improvement the Turbo gives you over the 300M?
Thanks for your time.
Pat
Hi all...I have a 2002 Limited Edition 5 spd in Steel Blue for about six weeks now. Great car! I am starting to notice a curious situation after filling the gas tank. Sometimes, within 20 miles of filling the tank, the gas gauge shows 3/4 tank, and other times, it takes 60 miles to get to 3/4. All with the same type of driving, and I usually get gas at the same station. This is not a comment about MPG, rather about getting a full tank when I get gas. It seems that it is hard to get a full tank. Has anyone else experienced this?
The next time I refuel, I plan to keep clicking on the handle (topping off) several times to see how much more gas I can get in the tank. Has anyone else experienced this?
Also, I recently parked overnight on a slight up hill, with the gas gauge indicating 1/4 tank when I shut it off. When I started up in the morning, the low fuel light came on instantly, and the gas gauge showed in the red zone, less than 1/8 tank. After driving on a level road for several miles, the gauge was back at 1/4 tank, but low fuel light stayed on. OK, the incline caused the gauge to read low, I figure...no problem. I shut off the car, parked on level ground, and later in the day, the gauge was still at 1/4, and low fuel light stayed on. Doesn't the light reset with the ignition if it is now above the trigger point?
Thanks for any input.
PT GT and the 300M are really two very different cars.
At first, it took me about a week to get used to the window switches being on the dash as opposed to the door (as on the 300M). It took me a couple of days to get used to adjusting the heat/AC myself (as the 300M did this for me). The thing I miss the most, believe it or not, was not having the mirrors adjust themselves when in reverse as the 300M does. I wish that they would have put the audio controls on the back of the steering wheel as they do on the 300M. All this is very minor and I don't even miss all those things now.
While the 300M is quick, the PT GT is flat out fast. I'm still amazed at how well Chrysler engineered the performance of the PT GT's turbo motor. The turbo spools up immediately. Torque is available from any speed to any speed. It feels like it just wants to keep pulling and pulling no matter what speed you're going or where you are in the rev range.
The 300M is quieter, but the PT GT has that "snarl" that seems to be in character of the car. There's more "wind noise", but the PT isn't a "wind tunnel" design so I didn't expect it to be as quiet as the 300M. I haven't found the PT to be objectionably loud, though. I like the sounds it makes.
The PT GT seems to feel made from a solid block of metal. This could be because it's only got 2,000 miles on it as opposed to the 85,000 I have on the 300M. Still, the solidity is impressive.
I find the sport seats in the PT GT to be more comfortable than the ones in the 300M, strange as that seems.
Handling is as good as some of the "high buck" sport sedans and would embarras some so called sports cars. Ride isn't as compliant as the 300M, but it's not uncomfortable at all.
Stereo will give the 300M's a challenge. It's better than any standard stereo I've heard in any "Camcord", Ford or GM product. My dealer says that the PT GTs speakers are made by Infinity (like in the 300M). The biggest difference is that the 300M's stereo has more power. I've not found the need to have more power available for the stereo. Of course, I don't play "hip hop" in either car, however.
The guages are vastly different in the PT GT vs the 300M. I really like the "big" guages in the 300M with the electroluminescent lighting. Guages in the PT are smaller, but the lighting has it's own "coolness" factor. During the day, the guages have a light silver background with black numerals. At night (and any time the lights are turned on), the background turns black with green luminated numerals.
Ergonomics in both cars are top notch (only exception being getting used to the window switches). Materials used in the 300M are better, but I'm also impressed with the materials in the PT given the price point.
I can certainly haul a boatload more in the PT than in the 300M. The reconfiguration of the seats and the room you get by doing so, is great. I actually was looking at SUVs and trucks before deciding the PT gave me all the hauling room I needed. I've hauled a 36" TV (in the box) in the back of the PT with all the doors closed.
I just filled up the tank last night. While I was getting exactly what the sticker said for MPG from day one, the last tankful yielded 25 MPG in a 50/50 mix of highway/town driving. And I "stick my foot in it" quite a bit. I'm very pleased. Of course, some of that is offset by the fact that the 300M takes mid-grade gas while the PT GT takes premium.
Hope this helps. Let us know what you get.
I'm envious, you have two such cool cars.
How do you find the visibility in the Cruiser when parking? That is the one major complaint I have against the 300M. You can never tell when you are about to back into something. I'm told that I usually rob myself of about 2 feet of room when trying to parallel park because I stop backing up once I can't see the car behind me anymore. Is the configuration of the back window on the Cruiser such that you can see what is behind you while backing up, or is it the same as the 300 and leaves you guessing?
If manual heater controls are the biggest downgrade I will have to get used to, then I think I can live with it.
Thanks for the comparison.
Pat
Truth is, I used to be a BMW fanatic. Over the last 5-6 years, their prices have risen to the point that I no longer would consider them. To invest $40K for a 330i opens up a whole lot of competive cars that can do the same thing for less money.
My wife had always owned Toyotas and Hondas. In recent years, I've noticed that American branded cars have caught up in quality and reliability...to the point that, in some cases, surpassed the Toyotas and Hondas.
I inherited the 300M. Never thought I'd like it considering it was a Chrysler. Now, I think that Chyrsler is one of the most exciting car manufacturers out there. That's obvious by what's sitting in my garage.
That's what I love of the PT. The interior space is certainly more than ample for my family, allowing me more than enough headroom and legroom without robbing from the backseat where my sons have to sit.
If the first few weeks of ownership are any indication I might change my negative view of Chrysler thanks to the 'PT'. So far the Cruiser seems like a solid, well-built, fun to drive car!
I would recommend it over the 300M any day.
As for BMW's I looked at them for a 300M replacement but I just couldn't bring myself to buy one. In my opinion the styling was boring and they are overpriced. In the end it came down to the Jaguar X type vs. the Cadillac CTS. I went with the CTS and have been very happy with my purchase decision. Like it was said...there are many other good cars in the $30K price range that are competing with the BMW.
Automole...can you give me a brief "likes-dislikes" of the CTS? My wife will be selling her 300M in about a year (we set a limit of 100,000 miles for our cars). I find the CTS intriguing.
Likes: I LOVE the exterior/interior styling...I wouldn't change a thing. The handling is incredible and I like the brake feel...both were a huge improvement over the 300M. Fit and finish also seems to be good although I've experienced an occasional slight rattle from the dash area and drivers door, neither of which have been bad enough to warrant a trip to the dealer. The car feels and drives solid and I can't believe the number of approving 'looks' I get. The stock stereo is decent and the programmable steering wheel controls and onstar phone service is cool.
The transmission is incredible for an automatic...when in 'sport' mode it feels like you're driving a stick, compression braking and all! It doesn't have 'autostick' but I found that feature useless anyway on the 300 since it wouldn't let you hold a gear at redline and forced a shift regardless of if you were in autostick mode. The CTS also has better rear legroom (important if you install a babyseat like I do) than most of the other competing cars in its class.
Dislikes: The seats could use more lumbar support and the leather seems to stretch a bit too easily in the butt region considering I'm 6'1'' and only weigh 150lbs. The engine could use more power and tends to idle a little rough at times when cold (this should be fixed next year with the introduction of a better V6). Although you get quite a lot for your money compared to BMW there are some features (dual power seats, homelink transmitter, compass, fold-down rear seat, multi disc CD changer, 17" wheels, heated seats) that I feel should have been included as standard equipment on the base model.
The fact is...I love driving BOTH the CTS and the PT cruiser for entirely different reasons. The PT is a cool retro ride with comfy seats and good versatillity for hauling stuff. The CTS is a fun futuristic coupe with sporty handling characteristics and a feeling of quality. Both fit my needs because I can fit a baby seat and two adults in the back with room to spare and neither looks like ANYTHING else on the road.
I have a couple of questions for current PT owners:
1) Do the rear seat passenger find it awkward to reach the window buttons since they're not on the door?
2) How bad is the mileage? I know compared to my current car (97 Nissan Sentra GXE) its going to make me cry. But what's the mileage REALLY like?
I'm going to test drive a couple of other cars- the 03 Corolla (sport trimline) and the new Saturn Ion- whenever the dealer gets it.
I can tell you one big selling point for the PT for me... my insurance will actually DROP! That's awesome.
If my plans to purchase a PT Cruiser somehow fall through, then I'll try for a Corolla. My main issue with the Corolla was the seating. While it was sitting high, my knee kept hitting the center console of the dashboard (if that makes sense).
The Cruiser is so much more roomier. Hey if you're in the Philly, PA area and you have a Cruiser, can you recomend a dealer? And if you're willing to share- how much did you pay for your Cruiser. I want to get a real good idea.
Both children love the PTs, each of them gets more than adequate room and a storage cubby for their precious treasures, In addition the one that sits behind the passenger seat gets the neat net storage area.
After a year+ on my wifes car and about 10 months on mine, I am pleasantly surprised how well put together they are. They have been virtually trouble free and rattle free. My wife puts a lot of miles on her car and it does just fine.
My wife has the automatic and she does about 23 mpg in mixed driving. The times we have taken it on a trip she's done about 25 mpg. I do a bit better with my 5 speed, however my foot tends to be heavier. I do about 24 mpg in mixed driving and about 28-29 in highway driving.
I did not sign because I was not sure if this is the best price I can get, and also was thinking about Civic Si, for which also dealers are offering huge discount.
Could anybody please help me to figuar out if this is a good deal ?
Thanks
Worth a look in the same class as the Civic SI but nicer inside.
Now, if I get 5k discount, which do you think will hold resale value better? (I am talking about 2 - 3 years period.) My guess is Civic Si will do bad for Hondas, on the other hand PT seems doing OK for Chrystlers, so it is difficult for my judgment.
As for RSX, my very first car was 86 Integra, which I bought in 90 for 6k in US$ and I loved it very much. But to me (I am Japanese), Hondas have to be cheap and fun to drive. RSX is just too expensive. I also thought about P5 and focus too, but I dropped because I thought PT and Si will be better considering discounts.
If you want the hauling flexibility and a bit of "panache", the PT is the choice. If you go the "car as an "appliance" route, then the Civic is the choice.
By the way, I want ask some of you who have driven both base model and upper grade models with better suspension. In several reviews, editors stated that PTs do very good at corners. (I believe all of them drove non-base models.) Can we say this to the base model PTs too ?
I still can not decide which one to take, PT or Civic Si. But I think I will buy either one this weekend.
Best way to decide about the suspensions between the Civic and PT is to drive both of them while you are out test driving.
I like the firmness and handling of my PT GT. That said, mine has the upgraded suspension of the GT configuration.
It looks really nice outside, but I thought compare to my wife's Jetta, I felt the ride quality and noise (engine, road noise) are very cheap. I know a lot of people chose this car for the quality, so my opinion may be minority, but.. I really thought I will like this car, so very sad.
Agree with graphicguy about PT quality. Much better than I expected.
Note to graphicguy: With no A/C, freeway mpg is now 25.
All radio functions as well as the clock are still available while in nav mode. The only down sides seem to be that it doesn't have a touch screen (or voice activation) and one can't use the navigation and listen to a CD unless the remote CD stacker/changer is also installed in the car.
There was no great loss in usability without the touch screen. Because the DVD must be in the nav radio for the nav to work, the DVD has to be removed to listen to a CD unless the remote stacker/changer is installed in the car.
So my question is why isn't it in the SUV section instead of here and in Wagons?
Actually I do know this as it really is a big wagon on a car platform but the lawyers at DCX persuaded our civil servents that it was a truck because they were too lazy to develop cars that meet CAFE requirements.
Could it be that DCX wants to have their cake and eat it too?
In other words if you got the money and influence you can get around pesky gov't regulations. I'd guess DCX would rather let someone else build fuel efficient hybrid and diesel vehicles. The last laugh might be on them when the horsepower wars subside and people start prizing efficiency once again.