By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
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.