The next PT again
Peter Valdes-Dapena’s CNN Autos article talks about the “beloved Cruiser” in its next generation. Unlike many writers covering the PT, Valdes-Dapena noted the Plymouth origins of the Cruiser, and put a good deal of thought into his article on the future of the iconic car.
The PT is important to Chryslr because it sells 120,000 units per year, largely to nontraditional buyers (that is, people who don’t normally buy Chryslers), and because it makes a good profit without cannibalizing their other sales. Indeed, had the PT been badged as a Plymouth, as it was supposed to be, we’d probably be seeing a larger PT right now based on the Voyager.
There’s a lot of talk on the PT needing a V6, and I firmly disagree; what it needs is not a bigger engine, but less weight. The PT is a small outside, but heavy, the result of a very low engineering budget (the money used to create the PT, with its unique rear suspension and flat floorpan, unique interior, pushbutton doors, etc., is the same amount budgeted to simply create a coupe out of the four-door Neon!). You can imagine how much lighter the PT could be (and safer) if they had devoted more
engineering time to it. With just three or four hundred fewer pounds to push around, the 2.4 liter engine would be much happier, and acceleration would be zippy enough for most people; then the 2.4 turbo would be able to have a ball, too. Look at the SRT-4’s acceleration; or the first-generation Neon. I think most people these days would be happy to have that kind of acceleration, along with a mileage boost, rather than paying more to get a heavier vehicle with a thirsty V6 to feed.
Likewise, while many have called for a larger PT, most don’t want to have it at the cost of the current size. I think most PT owners are very happy with the small size - it’s pretty big inside, and how much space do most people really need, anyway? The PT fits into very small garage spaces, with a footprint smaller than even the Neon, and is terribly easy to parallel park - yet holds a tremendous load of groceries and, with rear seats folded or removed, can carry surprisingly big stuff. A larger PT would be nice for those with bigger families, but not at the cost of the standard-sized PT - which is nearly as large inside as the first minivans!
As for moving to the Caliber platform, the Caliber might be pretty safe, but it’s hardly light, and
a PT with the Caliber chassis could well be even heavier than the current model, and really need a V6.
The new World Engine 2.4 produces about 170 horsepower as I recall - 20 hp more than the
current model - and should be able to get better mileage at the same time. Just dropping that engine in _might_ make the PT considerably faster, if the new 2.4 isn’t one of those “peaky” engines that only
makes power in a tiny little band at the top of the tach.
My solution
When you have a success, why destroy it instead of building on it? Chrysler needs a small car and they need a PT replacement. The ideal would be to re-engineer the current PT for lighter weight and, at the same time, to work on extracting from it a new sedan to compete with Yaris and Fit - a sedan which would have the strengths of the original, fun-to-drive Neon as well as the PT itself; a sedan which would cost less to develop and produce than one based on the Volkswagen Jetta; a sedan that would be 100% American in the public’s perception, not past-generation, discarded, and outdated German or Japanese technology. Instead of going to Chery and Volkswagen, Daimler should go to Chrysler for its Dodge Hornet. It’s been right there in front of them all this time: the PT Cruiser. Based off the Neon, the PT transcended the Neon in many ways; now is the time to return. Keep the innovative rear suspension; change the top hat; modernize the safety zones and look for weight savings, and you have a common platform for the Hornet and the next-generation PT. The Hornet would have the sportiness of the original Neon and the reliability of the PT (which has been way up
there in quality rankings), and because they’ve already invested so much in PT engineering, it would probably still be cheaper than adapting a Volkswagen to meet Dodge needs. It would solve the problem of where to get the next PT, would prevent the Caliber from becoming the 21st Century’s K-car - with four variants that are all four doors with a hatch - and would keep the PT fun and interesting.
At least give it a thought. I don’t think anyone wants to see Dodge selling recycled Volkswagens. It’s not bold, brash, or American - and if we wanted German cars, we’d buy one. From Volkswagen.
This is an interesting idea. No, I don’t really want the PT to grow, and obviously I wouldn’t want it to be heavier. Dodge needs a small sedan. That rear suspension (IIRC designed by former Neon & current Viper racer Erich Heucshele) is fantastic in that it really opens up the interior storage ability while doing a rather impressive job. Not only is there a ton of room inside, it’s easy to access (contrast the PT hatch opening with that of the Caliber), which should carry over as well.
I think a rather nice PT could be fashioned out of the Caliber base, but it’s true that the weight issue would still be there, and there’s the interior to consider. A PT would have to have a completely different interior, as the Caliber & Co. are distinctly 21st century; a poor fit for a retro vehicle.
A note on design: Since this time they know it’ll be badged a Chrysler, it’d be really nice to see them incorporate some design details and signatures from Chrysler’s past, while still keeping the ‘vaguely familiar’ retro look, rather than explicitly referencing a past model a la HHR or Mustang. I’d really enjoy hunting for Chrysler specific ‘easter eggs’ throughout the interior and exterior. With Caliber, Patriot & Compass out there they should have no qualms about fully re-embracing the ‘retro theme with modern conveniences’ idea they orginally started with
The weight problem definately has to be addressed.
The Sebring, Viper & PT weigh relatively the same! And the PT GT has a 500 lb penalty!
Keeping with my previous comments, DCX has to look for ways to multiply the torque availabilty of
the 4 cylinder and traditionally this has been acomplished with the FDR & Transmission. Why is it North American manufacturers opt for low (numerically) FDR and transmission ratios, which tradionally would improve the performance of 4 cylinders vs. their V6 counterparts. The 3.3L V6 motivates my Caravan nicely (even though more power would be nice) and is roughly the same #’s per HP as the 2.4 in the current PT.
And what is ‘zippy’ accerleration. When DCX staged the “Gold Medal Tour” here in Canada in 2004, we got taken down the drag strip in the Ram SRT10, Viper & SRT4. The driver took the Ram SRT10 to 200 kph over the 1/4 - did I feel that it was ‘zippy’. My ‘69 Newport 383 pushed me back into my seat and never hit 200 kph in the 1/4 mile, but certinally felt more zippy than the 505 HP Ram SRT10.
So trim 4-500# from the PT, incorporate the Caliber’s Musicgate & cooler bin, the new Sebrings hot/cold cup holders and some design details and signatures from Chrysler’s past, keeping the ‘vaguely familiar’ retro look, rather than explicitly referencing a past model.
I love the way the current PT rides, which might be due to the fact that it weighs so much. One thing I would like to see changed is the turning ratio. PT’s are very hard to park sometimes if you don’t allow for the extra room it takes to manuever.
DaimlerChrysler is bringing out the new Dodge Challenger in record time. This Challenger shares its structure with the 300 / Charger. They should also be doing the same thing to the Neon / PT structure along the lines of Dave’s suggestions.
In 2007 the PT will share show room space with Sebrings and Jeep Patriots which will have better EPA fuel economy numbers. The 2.7L Sebring will have the same numbers as the four cylinder PT. The PT needs the new four now or it becomes a lame duck.
The Hornet should be a Neon with a new suit just as the Challenger is to the 300. I would suggest rear doors like on the Patriot to keep the center pillar. As someone suggested before, use the 1.8L world four for power. The Hornet and updated PT can buy time until the next generation of small cars are developed and introduced.
The next generation should be a PT / Hornet / Mercedes A and B Class structure along the same plans they developed the Jeep Grand Cherokee / Commander and Mercedes M, R, and GL series.
No outside help should be needed from VW or the Chery.
As has been written, there do seem to be some changes made to the PT platform, wieght reduction being one. Performance wise, the GT is a powerhouse with 220 horses under the hood and the options are almost beyond belief as to modifications available.
That being said, my position is this, keep the style that the 04 and 05 had, do away with the modifications to the interior of the 06. Reduce the weight and increase the fuel capacity. All wheel drive would be an added bonus. When it comes to styling changes, go even more retro. By going that way in the beginning, the car developed a huge market, which continues to grow even as I write this. Make the headlights look like they come from an earlier time and the tail lights as well but add the modern convenienceces that we have all come to enjoy and take for granted. The Idea that first showed up in the pronto was a good one and had considerable merit. The rolled front and rear pans, the integral fog lamps, the suicide doors. All of which have been incorporated in today’s PT customs. One only need to view the pages of PT Quarterly to view some of the creations that abound within it’s pages. Modifications by P Teaser and California Customs along with PT Daddy, all within the structure introduced eight years ago. Perhaps have some sort of contest to come up with a new retro design by the very people that know the cars better than anyone, the PT owners themselves. That’s my take on it and has been for a while now. The industry has yet to tap into the most perfect database in it’s sales arsenal, the owners of the very automobile they wish to discover a new design for. What better way than that? Rick T.
We have a 2001 PT Cruiser & we LOVE it. My biggest gripe is it needs to get better gas mileage! So I guess it needs to be lighter.
And yes more “retro” looking like my 1941 Plymouth Special Deluxe 4 door Sedan, which I think the main design came from anyways would be nice, round headlights, chrome bumpers & grill, maybe rectangle taillights, and suicide rear doors.
WHEN WILL THEY BE BRINGING OUT A DIESEL IN THE PT WILL IT BE AVAILABLE IN 07 OR 08 I LOVE MY TURBO PT BUT WANT A PT DIESEL I DO NOT WAND A JETTA HOW CAN I FIND OUT ABOUT A DIESEL CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME ONE I CAN CONTACT
Count me in the camp that wants a more fuel efficient PT. The fuel economy and the difficulty of shadetree mechanic service to the PT are the main obstacles in my having it at the top of my future used vehicle list. If the next PT could offer a little more room under the hood without turning it into another HHR would be nice. The HHR should be a cautionary example of what not to do for the next generation. Too big, too bland.
While I like the PT that I have i would welcome either a lighter car or more efficient power plant. Face it: gas isn’t going to be cheaper in the next few years. It isn’t just the PTC. All of the Chrysler products produced in the last few years have been thirsty beasts. The Neon mileage actually decreased in the last incarnation. Is there any reason they can not make this platform more efficient? I think the World Engine/CVT combination would at least bring the drive train up to Caliber standards and make this car a bit more competitive against the stodgy Camrys and Accords out there.
More retro… Keep in mind that this is hard to do in a modern vehicle. Styling would have to be pretty close to what the car is now or it would loose that unique quality it has. If the underlying platform can be updated without loosing the character of the PT it needs to happen to stay in the market.
I LOVE my PT! Yes I’d like more power and less weight, as well as keeping it mostly the same style, that is why I bought this retor car. I’v found how usable the car configuations can be and have moved some really big things. So if anyone at Chrysler reads this please keep this car in your line up and update it. A diesel is a good idea, afterall a diesel is doing quitw well in Lemans. Most diesels can adderss the power issue here and if the car goes on a diet a winner is borne.
You don’t want the Caliber engine in the PT. Trust me. Diesel would be great - it would be ideal for the heavy PT.
As for styling, how many years did the Beetle sell with the same styling? British taxis? Checker cabs (albeit to taxi drivers only)? Classics should stay classics… and though the PT does take a lot of design cues from older cars, there’s a lot of uniqueness about it. A driver in the 30s wouldn’t recognize it as being of the 1930s.
I have racked up 22,000 miles on my 2002 PTCruiser in 13 months of ownership. I love the little thing. I have no trouble parallel parking. I love the utlity value it provides, awesome! This thing can haul loads of stuff. I already dislike the 2006 model’s nose and dash, but hope for more retro in future models. I am happy that the car will be around because I would definitely consider owning a second one. Plymouth’s look of the 1930’s and ’40’s is one of beauty.mmm Those little coupes that Bogie drove in High Sierra were cool. I know free-standing headlights might not be practical but they would look correct. The dash also needs the new tech/old look treatment, but suicide doors aren’t insurance friendly and may be confusing to most people. I hope they contniue to sell well enough to earn more development and improvement in the aforementioned areas.
I’m on my second PT Cruiser, a 2005 GT automatic which specifies 91 octane fuel and will readily endorse all the suggestions to increase the next version of the Cruiser’s fuel economy. But overall, this little car is a real ‘winner’ in terms of functionality, roominess, safety and in the GT’s case, performance. I think it would be great if 50 to 200 lbs could be shed from the next edition of the Cruiser, so long as there’s no loss in this vehicle’s
crash-worthiness and I also believe the turning ratio should be reduced (again, since everything is a compromise, not too much). But I agree with some of the earler comments that DCX should just refine / fine-tune some of the rough edges and not ‘re-invent’ the Cruiser.
I have owned 2 PT Cruisers, a red 04′GT and an now a blue 05′GT. I really like the PT GT. My recommendation would be: 1) cut the weight by about 400lbs, 2) see if there is a way to fix the steering ratio problem, and 3)go back to the pre O6′ styling. I am a fleet director and loyal Chrysler customer. I was a Chrysler mechanic and service manager early on in my career.
North american car companies don’t seem to want to refine anything, its all about the quick buck to satisfy the shareholder.The PT is a great car that needs a better more refined engine transmission and suspension. However DCX seems to want a easy fix to every situation. The neon is a perfect example. Instead of addressing the buzzy engine and updating the tranny(autobox) getting rid of that stupid wind down rear window they scrapped the car. I sincerely hope that the don’t do the same to the PT. A diesel though a good idea would require extra stiffening of the PT’S front end therby adding extra pounds. Though it would be a great idea if they could shed the weight somewhere else. Perfect the car and stop worrying about what people think. People will buy a good reliable car. Ask camry drivers
‘
I bought my 2004 limited new & bright blue my 10 year old granddaughter loves when I pick her up at school I am the talk of my family I love it ..58000 trouble free miles.. just did the 60000mi. tune and replaced the tires. Will definately buy another..I am 71 yrs. young
I just LOVE my 2005 PT GT automatic. Why can’t they give us a 5 or 6 speed auto like GM / Ford have. What about moving it slightly larger and putting it on a modified Magnum RWD platform? Offer a hemi in it! Instead of suicide doors, what about the power sliding doors that DCX invented on the vans and also a power tailgate?
What about having TWO versions that look similar. Something slightly larger than what they have now on a FWD platform and then another one on a RWD platform? Since DCX decided to stop making their “real” rwd vans and left that market to GM and Ford, what about a service truck platform (complete with racks and bins packages that slide out the rear for access on some sort of tracks)? That way they could justify the cost of upgrades by selling more units to a completely untapped market.
Since most comments above are from men, I thought it’s time a woman chimed in. I, like several others who have posted, am on my second PT. I owned one of the original ’01’s when they first came out back in 2000 and I now have an ‘04 GT (modified). The acceleration and power of the GT is incredible, especially in comparison to the ‘01 LE I had. I agree that it feels heavy and losing a little weight would be a good thing (I’m referring to the car, here!). A tighter turning radius would also be a bonus. Lose the tacky, boxy interior styling brought in to the ‘06 - especially those “help me” handles on the passenger side! Bring back some of the features that got trimmed out from the earlier models - like the heated folding mirrors, the interior & seat upholstery accent details and the cargo net. Find a way to take some weight out of the larger of the two rear seats – it’s a handful for a woman to take out without damaging something – the car or my back!
I attend many PT car shows and I have seen a decline in attendance, but by no means has the craze for PT’s died. People are still buying them. They are more and more mainstream now and less of the neck-snapping head turner they were 5 or 6 years ago (boy I enjoyed that at the time!) but with thought and commitment from DC, there’s a lot of life left in the design yet.
I have an Inferno Red 2005 Limited. I haven’t seen much from DCX besides the 300 / Charger that is appealing. The Caliber is a fat ugly box - too big - too heavy - to bland - to rent-a-car cheap looking inside. The appeal of the PT has been in STYLE - trim, details, chrome, soft touch and textured plastics, suede inserts, leather seats, etc - high fashion and style in an ‘inexpensive’ fun to drive car. Even with the base motor the performance is adequate, if it lost 400 pounds of New Yorker fat it would be stellar. I average 25 MPG which I can live with. Don’t care much for the 2006 tweaks - not enough style to make it new…maybe a chrome trim package for the interior ( available aftermarket )but keep the color matched dash inserts. Power seats would make the commuter’s life easier. Shift indicator somewhere visable. Keep the center window switches - nice idea and cost savings feature. What about a nicer console, more adjustable seats and fancier trim as an option package ? I would like to be able to add more comfort and convienience to the practicality already there. This car has been dead reliable - 65,000 miles without a single problem. NOTHING has gone wrong. Finally had to do the front brakes and replace the tires at this point. Thinking of getting a low mileage GT so my better half can have this one - we fight over who gets to drive it….Haven’t had this much fun in the front seat since my 1970 Roadrunner. Most satisfying car I’ve ever owned. This is my ninth Chrysler product since 1991 - keep up the good work.
I am serious PT Fan and am on my third one. I have had a 02 Limited, 03 Dream Cruiser and
an 05 GT Convertible. All three of these vehicles are great and have never given me any issues mechanically or otherwise. I do agree with most of the posts that weight is certainly an issue that DCX needs to address without deminishing the crash test ratings. The PT is not
supposed to look like everything else on the road, its uniqueness is what gave us all the warm fuzzies anyway. The changes for 2006 are not all that great, get back to the origional style and look of the cruiser, enhance the fuel economy, weight distribution and offer some new styles, i.e, the “Panel PT”, “Two door hardtop Cruiser”. personally I would hate to see the PT go away and definitely do do not want to see it turn into an HHR wanna be.
I own an 06 GT convertible w/ minor mods.My ONLY complaints are the limited power ability of the auto stick and it’s excessively heavy curb weight. Handling in the 06 convertible was mushy till I added Mopar StageIII suspension and performance sway bars.But that is just tuning, shaving serious weight without sacrificing the stiffness of the chassis or crash safety can be done in engineering making a peppier car with better mileage out of the existing powerplant which IMO is one of the best 4cylinders available and the convertible one of the best cars available.A 2800-3000lb car would be ideal adding the former Neon sport packages and some minor styling alterations would give us a fantastic “Hornet” without a big expense to DCX.
Jim
I own two, and love them. I agree with the VW bug reference, improve the car don’t reinvent it. Pass the development cost savings back the buyers in the form of a low priced car with lots of features. Recommendations: 1. Put it on a diet, remember The Feather Duster? 2. A 6 speed automatic. 3. Get me 35 MPG on the freeway.
DCX already has over a million fans in the PT Cruiser, give us a reason to buy a new one.
I really like my 2002 Cruiser, and am flabbergasted by rumors of Chrysler’s desire to ax the line (or eliminate the retro styling in future redesigns). Personally, I’m convinced lightening the car is the way to go–there’s no excuse for as small a car as it is to get less than 30 mpg on average. And I still believe–very firmly–that an upsized version of the Cruiser based on the Caravan platform would attract a very eager segment of the car-buying public without undercutting the PT’s sales. Maybe Chrysler thinks it doesn’t need this since it holds such a sizable share of the minivan market, but I see it as a case of not building on successful resources.
If they’re desperate to significantly redesign the PT (and I’m baffled by the whole “it’s impossible to redesign a retro” mindset) then I’d advocate they look back into the Chrysler archives and take some cues from the old “Airflow” designs. Yes, I know those were sales disasters when they came out in the 30s, but boy, are they elegant and very “ahead of their time.” Then again, I also think they ought to go back and develop a fun little performance compact out of the Plymouth Pronto to fill out the line, so what do I know?
Don’t bother to redesign a retro.
Just to improve the guts.
Diesel is a great idea.
Baby boomers loves Pt cruiser, it is stupid to create another robot like car. I am sick of by just looking at them.
I’ve owned a 2006 Limited PT Cruiser since 12/06, and in 6 months, I’ve put 10k miles on it, mostly on the highway. The car’s weight does make it cruise nicely, but it gives it relatively-poor gas mileage, for sure, and pretty unimpressive acceleration (this is an automatic; I’ve driven a manual version that did pretty well).
Now that Chrysler aren’t beholden to the whims of shareholders, they will hopefully consider continuing the PT Cruiser as a retro runabout; it’s not only extremely practical, it’s also unique in the small car segment, something that works to Chrysler’s favor. They should NOT replace it with a generic small utility vehicle or sedan that will blend in with every Civic, Corolla or CR-X. When it comes to the actual style, I’d like to see them look farther back in time, to the early ’30s, with vehicles such as the ‘32 Ford sedan; the Chrysler 300 already successfully evokes the ‘gangster’ look, and its rectilinear style could apply well to the broad-fendered look of a street rod, right down to the large, stand-up grille (in fact, the general proportions - though not the size - of the Dodge Nitro would be a good place to start; it already has a somewhat Tudor-esque silhouette). This style would also offer even greater interior space, with less tumblehome than the current version, as Chrysler have already started demonstrating with the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Commander. They just need to make sure to engineer it with less weight and better performance (and a much tighter turning radius!).
Of course, with Daimler still a 19% owner of Chrysler, maybe they could really do something radical and use the previous-generation C-class as the starting point for the Cruiser, making it RWD - just one more thing to make the Cruiser distinctive in its class; this platform isn’t any larger than the Caliber, after all, and using an inline 4-cylinder might be what they need to improve the turning radius.
Ford sedan? I’d make it more like a PLYMOUTH - those things looked great! As for turning radius…I discovered on my oonw that’s largely because of the fatter GT tires…
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! The PT is still a headturner, and they appeal to all ages and demographics. My husband drives an ‘05 Touring in Cool Vanilla, and I drive an ‘06 Touring in Marine Blue Pearl. Folks can’t believe that we own two PT’s. A lot of people are still under the impression that they’re expensive cars, so if you’ve got 1, you’re doing well, but if you’ve got 2, you’re filthy rich! They don’t believe it when you tell them that they’re under $20K. I’d recommend the PT to anyone that wants a stylish car at a reasonable price, especially if they want lots of room to haul just about anything. I hate SUV’s and Minivans, and I’m not a fan of the clone cars like Camry, Accord, Civic, etc…..heck, until I see the name on the back end, I can’t tell what’s what, ’cause they all look the same. Heck, even the ‘luxury’ cars all look the same - BMW, Lexus, Mercedes and Jaguar…..I think they’ve all got the same designers working on their cars, they just stick a different name on the back and try to convince us that they’re unique.
I agree, keep the retro-style, shave off some weight, work on the turning radius. In a time of high gasoline prices no one has mentioned maybe a hybrid?? Factory built in navigation would be nice.
The turning radius isn’t really a big issue; factory nav system is easy enough, I suspect. Weight is the big thing IMHO - cuts back on the acceleration and hurts mileage. Ideally they’d bring out a new PT based on the Caliber but with more low-end torque, or maybe even a light turbo - anything to make up for the World Engine’s deficiencies.
Don’t Cease Production Of The Cruiser! A comment from the other side of the pond. I have a 2007 2.2 diesel - fantastic! It is economical (yes I said economical around 46mpg US average) Performance is good and I like the solid feel to the car (must be all that weight;-) Roadholding is excellent, something which is important to us in the UK because of our narrow winding roads. I bought Chrysler (in fact American) only because of the PT Cruiser design, if it was not for that I would have certainly bought some boring Japanese car. What a shame that would have been. I think Chrysler have created an iconic American car with the Cruiser and I hope they do not just discard it for some bland boring car like the Journey.