(first posted 9/12/2017) A late 90’s design that was meant to look like a modern interpretation of a 1930s trunkless sedan and has since been painted up to look like a 1960s hippiemobile. We have a real treat today.
The Chrysler PT Cruiser stands on a very awkward section of cars in my life: Cars that I vividly remembered being released and that are now very old. Looking around this site, I can only hope that it will become normal as I get older and the list of cars which elicit that reaction gets ever longer.
The reason I do remember the launch of the PT Cruiser is easy. After I had finally convinced my dad to buy me copies of Popular Mechanics and swore that I would really read all of the articles that were on it (Which will go down on the list next to “I swear I will not make the car slide” and “I swear to you that Grand Theft Auto is just a driving game”)I explicitly recall the magazine praising Bryan Nesbitt’s homage to the cars of yore. K.T. Keller would have been proud of the CAFE-skirting dimensions and design. And this time around, critics and buyers alike agreed with him and generously opened their hearts and wallets over its 10-year run.
In that run, you could see the PT Cruiser devolve from a new and interesting design that was deemed worthy of at least 1 Car-of-the-Year award down the ranks, to be bundled with the rest of Chryler’s lineup and their generally perceived reputation for crummy interiors, uninspired drivetrains and general lack of any standout features that would make anyone consider their mainstream offerings from anyone else. I say mainstream because that perception kinda fell to pieces whenever you reminded someone that the Dodge Viper, the Chrysler 300C and half-of-the-Jeep lineup still existed. Not that it did any good to the PT Cruiser. Not even the enticing prospect of a 230-horsepower turbo engine helped matters. Not when the SRT-4 was already scooping that market up.
But through it all that design was good enough for it to soldier on and for people to keep wanting one. My parents, for example, absolutely love the darn thing. They don’t even mind the Convertible version; which looks (to my eyes) questionable with the roof down and like someone tried to erect a camping tent in a vain effort to hide the fact that they sawzalled through their car with it up. By the end of the production run, Chrysler had sold more than a million PT Cruisers.
Being as knowledgeable about art as Ferris Bueller nonsensing his way through the Art Institute; all I can say about the flower power paint job on this one is that it looks like whoever did it actually took a lot of time and care. chrisjcieslak taking these pictures on the sunset just adds to it. May it give them peace as they look at it while drinking Chai Kombucha.
Me? I would prefer to decorate my PT Cruiser with some good old-fashioned Di-Noc, which was offered from 2002 to 2004. Bring the retro wagon theme to its logical conclusion. Speaking of which, when it came time to replace the PT Cruiser; Chrysler presumably ran into the same troubles that everyone did when it came to facelifting their retro offerings. What now?
For the Mini (by obligation) and the Mustang (By choice), it meant sticking around with a retro-inspired design. Chrysler had some issues with that. Bryan Nesbitt had left for GM to try and make lightning strike twice with the Chevrolet HHR. Also, unlike those two other retro cars mentioned above, which were based on iconic models. The PT Cruiser was based more on a concept. And so there was little on which to base a followup apart from ‘old wagon’
Finally, there was the Caliber, a small 5-door hatchback that was designed to replace the Neon. It was sold alongside the PT Cruiser, a small 5-door hatchback that was 7 years old when the Caliber was introduced. Even if sales hadn’t plummeted when the Caliber was released (which they did, from 99k to 50k on the first post-Caliber year), it just didn’t make sense to have both of them on the lineup. So in 2010, the PT Cruiser bowed down for the last time. The Caliber itself was replaced by the Dart in 2013 and *it* has been taken out of production, leaving Dodge with a compact-size hole in their lineup which I am sure makes them sleep uneasy over the piles of money from Challenger and Charger sales.
The PT brings back a lot of memories. My wife and I were at Reedman’s in Langhorne PA with her elderly uncle as he was buying a new Chrysler Concorde when a truck load of new PT’s were being delivered to the dealership. My wife took one look at them and said, “That car has your name written all over it!”. About a year later, I was at Reedman’s picking out a PT to buy myself.
I went with a 2002 Navy Blue base model. I went with the base model, as I didn’t care for the wheels used on the limited edition. I recall taking one of the PT’s for a test ride on the famous Reedman’s test track, and being really impressed with the way the car handled and how roomy and comfortable it actually was.
There were so many things I liked about the PT … the back seats (they tilted, folded, or could be removed), the dashboard with the exterior color inserts, the very cool cargo compartment cover that slid out so it can be used as a picnic table, and of course the retro look.
The car had many things I didn’t like …… the extremely hard plastic door panels, the weird placement of the power window switches, and the black bumpers that all seemed to get fade spots in the exact same locations.
Even though the PT was slow as you know what and got horrible gas mileage, it was a fun car to drive in, and everyone would stop me to take a look at it and comment how nice it was.
I miss my PT !1
I’ve driven a few, find them mildly attractive, and cannot for the life of me understand the mandatory slagging (aka, every car article that ever ventures upon the subject is expected to say nothing but negative things about them – thank you for being different).
Biggest complaint I ever had about the car was the gas mileage, which I always figured was about 3/4ths what it should have been (four cylinder small sedan). The manual transmission shifted nicely, I like the haul ability of the car (excuse me EPA, small truck), and it was a decent drive.
Yes, Daimler-Chrysler cheapened the hell out of the interior on the second generation, as if the first was all that luxurious to begin with. Which had a lot to do with the slagging. But really, this was a decent car, and deserved better than the mandatory brickbats it gets.
The mandatory slagging is because the minute they rolled off the assembly line PT Cruiser clubs popped up, tarted them up with the cheesiest ad on accessories and crashed classic car shows and local cruise nights for 10 years straight.
Nobody trashes these for being bad cars as cars, but for a faction of their demographic that was as insufferable as any other car disliked for their owners.
Batting 1000, man.
I did a full COAL on my 2002 PT Cruiser (link below) and found it to be one of the best cars I have owned. The 5 speed manual gets a lot of that credit because it had reasonable performance and a long legged 5th gear overdrive ratio. It could hold a lot of stuff (63 cubic feet with rear seats removed) and it was more fun and comfortable to drive than I expected.
I did overload it hauling tree debris after super storm Sandy and had to have the rear shocks replaced (when it was about 10 years old). So, while it was called a truck for CAFE reasons, it wasn’t, you know, really a truck.
As noted above the fuel economy was not so great, but this was a heavy vehicle despite its small size and the 150 hp 4 cyl engine had its work cut out for it.
The second gen was not as nice as the first (they even replace the rear disk brakes with drums on some models).
The collective hate for PT Cruisers on the internet seems unwarranted by this former owner, but it probably wasn’t everybody’s cup of tea.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-2002-chrysler-pt-cruiser-we-get-a-good-one-from-chrysler/
I love the GT Cruiser from the “sleeper” standpoint. It would bring a smile to my face if I had an extensive car collection that included one GT Cruiser and one Chevy HHR SS model. They look like they belong in the parking lot at the Senior Center until you get your foot to the floorboard,
I had an inferno red ’03 GT with the manual. That’s the way to truly appreciate the PT. Problem was, Chrysler never really marketed it. It was definitely a sleeper though, which probably saved me dozens of tickets.
Thing is, I sold cars when these came out. They were NEVER meant for the older crowd…they weren’t even a consideration in the market for this car. At first, the people clamoring for them was the exact demographic that we were told would come looking: 25-45, mostly solid middle class. The flexible seating, laptop mounting point on the back of the front passenger seat, multi-position rear package shelf, cargo bay power socket…these were designed for an active lifestyle and for someone who wanted to personalize their car. Trouble is, the retro styling appealed to an older crowd. That usually isn’t a problem, but when that became the stigma, it was poison for the younger demographic. I remember that a LOT of these would enter in ‘classic’ car shows, even though they were modern cars. Big no-no, there.
Yeah, the PT becoming a ‘geezer-mobile’ was along the same lines of minivans becoming severely unhip as soccer-mom transportation. Once that happens (i.e., any vehicle being seen regularly driven by seniors), it’s game over.
I kind of see the same thing happening with the Kia Soul. To their credit, Kia is trying to stave off that reputation by offering the Soul with a new, turbocharged engine which reviews suggest goes a long way to keeping the vehicle fresh by improving the driving experience.
The difference is that minivans were always for suburban soccer moms. There wasn’t a chance that younger single people were going to embrace them and make them ‘cool’. The whole custom van ship had sailed by that point.
When the PT came out, it was all the rage among customizers. Boyd Coddington made an awesome panel van out of one, and rwd conversions with everything from Mopar smallblocks up to Viper V10’s shoehorned in were common at SEMA and the dragstrip. As XR7Matt pointed out, people with no taste whatsoever started tacking on all kinds of cheeseball accessories that did nothing to actually improve the car.
I got compliments on mine all the time, since I modded it tastefully:
I recall that when the PT Cruiser came out I was impressed by the pictures but then disappointed to find out that it was a size smaller than I had expected – somehow I had been envisioning it as a midsize. My error completely, but I have never shaken the feeling that it should have been slightly bigger. One more thing: I once saw a faux-woody example like the one in the second-to-last picture, to which the owner had added fifties-style wide-whitewall tires and full chrome hubcaps. It actually looked quite good, sort of completed the surfer-wagon look.
Do I remember that the first few of these were actually Plymouth PT Cruisers? I could swear that I recall the Plymouth sailing ship on the first one I saw. I know that it was planned as a Plymouth. But it has been a long time.
From the moment I saw these I liked them because of a childhood association with a book I would read at my Grandma’s house. The PT was the spitting image of Chuffer, the car that had the bad habit of taking naps at inopportune times, stranding its owners.
My guess is it might have been a prototype or concept that had the Plymouth sailing ship emblem. Originally, the PT was supposed to be a Plymouth but when the division was dissolved, the PT went to Chrysler. A pity because a Plymouth PT might have saved them (or kept them alive for a little longer).
Plus, the grille and front end is definitely a close cousin to the Plymouth Prowler.
I like the paint job. A layer of whimsy on top of what is by this point a pretty dreary used car.
The Di-Noc doesn’t work as well, maybe if you covered the entire car?
I agree with all the PT positive posts here. It’s beautifully styled , plus not being an homage to a specific vehicle. I would have been proud to sign off on it.
One writer back then thought it had a bit of London Taxi mixed in there, and I think that is right. Not that sure about the phase II headlights, but the blended bumpers were an obvious update. And the later ones have thin chrome bars on the grille, which I think should have been there all along.
I didn’t know the fake wood was a factory option for a while. It’s a lot better than any of the aftermarket versions I’ve seen. I’d consider it, the 1957 Ford Country Squire being to me one of the iconic cars ever.
I’m looking for a sub-US sized minivanlike vehicle. Unlike in Europe, in the US there really aren’t any here. Maybe you can find a low mileage late model PT, but they get fuel economy of 21 combined, 19 city, and 24 highway. The twice as big new Pacifica gets 22 combined, 18 city, and 28 highway. Other minivans are similar. So you can have twice the cubic feet, modern everything, and get the same or better fuel economy.
Look at the Ford C-Max, Mike A. Before Ford brought it here as a hybrid, it was a popular people mover in Europe for a decade. It competed with something called the “Golf Plus,” which is a pretty good way to describe it (better than “Fat Focus,” which certainly applies. I discovered the car only this spring, when I was helping my daughter find a first car. I liked it so much, I bought one another for myself. It’s roomy, easy to get into and see out of (PT-style virtues), but it also goes like stink and hates to stop for gas.
As for “Pete,” the beauty is only skin deep. I have an opportunity to drive my father-in-law’s PT for a week every year, on the way to the beachside reunion. It’s semi-comfortable, I’ll give it that. But the standard powertrain and chassis is just a shame. It’s like they found a perfect balance of mediocrity: no power, no economy, no enjoyment.
What a find! I liked your take on the cross-generational aspects of the featured car. I almost laughed out loud at the Sawzall / camping tent reference. Great piece, Gerardo.
Like RLPlaut, though, I remain a fan of these.
I remember when these were new, when I was in my mid-20s. Some fellow parishioners had paid substantially over sticker (I remember initial demand was fire) for their purple example that they were very proud of. Back then, it seemed like scrappy Chrysler could do no wrong.
I had a similar experience, Joe – A case came to me where one of the first PTs got damaged in an accident in my area. I had a fight on my hands because the other side argued about an unreasonable length of time for a rental. The owner told me it was because the car was so new the shop could not get crash parts for several weeks.
That reminds me of a time when I was a kid in the fall of ’68. The neighbor across the street was the service manager for the Chrysler-Plymouth dealer
in town. About 2 weeks after he gets his brand-new demo ’69 Fury, he shows up home one evening with the back bumper and one extension molding missing. Appropriated to repair another since there were no crash parts yet.
Bought an ’05 convertible with 5-speed to tow behind our motorhome. Although that did not work out very well (a long story), my wife & I found it to be a fun little car to tool around town in. We sold it to our son this spring, as he needed a 2nd car to save miles (and $$ in gas) on his Dodge Ram hemi – he enjoys it, too.
I always hated the look of the convertible PT. Something about it just never sat right with me, probably that cross hoop that looks like the VW rabbit cabrio which is a bona fide chick car.
That said, the PT Speedster concept really makes that bodystyle pop. Id rock the hell out of this! Its a GT 5spd with a few go fast goodies. That paint job is what helps it really pop.
My wife and I test drove one of these in 2005. It seemed like a good solution at the time. A high roof and more room for our 2 small kids. Then I drove it. We passed on it pretty quickly.
Now it seems they (and the HHR) are all driven by older people that like to do 10 under the speed limit.
The PT is a unique vehicle for many reasons. It was one of the first ‘crossovers’ in that it really wasn’t in a specific category. In fact, I think it was technically classified as a small minivan because the rear seats were removable.
Then there’s the comparison with the other new crossover released at the same time, the Pontiac Aztek. The comparison comes from how neither Chrysler nor GM heeded what the focus groups told them. At Chrysler, they said the PT would be a big hit but management forecast very conservative production numbers, meaning the cars were in short-supply for a while. On the opposite end, research for the Aztek suggested a relatively meager market, yet GM ramped-up production for wildly inflated numbers and had to scale back considerably when the vehicle sold poorly from the very beginning.
And the primary demographic for the PT (and later HHR) ended up being not younger people, but older ‘sensible shoes’ type empty-nesters who liked the versatility, as well as the different (but still restrained) styling. There’s also the rather upright ‘command seating’ position. One of the more interesting aspects of former PT/HHR buyers is how they now seem to have gravitated to the Kia Soul as their new vehicle of choice.
I might also go so far as to suggest it was not only the lame Caliber that cannibalized PT sales, but the Caliber-based Jeep Patriot and Compass, as well.
Again, a nice surprise in the morning to see this posted!
I just saw this car again walking home from work last night, so a nice coincidence as well.
I remember Breaking Bad giving the PT a good slagging. Walter’s C**t of a wife made Walter take away the kid’s Challenger and she gave him a second-hand one of these for his birthday. Naturally, the kid wasn’t too happy.
There’s a subtle irony in Walter, Jr. getting a PT Cruiser in that Walter, Sr. famously drove a Pontiac Aztek, a vehicle released the same year as the PT and also classified as an early ‘crossover’.
Also ironic because there was clearly some Chrysler product placement going on there. At the same time he bought the Challenger for his son Walter bought himself a Chrysler 300. But another Chrysler product was the “disappointing” car that Walter Jr. has to drive after the Challenger got taken away.
This color scheme actually works on the PT Cruiser because of the retro styling, although it’s too busy for me. Never drove one, but always liked its unique looks. I remember the first time I saw it in a car magazine it was called the Plymouth Pronto Cruizer, as it was based on another prototype called the Plymouth Pronto (which was IIRC a more practical version of the Prowler), but by the time it was ready for production Chrysler had shut down the Plymouth division. I wonder how it would have fared as a Plymouth, since Chrysler from what I read back then was supposed to be the upmarket division, Dodge the sporting one, and Plymouth the entry level.
We had an ’02 PT Cruiser for three years as my wife’s daily driver. We ended up buying the high output turbo as the naturally aspirated version seemed somewhat underpowered during our test drive. The Cruiser was certainly entertaining to drive with the turbo, for sure you wanted to make sure the front wheels were pointed in a straight line before you gave it the boot. We took the car on several longish vacations and it had plenty of room for two people and luggage. After wrestling the back seats in and out a couple of times I decided that it was easier to just fold them down as the back doors were fairly narrow and didn’t seem to open very far.
We never had any problems with car itself but instead there were some minor issues that the local Chrysler dealer seemed unable (or unwilling) to deal with. The most important of these was that the car developed an intermittent air bag warning. This didn’t affect the car itself but when the air bag warning was displayed the air bags would not have deployed in event of a crash. To make a really long story short (it stretched out over a period of at least six months) the service manager admitted that they had no clue how to diagnose and fix this issue, and if it was his car he would get rid of it. We took his advice and traded the PT Cruiser in on a new Camry. If you believe in karma then justice was served; this dealership was one of the group that lost their Chrysler franchise a few years after this.
Joe writes: “… After wrestling the back seats in and out a couple of times I decided that it was easier to just fold them down as the back doors were fairly narrow …”.
I agree.
The seats (especially the double) were quite heavy, especially when leaning in from outside or crouching in the cabin, and the front seat backs had to be moved more upright for the rear seats to be tilted enough so they could be unlocked from the floor.
I removed the rear seats through the back hatch. The seats had little wheels on them that allowed one to roll them back wheelbarrow style on the carpet to the rear of the vehicle at which point they could be lifted up and out.
Definitely not for the frail or elderly. And I too often left the rear seats in folded flat which, with the front passenger seat folded forward and the rear ledge/desk in position two, gave me a very long flat surface to carry IKEA’s long bookshelf boxes.
The many seat positions of the PT came years before the Fit’s magic seats.
Slightly off topic but the Fit’s magic folding rear seats that get rave reviews come at a price. Honda had to move the gas tank to under the front seat and make it an odd shape. Even then, it’s a rather miniscule capacity, something like 9 gallons.
10.9 gallons in my Gen1 Fit. It is not big, but I still have better range than I did with the teeny 13 gal tank (going from memory here) in my 86 Fox Marquis wagon, which gave me a safe range of 175 miles in town and 225 on the road. The Honda will at least stretch to 300 miles under the same circumstances.
my XT5 does about 500+ on a tank full in day to day driving. The range is optimistic at nearly 600 with a full tank, but the low fuel warning goes off at about 50 mile range left. On a long trip I am not sure what the range is.
My bad on the size of the Fit’s gas tank. I think that’s about the same size as the Prius. The trade-off is the Prius’ better fuel mileage means it has a greater range.
I wonder if the smallish fuel tank on the Fit plays into the whole idea that Honda definitely doesn’t feel that the Fit is designed for any kind of lengthy highway trip. I suggest this due to the failure of Honda to properly adjust the 2nd generation Fit’s additional sixth gear to a longer ratio to take out some of the droning ‘buzz’ at higher highway speeds that many reviews have noted. Rather, they simply shortened the other five ratios on the 2G Fit to improve acceleration through all the gears. I didn’t quite understand it but maybe there was a method to their madness.
Don’t get me wrong; I think the Fit deserves its position at the top of its class. But it could have been truly great with just a little tweaking.
But long after the Renault 16’s multiple seat positions, including removing them.
I for one still love the PT Cruiser. I actually like its looks more now than I did when it was introduced, since it’s now just another older car on the streetscape instead of something new and intriguing. I mentioned before that I’ve been campaigning for one as a second car in our household in the coming months, but that idea’s been vetoed sternly, based solely in the PT’s “uncool-ness”. I’m still pondering picking one up and just driving it myself, because I’d really like to jettison the back seats and keep it as a small utility wagon for Ikea runs, flea marketing, etc. I think it appeals to me as much for its provenance as for its supposed practicality. I learned to drive in the days of K Cars and Omnirizons, with their loveable quirks, shuddering steering columns, rattling and buzzing and reliability foibles, so I kinda see the potential of a PT as a return to my youth. Come to think of it, I guess that’s probably been a selling point for the average buyer since the thing came on the market originally.
The PT’s ‘uncoolness’ is an undeserved stigma. I get the styling being polarizing. But find a GT with the manual, do a timing belt on it if not already done, install the Eibach Pro Plus kit (lowers about 2″ upgrades swaybars), install a CAI, straight pipe the exhaust and do a Pro Predator tune on the thing. Thatll bump it up to about 250 hp, it will corner like a GTI and jaws will drop at how your PT is actually pretty damned awesome. Worked for mine!
A 250 hp PT Cruiser with bigger sway bars and lowered suspension…
Makes me smile just thinking about it.
I know, right? Now I want to find a PT.
I posted it above, but here’s another pic of the one I had.
And very nice it is, too.
This was one of the few cars I’ve seen that I wanted from the moment they came out. Unfortunately, when they got older and into my price range I found out my fat feet (size 12 triple wide) and the narrow foot well didn’t coincide well.
Still annoys me every time I pass one on the road!
My mom is a Camaro fan, and in 2002 replaced her Camaro with a 2002 Ford Focus ZVT which was just offered the week she went shopping. Her lifelong “girlfriends” were also buying new fun cars and both of them ended up with PT Cruisers. About every other month, they’d all get together for a day visit and catch up. So I asked my mom what she thought about Diane’s and Mary Jane’s PT rides. “They are so cute! They look just like the cars we remember growing up in Riverdale, right after the War!” “I love that New Beetle, and I just love that PT!”
“But – it’s too slow!”
The PT was a big hit for those born before WWII – I can personally attest to that here. Both of her friends kept their PTs for over a decade, right up to when they stopped driving. My mom is still driving, and she replaced her SVT with a Titanium Focus as her daily driver. (Her SVT was bought by her Ford salesman as we were signing papers for the new one.) She drives fast. She’s still a very good driver. I hope I am as alert as she is when I reach her age – if I’m even still breathing.
So – when I see a PT, I hear old ladies giggling as they visit one another 60 years after they graduated from high school.
I asked my kids last year what they thought of picking a PT up as their first car – and they gave me a look that told me that they would never speak to me again if I got them one. I see a couple in the high school parking lot, but I suppose that it was a grandma’s car that got passed down through the family.
I often expect myself to like retro offerings, but virtually all of the domestics – PT Cruiser, HHR, Thunderbird – have looked a little sad to my eyes. The PT Cruiser in particular should have worked better, because it’s a decent piece of basic packaging.
I’ve never been in one so I know nothing about the interiors, but I can imagine the letdown if they were as cheap as has been described in some of the comments.
Maybe that is the lesson. The reborn Mini and Fiat 500 were new versions of what had been true economy cars – the cheapest of the cheap in their day – but were brought back to life with high quality design, materials, and finishes. Which is how people like to remember older cars, even if it wasn’t always true.
I always thought that if retro Chrysler was to be on the menu, a Highlander upholstery option should have been offered.
Saw one of these next to a Kia Soul the other day, thought it was funny how similar their approach was (cute, tall 5-door) and how well it worked out sales-wise for both of them.