Upon its introduction as a 2001 model, few could deny that the Chrysler PT Cruiser was an undeniably “cool” car, at least from afar. In a world where affordable compact cars were relatively boring and easily fit into the standard sedan, coupe, hatchback, or wagon bodystyle classification, the PT Cruiser shook up the industry with its expressive retro styling inside and out, high level of available content and personalization, and its rather ambiguous crossover designation. Warmly received by the general public and praised by most critics in its early years, the Chrysler PT Cruiser was an instant success. Unfortunately, it was also largely an anomaly for Chrysler, lacking any true predecessor and more importantly a successor, making it a very much a dead-end vehicle.
Chrysler, undisputedly more so than any other automaker in the 1990s had a way with very effectively translating a large majority of its radical concept cars into production models with limited concessions. As most enthusiasts know, the PT Cruiser was originally developed with the intent it would be sold as a Plymouth — hence the “PT” designation for “Plymouth Truck”. The ultimate production vehicle was the culmination of a series of retro looking Prowler-inspired concept cars beginning with the 1997 Plymouth Pronto (above, left). The Pronto soon spawned the Pronto Spyder roadster concept, as well as the Pronto Cruizer (above, right) — the latter shown with Chrysler badging and closely previewing the design of the production PT Cruiser.
Following years of neglect and relying entirely on badge-engineered models (minus the low-production Prowler), Plymouth’s future most certainly would have been brighter, and possibly longer-lasting, with the PT Cruiser in it. Boasting dramatic and captivating “hot rod” styling reminiscent of cars of the 1930s and early-1940s, the PT Cruiser was far from any corporate “badge engineered” vehicle. Alas, Plymouth’s fatal fate was effectively sealed with Daimler-Chrysler merger in 1998. With Daimler-Benz calling the shots, Plymouth’s heritage had little meaning and it was more or less dead weight. The brand’s discontinuation was soon announced in November 1999 with a swift time table of its exit.
Nonetheless, development on the PT Cruiser continued, and the model was instead launched as a Chrysler, making it the brand’s first compact vehicle since the 1988 K-platform LeBaron. Going on sale in March 2000 and starting at less than $16,000 (≈$24,000 in February 2020), the 2001 PT Cruiser proved an instant success, selling over 90,000 units for the remainder of the 2000 calendar year alone, with overwhelming demand resulting in supply shortages and dealers reportedly charging well above MSRP for available examples. In its first full year of sales during 2001, Chrysler sold an astonishing 144,717 PT Cruisers.
This number was not only more than the similarly-sized yet traditional sedan-bodied and significantly less expensive Dodge/Plymouth Neon combined, it was more than any other Chrysler-branded vehicle sold during 2001. Furthermore, the PT Cruiser was the best-selling Mopar “car” and vehicle in 2001 behind only the Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan, Dodge Dakota, Dodge Ram, and Jeep Grand Cherokee.
From a technical standpoint, Chrysler treated the PT Cruiser to an exclusive platform, aptly designated the Chrysler PT platform. Riding on a 103-inch wheelbase, 168.8 inches in overall length, and 67.1 inches in width, the PT Cruiser was in fact the smallest Chrysler-branded vehicle by measurable length and width ever sold in the United States.
Despite its small external size, the PT Cruiser boasted a very generous interior volume of 120.2 cubic feet, theoretically making it a full-size car in the eyes of the EPA. Interestingly, the PT Cruiser was technically classified as a “truck”, as Chrysler designed it to comply with NHSTA standards for light trucks in order to bring the average fuel economy of the automaker’s truck fleet within CAFE standards. Nevertheless, Chrysler referred to the PT Cruiser as a “car” in promotional material, and the vehicle was most commonly compared to other compact sedans, wagons, and multi-purpose vehicles.
As for cargo volume of that 120.2 cubic feet, the PT Cruiser offered over 19 cubic feet of cargo volume with all seats in place and over 64 cubic feet of cargo with the standard 65/35 split rear seat folded and the available flat-folding front passenger seat increasing this volume even more. Further maximizing versatility, the rear seats could even be completely removed, featuring easy unlatching and tiny roller wheels, much like the rear seats in Chrysler’s minivans. Numerous thoughtful storage solutions included a rear-quarter panel storage cubby, center console coin and letter holders, and storage drawer underneath the front passenger seat.
The PT Cruiser’s seating was for five passengers, though its maximum weight load was rated at 865 pounds, technically reducing its people carrying capacity to four or even three if said passengers were on the heavier side. Nonetheless, its tall roofline allowed for favorably high H-point seating with minivan-like front buckets and over 40 inches of legroom for both front and rear passengers. A 5-position adjustable rear parcel shelf offered further utility and a level load space, able to accommodate up to 100 pounds of cargo or Long Island Iced Teas and a cheese board as illustrated by the 2001 brochure.
Visually, the PT Cruiser boasted expressive, retro-inspired styling inside to match its exterior, featuring a symmetrical — and cost-saving, as in some markets the PT Cruiser was also sold in right-hand drive as seen above — “dual cockpit” dash complete with available body-color-coordinated painted dashboard accents. Some bits were carried over from the Neon, such as HVAC controls and stereo head, but most components were unique to the PT Cruiser, from the seats to the steering wheel to the interior door panels and handles, to the HVAC vents to the exterior color-coordinated retro-style manual transmission gearshift, all enhancing its more special feel.
Unfortunately, like other Chrysler products of the era, material quality abhorrently cheap with lots of coarse, grainy, and hollow-feeling plastic surfaces, plus mouse-fur cloth upholsteries and panel gaps galore. More inviting were the heated leather seats with Preferred Suede® (a registered trademark of Milliken & Company) inserts, which were standard on the PT Cruiser Limited Edition model. Between the very base model and Limited, were two trim packages adding additional content, the Touring Group and Luxury Touring Group.
An interior facelift for 2006, complete with a restyled dash and redesigned seats, did little to improve the PT Cruiser’s economy class ambiance, nor did somber interior colors like Dark Taupe, Pebble Beige, and Dark Slate. Also likely a cost-saving method of standardization for all markets, standard power window controls were placed atop the dash for the front and in the back of the center console for the rear. Early-2001 models curiously and inconveniently did not feature rear auxiliary switches for the driver, requiring a very awkward reach.
Despite its unique looks, underneath its skin the PT Cruiser was mechanically very similar to a handful of other Chrysler products. Its sole engine at the time of its introduction was the naturally-aspirated SOHC 2.4-liter EDZ inline-4. Although the same engine found in Mopars including the Cloud Cars, Chrysler Sebring, Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager, and Jeep Liberty, in the specialty-oriented PT Cruiser, most agreed its 150 horsepower and 162 lb-ft torque were inadequate for anything more spirited beyond everyday around town driving.
Not until 2003 did the PT Cruiser receive a turbocharged version of this engine, available only on the new PT Cruiser GT model. Codenamed the EDV/EDT and also found in the Dodge SRT4, this related 2.4-liter produced a peppier 215 horsepower and 245 lb-ft. torque. Both aforementioned engines featured a 5-speed manual as standard equipment, with a 4-speed Ultradrive automatic optional. 2004 finally saw Touring and Limited models gain the option of a turbo, in form of a detuned EDV/EDT, making 180 horsepower and 210 lb-ft torque, and available in automatic guise only.
Standard suspension consisted of independent MacPherson strut front suspension and a semi-independent twist-beam rear axle with coil springs and Watt’s linkage in the rear (versus the Neon’s more advanced independent multi-link rear setup). A firmer “touring-tuned” suspension was standard on all Touring and Limited models. Front disc/rear drum brakes were standard equipment, while four-wheel disc antilock brakes were curiously extra-cost on all models at a time when many competitors included them as standard at least on higher-spec models. Unlike many competitors, front seat-mounted side airbags were standard on the top-tier Limited, and optional on other trims.
Nonetheless, the PT Cruiser offered a lot of car — in style, versatility, available comfort and convenience features, and high level of personalization — for the money. As aforementioned, in its early years, the PT Cruiser quickly became a fan favorite, drawing high praise and high sales. Popularity remained high for most of its decade-long run, but despite all its initial hype and success, as time would soon tell, the PT Cruiser was largely a fad.
For a vehicle with such unique styling and overall market positioning, PT Cruiser sales held quite strong through 2006, dipping slightly to just over 107K units in 2003, but rebounding to over 138K units in 2004 and again in 2006. Despite the addition of a convertible bodystyle, sold from 2005-2008, along with a minor exterior facelift and aforementioned interior refresh for the 2006 model year, it was clear that the PT Cruiser was becoming stale, with little obvious direction to go in.
Furthermore, the PT Cruiser’s once hip image and captivating styling also began suffering, as by this point the industry’s retro craze was in full-swing. With the market flooded with other retro-styled vehicles, the PT Cruiser no longer was a novelty. Furthermore, its quality woes and growing image as an old lady’s car diminished its appeal. While sales stayed at respectable levels for the remainder of its life, PT Cruisers were increasingly sold to rental fleets as the “fun” compact option.
It may be a stretch to call the PT Cruiser “Cordoba 2.0”, but I can’t help but notice the striking similarities between the two. Like the PT Cruiser, the Cordoba was originally destined to be a Plymouth, and it subsequently was a massive surprise hit for Chrysler. Both vehicles quickly became Chrysler’s best selling models in their first several years. Likewise, the PT Cruiser and Cordoba were each Chrysler’s smallest North American market cars to date when introduced, externally-wise. Furthermore, both were “dead-end” vehicles. Despite seeing a high level of popularity in their early years, they each faced declining sales and diminished importance in Chrysler’s lineup in their later years, and ultimate discontinuation with no direct successor for either.
Ultimately, the PT Cruiser’s lasting legacy really depends on one’s own personal opinion of the vehicle. On one hand it unquestionably made a huge impact on both the market and the industry, defying conventional wisdom of what an American compact could be, bringing with it iconic styling, and generating genuine excitement over both a hatchback/small wagon bodystyle and small American car for the first time in ages. Indeed the PT Cruiser was quite a popular vehicle too. Yet it’s hard to view the PT Cruiser with superfluous admiration, as it’s difficult to overlook its abhorrent fit-and-finish, awkward ergonomics, and Chrysler’s relative lack of attention towards it, simply letting it wither before killing it off. In retrospect, regardless of one’s opinion of it, there’s no denying the PT Cruiser will remain one of the least forgettable cars of the early-2000s, and that’s an impressive feat.
Photographed in Whitman, Massachusetts – December 2015
Related Reading:
I know people who still have one of the last ones. They love it. I don’t get it, but it seems they like the interior room more than the looks of it.
It was my understanding that PT stood for P platform Tall.
You are very likely correct. P was the Neon platform and T was for “Tall.” Though the eventual production PT Cruiser was far from being a Neon derivative, it did share its engine and front suspension and its budget was from money NOT spent developing a second-generation Neon coupe. “Let everybody else fight over coupes. Let’s do something different.” It wound up selling beyond anyone’s expectations, most of all confounding the straight-laced, humorless Germans who took over Chrysler. But even they could not overlook success, though the PT came out a model year late because they had to review every single Chrysler project before approval. The PT could be considered the “last real Chrysler,” as everything after had the Germans’ hands in it…in some cases, their heavy, hapless hands (Avenger/Sebring, Caliber) until Daimler, having milked every last penny of cash from Chrysler, discarded it like a used dishrag.
Nicely researched write up.
I had my 2002 PT for 13 years. The 5 speed manual with its overdrive 5th gear did away with any performance issues of the automatic and made it a great driver under all conditions. It was one of my all time favorite vehicles.
The manual transmission made all the difference. At trade-in time, the dealer thought the manual, very unusual, was a big plus, and he put the car on the dealer’s front row.
Never owned one, but have driven a few in my time, and I remain a fan of the car. My only complaint about it was that the fuel mileage wasn’t good for a car of that class and size. Which is probably why I never owned one. Every time I was car shopping, I easily found something else as appealing that gave 5-10mpg more, and was easier to find with a manual.
I drove my Father in law’s PT Cruiser on a hundred-mile trip across Delmarva in ideal conditions, 40-50 mpg steady in light rural traffic, few stoplights. I couldn’t beat 24 mpg. When I told the owner, he said, “That’s pretty good. I’ve never gotten over 22.” But he loved the car, because with his aged artificial knees, he could get in and out and park it easily. It was a very likable concept and architecture, but the drivetrain was sub-mediocre. It was neither fast or frugal.
This car showed the difference between the mindset of an independent Chrysler and Daimler-Chrysler which followed it. This car was the product of a freewheeling company that was tossing out one wild idea after another and building many of them. The car would surely have had a shorter life and been replaced by something else had that culture continued. But it did not.
Daimler-Chrysler was a different thing. The fun was gone, and so were the really interesting ideas. Had the car not been a big seller it surely would have gone away sooner. But it was allowed to morph from something cool into something for grandma, which made it un-cool. And as you note, there was no replacement. Well, the 2007 Sebring was maybe a kinda-sorta replacement, but we all know how successful that was.
I still remember the first one of these I ever saw, and also remember how hot they were at first. I was involved in a case where an early PT owner got in a minor accident. There was a fight over time allowed for a rental car because it was months before the body shop was able to obtain replacement parts. Chrysler was clearly shoveling every part it could make into the production of new cars to meet demand.
My wife and I test drove one in 2005 to replace our Dodge Caravan that was written off in an accident. We wanted something with better fuel economy, but still had the room to carry our 2 young kids and all their stuff.
Neither one of us were impressed. It felt cheap inside and was under-powered. I had a 1998 Hyundai Accent hatch as a second car at the time, so that says something.
We ended up with a 2003 Mazda MPV instead. It checked all the boxes.
I’ve been watching these cars die for a few years now. Some kid in my apartment complex had his PT Cruiser die under him from some sort of wiring issue, and a friend of mine has been limping his along to try and squeeze a few more months out of it. I was struck by how poorly these cars had aged, as they were both younger than my BMW, but seemed years older.
I too have been watching them die Count Dongula and now that the newest ones are 10 years old the number in junkyards is only going to increase.
I notice that in the Salt Belt these rust pretty good, especially the tailgate. Here in Oregon they seem to just wear out usually (transmission issues) and don’t last long once they reach beater status. Also, the paint takes a beating from that Eastern Oregon sun.
I luv mine 2001
I don’t really consider the PT to be a crossover (it was not available with AWD and it rides at a fairly conventional height). EPA designation aside, it certainly isn’t a truck.
However, this makes its accomplishment all the more impressive: It took a mundane category of vehicle (compact 5-door wagon) and made it interesting and popular, at least for a few moments. This was one of the last “cars” to generate this kind of excitement.
Nice article, thank you. I really like these cars, especially after driving one. The retro style really appeals to me and the size and packaging are just right. Years ago I pointed one out to my dad who thought it was a genuine ’30’s resto-rod.
When I looked for a used one for my fleet , they were all either high mileage and worn or priced very high. Even though the car is scorned on the internet today, many owners seem to value and love them.
My ex-mother-in-law bought one of the first ones. Dealers were charging an extra markup, but she just had to have one.
The PT Cruiser seemed cool for about half a year, then we got used to them, then it became rental car fodder. My dad got one as a rental once and found the driving position odd and the whole car/truck felt cheap. I recall one of the big car rental companies publicly celebrating when their last PT Cruiser was sold off.
The Cordoba comparison holds except that it wasn’t a dead end – a second-generation Cordoba arrived in 1980. It sold poorly and didn’t last long, though I think that had more to do with people being afraid to buy a Chrysler before the loan guarantees were approved and very limited advertising also due to Chrysler’s near-collapse than any fault in the car itself (except for ride quality which was criticized). I found them quite attractive and plush, if less distinctive than the original Cordoba. Also, I don’t remember either Cordoba seeming uncool by the end of the run.
I recall this car debuting to decent praise. While quirky, I think it looked respectable until the 2006 refresh. I don’t agree that it did little to improve the economy car ambience, I’ll argue it wrecked the ambience entirely. The pre-refresh may not have been a 300M inside, but it was decent for a modestly priced car and the styling and finishes were reserved and mature. The refresh was a bad caricature of the original, inside and out. Very plasticky, every quirk overemphasized in a cheapened and juvenile way. They were selling for pennies at the end of the run.
Yeah, I don’t really understand the hate on the original. Pre-DaimlerChrysler cost-cutting, Chrysler interiors were actually extremely decent for the time and even the hard plastic surfaces were well-grained and thick enough to avoid ‘tinniness’ and booming. The refresh, on the other hand, was horrible in every way.
I think you misread what I meant by “An interior facelift for 2006, complete with a restyled dash and redesigned seats, did little to improve the PT Cruiser’s economy class ambiance”.
What I was implying is that the 2006 interior refresh did little (if anything) to improve the car’s environment, which was very economy class (as in economy class, the cheapest class, of an airline).
Had one as a rental once and found it quite pleasant. Despite the fun design, availability with a manual, and turbo, they did seem to be driven by older people. I was surprised to see quite a few on the streets in Europe in the early 2000’s. I’d say it was more influential than this post implies, as it clearly inspired the Chevy HHR, which I think was more appealing, but never sold as well.
These are thick on the ground at our local junkyards right now, mostly the updated newer ones, still tons plying the roads as well. I like the utilitarian nature of them, the styling is okay to me, although the hood/fender shape really does restrict serviceability. Powertrains are simply and durable enough, it’s just a question of the Mopar lottery as to whether you get one that has electrical issues and other build quality issues or not. We had one as a one-way rental to drive from Ithaca to NYC (JFK) in 2006 iirc. Not the most refined thing, retro interior elements mixed with Diamler cost cutting resulted in a weird and not entirely pleasant environment, but it was functional enough. I remember MPG was thoroughly mediocre as well, something like 25mpg all highway (I’ve gotten up to 40mpg in newer midsize rentals on the same drive).
I have quite a bit of wheeltime behind a 2008 model, it’s just the cooking model so no cool options. It’s kind of crude by modern standards and utterly gutless, but I have to say the interior packaging is really intelligent and I like the engine. I feel like the 2.4 would be a lot more charismatic if it weren’t handicapped but the moronic 4sp auto.
*by the moronic 4sp auto.
There are a lot of these still on the road around my area. The neighbor across the street has one. They love it. We were looking at getting one for my daughter as her first car when she started driving, but the many reports of overheating issues turned us away.
Overheating and a warped head did mine in. Changing the radiator (with a cracked tank) and otherwise servicing the engine was really hard.
Why not both? It was retro-chic when it was introduced and it was rapidly found to be retrograde. And the D/C “updates” made it even more so.
I plan. on purchasing a 2010 pt cruiser “gt model only “in the near future when the right one comes along ,i have heard about some of the problems yet there are so many still out there with as much as 250,000 miles + and still running well .
You will not find a 2010 PT Cruiser GT. None were made. The 2010 was built from leftover parts from earlier production as the “Classic” but did have many trim upgrades from the prior years’ base models. Alas, no Turbo any more.
By tbe way, those with the “Turbo Lite” PT…the Limited and Touring (convertible only) PTs with the 180 hp turbo engine instead of the 215-230 hp in the GT, can upgrade to the more powerful engine with an update to the engine control computer, which several aftermarket vendors can do for $150-200. The only difference was the computer tuning. That won’t get the firmer Sport suspension and 17″ wheels of the GT, though.
Good friend put his order in for one when they were first introduced and I recall that it seemingly took forever to arrive, they were initially so popular. He still has it and while vehicle cosmetics are not his strong suit, it still looks great and, he tells me, runs like a top.
Another friend, a dealer, had me drive one to an auction for him after it had lingered on the lot too long. This was a used one, in 2005, and he commented on how at one time they were absolutely impossible to get but by that time were nearly as hard to get rid of.
Yes, I ordered one when they were first released, and never got it. I had a tracking number and all, and spent a lot of work hours checking on its build progress. But I had ordered a manual transmission, which put it back in the queue, and it kept getting further and further back.
Then I almost bought one from an out of state dealer (New Mexico?) . In retrospect it would have been fun to take my then-three-year-old on a flight and road trip – he was (and is) a good traveller — but I didn’t want to spring for the flight, cheapskate that I am.
Instead I kept my 4liter/5 speed Cherokee for another 6 years.
I love these, but (disclaimer) this is from someone who is seriously considering a Lexus SC430 for my interest car.
Too me they got the retro to mod coolness ratio just right. Not cartoonish like so many other retro rides. Cheerful without being ridiculous. I can’t take Challengers seriously to this day despite all that hp. And 300s look like a car built by the Pep Boys Accessory Department. Don’t get me started on New Bugs.
I loved the rental I had for a month- my late 97 year old Granddad asked me if they bought the Airflow back. I had to look that one up.
These sold quite well in Europe. It was something of a pioneer in the nascent MPV segment, which came to be huge there until it was superseded by CUVs. It was actually a prefect size and configuration for Europe, and the unique style set it apart.
So very true, these really are what the Europeans were calling MPVs. Compared to what most consider the first MPV in Europe, the Renault Scénic, the PT is the same height, only inches longer, and actually narrower. Chrysler actually built these in Austria alongside their vans as well for the first couple years, that’s how in demand they were initially. People seem to ignore that the PT was really the only compact MPV that ever was a true success in terms of sales here in the US. The closest vehicle I can think sold here in the same-ish positioning was the Kia Rondo. Not a success.
People seem to ignore that the PT was really the only compact MPV that ever was a true success in terms of sales here in the US.
Yup. And the combination of its cute styling and great packaging were the reasons it was a hit. People like to sit tall, and have a versatile but compact vehicle. it also explains why the gen1 xB was a minor hit and still has a very strong following (crazy resale value).
CUVs have some of the same features, but are somewhat more compromised die to their higher floor height, although there seems to be a trend back to reasonable heights, like the 2020 Escape, which clearly has less SUV vibes and more passenger car vibes.
You sat tall, but there was not a ton of shoulder room. It’s like the interior elements were built at 7/8 size, even though there was a lot of open space around them for leg room and head room. Kind of like 70s Japanese cars.
Paul:
The exterior is actually a detailed copy of the 1936-1938 Ford Slantback. The Ford was available as a couple or suicide-door sedan.
I had 3 PT’s, including my current 2004 GT with a Stage 1 ECM upgrade and a pair of Crower Stage 2 cams and Modern Performance head. It’s my favorite toy and for short distances will give my stroked 428 63 TBird a run for its money.
My brother bought a used one some years ago. Then one day it died. He couldn’t get it running using all the usual tricks. He did all his own work, and it took him a while to figure out what happened. A camshaft broke.
Chrysler quality was abysmal back then, and sorry, that preceded the Daimler merger. In fact, that precipitated it in part. Chrysler’s warranty costs were going through the roof at the time, and Eaton saw the writing on the wall: even though Chrysler was still making good profits, he was smart enough to know that folks would be turned off by all of their very brittle/cheap cars that were generating such nice profits. Chrysler in the ’90s was doing the exact opposite of the Japanese: quick short term gain at the expense of quality and long term success.
I continue to maintain that Eaton was the cause of much of those troubles. IIRC he was the chief engineer of the GM X car, which had its own troubles with warranty expense. Upon taking over at Chrysler in the early 90s he embarked on a big cost-cutting adventure when what they needed was some solid manufacturing and QC management to complement all that was going right. Chrysler of 1993 had made great strides over Chrysler of 1979, and while it still had a ways to go, was far better than the Chrysler of, say, 1996-97 in terms of quality.
Eaton had spent an entire career at an increasingly dysfunctional GM and simply lacked the skillset to understand and manage a smaller, more dynamic (and less stable) company.
I’m not in any way absolving him of responsibility; he was the CEO, after all. But lets face it, the issues with the new generation of cab-forward cars started before he arrived in 1992. meaning, the only way Chrysler was going to be able to afford to develop three completely new platforms (LH, “Cloud” and Neon) was by cutting corners.
It was Bob Lutz who was head of Chrysler Global product Development starting in 1986. And let’s not forget the Ultradirve fiasco. And the ABS fiasco. And a few others, before Eaton ever arrived.
Lutz (and Eaton) fell in love with AMC/Renault’s Francois Castaing who created the very efficient platform team strategy, because it made huge cost savings possible.
It was all about cutting development and production costs, and there was no genuine commitment to quality, which always has to start from the very top and flow down.
Eaton and Lutz were classic all-American gung-ho execs who never internalized the Deming-Japanese approach. And the results were highly predictable. Well, at least for me 🙂
I wasn’t sucked in to Chrysler’s roaring success at the time, precisely because of that reason. it was obvious what they were doing, creating a bubble of sorts thta was not going to be sustainable.
The Japanese were genuinely worried about the Neon, that is, until they got their hands on one and tore it apart. They never worried about a small American car again.
These guys missed a golden opportunity to make Chrysler genuinely successful for the long haul, not just to squeeze out some quick big profits. I’ve never liked Lutz and Eaton for these reasons. Lutz’ actual track record sucks. The biggest hype machine in the industry. And almost all of his pet cars failed or were mediocre quality. Ironically, he endlessly went on tv predicting the imminent bankruptcy of Tesla. The guy who has Chrysler’s and GM’s blood on his hands. His brilliant insights were on endless display on CNBC.
As to the X car, undoubtedly the biggest single issue was that GM simply rushed the introduction before they were properly fleshed out. Exactly who is to blame for that is a good question. Eaton certainly is guilt to some degree by association, but I suspect the 14th floor pushed too hard.
I appreciate your insight, Paul. At the time, I never payed too much attention to the people behind the products at Chrysler in the 90’s because I was from a Chrysler family, and hey! They were on what seemed one hell of a run from 1992-1995 (LH, Grand Cherokee, Neon, Ram, Cloud cars, updated minivans). So Dad buys a Neon. Who boy, talk about a car that could sell itself out the door of a dealership brimming with charm, only to turn around and become that abusive spouse who shows their true colors after the courtship period. Lutz, after learning more about him during GM’s implosion and the things he was on record saying were eye opening to me; that man is the epitome of arrogant and nobody will convince him of anything that doesn’t align with what he’s already decided to be true, full stop. His rant about how the government forced GM to shutter Pontiac was my awaking moment regarding him; over 15 years bleeding cash never turning a penny into profit (Pontiac) and the nerve to criticize being told “Nope, not our money going after bad (saving Pontiac)… Give him a role at Toyota back then and I’d bet money he wouldn’t last 6 months before being forcibly escorted out and into oblivion.
And as a postscript: I never felt that Iaccoca had internalized the Deming/Japanese approach either. Yes, the endless stream of K-car derivatives made them less likely to suffer serious quality issues for obvious reasons, but that’s hardly the same as the real thing.
Sure quality was something you wanted to have, but the question is just how badly. Is it really job #1?
I do not disagree with any of what you say. I think Iacocca had some impact on improved quality after 1979 only because it had become so bad. Almost any kind of management overhaul would have improved the product and Iacocca gets credit for both early on.
I also agree that Chrysler had a golden opportunity in the 80s to “go Deming” – his method had gotten some good press and the company was making money. But it didn’t happen.
Some products fared pretty well. The 3.3/3.8 V6 from the Iacocca era turned out to be one of Chrysler’s great ones, and the 3.5 was a great one as well. But as you say there was also the Ultradrive and the 2.7, neither of which got the kinds of fixing they needed.
I give Iacocca a B/B-, as the company was certainly in good financial shape when he turned it over – despite some product ossification. Lutz at least championed exciting products and the kind of quality in assembly that buyers notice. But shortcuts under the skin caused needless unforced errors. IMHO Eaton had all of Lutz’s negatives and none of the positives.
This post has me trying to remember when I saw a PT Cruiser last, they did have a certain popularity here not long ago but its a car that has semmingly vanished from the landscape, odds are one or two will appear either today or on the weekend now as CCeffect kicks in.
Great article, Brendan!
I kinda had a Jones for these when they first came out. It passed eventually, but these still tug at me on occasion.
Yeah, I know buying one today would be a huge reliability crapshoot, but somebody might be able to twist my arm into taking that blue one! 😉
The PT Cruiser was clever and cynical. They put a retro style style body on a Neon, sold it at a premium and told the EPA it was truck so they could raise the CAFE fleet numbers. IIRC even the convertible PT cruiser counts as a truck because the criterion was the removable back seat.All this for a not particularly good vehicle.
That said a PT Cruiser with a sedan delivery treatment might have made an OK light delivery or service vehicle with a distinctive shape and space for a vinyl wrap like the Chevy HHR van.
One minor nit: the PT Cruiser was based more on the Stratus/Cirrus/Breeze ‘cloud’ car than the Neon. But, yeah, clever and cynical does sum the PT Cruiser up rather well. FWIW, GM seemed to do a better job of embodying the whole retro sedan delivery ethos with the Chevy HHR. There were HHR derivatives that replaced the rear seat with a hard plastic, rear parcel shelf, as well as versions with both the quarter windows ‘and’ rear door windows blanked out (as well as having the rear door handles shaved off).
Speaking of GM, one of my favorite stories on the PT Cruiser is how it correlated with the ill-fated Pontiac Aztek released at the same time. The problem was how both GM and DCA ignored the market research for both vehicles. GM’s research told them that there was a limited demand for the Aztek, yet they ramped up production to spit out tens of thousands more Azteks than there was a market. As everyone now knows, Pontiac dealers ended up with a massive oversupply of unwanted Azteks on their lots.
Chrysler did the exact polar opposite. Their market research said there was a big appetite for such a retro ‘mini’ minivan (technically what the PT Cruiser was classified since the rear seats were removable without tools). Yet, Chrysler went conservative with production planning, meaning they could have sold a whole lot more of them that first year, but there just weren’t enough to go around to meet demand.
Finally, another fascinating aspect of the PT Cruiser was who ended up buying most of them. It wasn’t the youth market, but the older geezers who liked them. I would go so far as to suggest this is the reason so many of them are still around; those seniors tend to do more careful and less driving, and do a better job of maintaining their vehicles than some other demographics.
Yes, clever and cynical… definitely. And due to its (unlikely, to me) success, I wound up liking it. I think the whole PT saga would make a great case study for business-school students — a daring project done on the cheap, that wound up being popular, but then it’s manufacturer let it wither on the vine. Too bad this car was a dead-end.
Rented one in Seattle the first summer it came out. It almost literally stopped traffic. Drove it around Victoria Island, Canada. Everyone admired it, although, truth be told, it was just an OK econobox. Rather noisy and rough riding, but good use of the small footprint.
Here in Northern California in my neighborhood (middle-class suburbia) there are LOTS of PT Cruisers, still. Sometimes it seems that I cannot go out for a drive without spotting one. Other than one that looks like it was lived in by a homeless person until it broke down on the way between a public parking lot and the one in front of Walmart, and was left where it was, they are in good shape, too. I chatted up the officer who was putting an abandoned vehicle tag on it. He said that since the body is straight and the interior is all there but dirty, if it goes unclaimed, he’d buy it from the tow lot for the storage charges. Yes, he’s a car guy…
I used to want a PT Cruiser until I opened the hood of one. I do as much of my own work to my vehicles as possible and that looked like a nightmare to me. If I never had to actually fix it myself, I might have gotten one anyway.
My hope was to use a PT Cruiser to haul my paintings to shows and to haul things that were just a bit too large to put in the back seat of my ’79 St. Regis or my 2002 Concorde Lxi (which also gets better mileage and more horsepower if it isn’t as utilitarian). A good friend of mine has a PT with a 5 speed manual and for the most part he loves it but some of his repairs that he would normally have done himself he farmed out.
Speaking of ’02 Concordes, they can also be a nightmare to work on. Ask anyone who has ever replaced the starter. I’d say more about that but then it turns into a book. I previously had a ’99 Concorde Lxi that was a wonderful car until it got T-boned on my way to work. There were big quality differences between the cars and even though my ’02 Concorde has made it to 242,000 miles, it got there because I’m stubborn and my budget has no room for car payments. I couldn’t see going through the same misery if I brought home the wrong PT Cruiser. Some people I know have had no problems with theirs and others, nothing but problems.
Good call on the PT Cruiser’s tight engine bay. It’s a big reason it was a stylistic dead-end. There was just no way to lengthen/widen that front end for a larger engine (like a V6) without making it look like Jimmy Durante. The only choice was always going to be the 2.4L (or 2.4L with a turbo), and that was it.
My wife and I had the nerdiest of nerdmobile PT Cruisers: same purple color as the featured car, but a Limited model with chrome (clad) alloy wheels and wood paneling. She loved the damn thing!. It was reasonably fun to drive. It never gave us trouble. It and made people (ok, mostly old people) smile! I thought the interior was of decent quality considering the price point and won top marks for style: purple dash pods, ivory cue ball shift knob, suede inserts on the door cards, leather/suede seats. It was built to a price, but what car isn’t? I too see a lot of these in u-pull salvage yards today and the interiors are usually still in good condition. It may be hard plastic but it still looks new 20 years later. The only gripes we had were 1). noisy rear drum brakes – I would pull up the parking brake when I started off to clean off the shoes so that it wouldn’t sound like a 1960’s dump truck for the first 3 or 4 stops. and 2) the worlds WORST turning radius. You would try to swing into a parking space and never make it without backing up and correcting. I never understood this. The LWB Chrysler Town & Country we got to replace it turns on a dime by comparison!
I liked the PT when it came out and still like the looks of them. It and the HHR were my favorite of the “retro is cool” era of the early 2000’s
I worked a summer job in 2003 at metzlers nursery in Columbia MD and the owners had a manual transmission PT. The wife ordered it direct from Chrysler with what she wanted in it. it was a very fun car to drive
If the right PT came along I would buy it as I like them. These were small cars that could be parked anywhere but had a lot of inside room
Excellent article Brendan.
It was the very creative and sometimes stunning prototypes Chrysler created during the late 80s and 90s that I found especially appealing.The anticipation of another Chrysler concept was one of the reasons I still bought car magazines then.
I preferred the ’97 Pronto to the PT Cruiser. And I was very impressed by, and attracted to, the original Neon prototype from 1990.
I thought the all-plastic 2CV-like Chrysler CCV was another clever concept purposed for underdeveloped countries.
$16k….was that comparable to a Civic/Corolla?
2004-06 sales figures – artificially high from the inclusion of fleet sales?
Although built on the same platform as the Neon, Consumer Reports rated the PT Cruiser higher than the Neon’s replacement, the Dodge Caliber. The Caliber really was a “turd”. If you wanted a small car from Chrysler, the PT Cruiser was a better choice than the Caliber.
As has been noted, the PT Cruiser has something of a reputation for being a “grandma” car and while not a great car, there are still a fair number of lower mileage “grandma” PT Cruisers hitting the used car market as their owners decide to give up driving or as they move on up to that showroom in the sky. Someone looking for a small used car in good condition could do worse than a PT Cruiser.
I remember how red hot there were at the beginning, and a sighting of one was rather a big deal. It’s too bad that they had so many issues. A friend had one that was constantly in the shop and finally died completely.
The early 2000s were really the period of the “clever wagonish thing.” The initial Matrix/Vibe were also almost impossible to find and had many simple and very useful interior touches, like the PT. However, being Toyotas, they were bulletproof.
I had a Vibe for 12 years and it was extraordinarily handy for all manner of passengers and cargo. So many of the small CUVs built today have the look, but not the smartly designed usability of these old models.
This was a(nother) excellent article. It was refreshing to read about the PT Cruiser from a viewpoint that wasn’t exclusively negative. Like other responders in this thread, I remember when the PT Cruiser first arrived, and yes – they were hot and in demand.
A remember a young family in my church-at-the-time had purchased one (the first instance of me being acquainted with an owner), and the dad had mentioned how much over sticker he had paid. I remember thinking that was completely okay.
I still like the PT Cruiser, even if I understand the interior and mileage were subpar. I actually prefer the original interior to the restyle. The Pt Cruiser seemed to reinforce at the time that Chrysler was a real risk-taker, and I liked it for that reason, among others.
We had one of these (2003, I think) for several years as my wife’s daily driver. Hers had the high output turbo which made the PT Cruiser a very entertaining car to drive; you definitely wanted to make sure the front wheels were pointed straight ahead if you gave it full throttle. We used the Cruiser as our vacation vehicle and it was surprisingly roomy for what was essentially a small car. The first couple of trips I took out the back seats but finally settled for just leaving them in place; the seats were fairly heavy and it was awkward maneuvering them through the narrow opening provided by the back doors.
We only kept the PT Cruiser for three years or so; to make a long story short the car began returning trouble codes that the dealer was unable (or unwilling) to do anything about. After numerous trips to the local dealer’s service department I may or may not have gone off on the service manager, expressing my disappointment over the facility not being able service a vehicle they were happy to sell. The service manager finally told us that if it was his car he would just get rid of it; we went directly from there to the Toyota dealer where the Cruiser was traded in on a new Camry. If you believe in karma the Chrysler dealer was one of those whose franchise got pulled in the dealer purge a few years after this.
Paul, thanks for referencing W. Edwards Deming..The Japanese listened to him and learned and made noticeable improvements in quality. Except for a brief period in the past at Ford, the Americans have never paid heed to the words and teachings of a brilliant man. American industry has suffered as a result.
I saw a PT Cruiser on the freeway just yesterday. I always thought that they were kind of a cute, fun car. There were some low rider like clubs that had cars adorned with accessories added to them to kind of resemble a ’48 Chevy, skirts, visors, things like that. I rented one for a couple of days and I liked the body colored dash panels and upright seating. My disappointment was with the very poor fuel economy. I was expecting something closer to 30 mpg. but it was only a couple of mpg.s better than my Dodge Caravan’s 20 mpg. As small cars go I haven’t seen anything that can beat my ’90 Honda Civic SI coupe. Great performance and handling, seating for five, hatchback versatility,and 36 mpg, average. I once achieved 42 mpg. on a long trip at 55 mph. Even though I admired that car and other Japanese imports I bought my first hobby car after that; a 1971 Buick Riviera. Sometimes rationality isn’t what you are looking for.