Test drive: 2007 Chrysler PT Cruiser Convertible

I’m hoping you’ll do a review soon of the new Dodge Nitro. I bought one in late May (actually I had gone to the dealer to look at PT Cruisers).

I love it to pieces, despite the recent failure of a computer module. The dealer replaced the module and even provided me with a free rental vehicle (a Jeep Liberty, which was the basis of the Nitro design).

Philip’s next “nice ride” should be a rocking chair! I told my wife that if I ever make such warm remarks about such a ridiculous car, to wheel me off the coastal highway on the Big Sur, so I can at least end my senility in a beautiful place. As to those “nice car…” comments, they we probably followed by “…for a PT Loser”. Sorry Phil, but this is a silly “gimmick” marketing car that a lot of people think is sooo cute and nothing else,so they buy it. Nobody takes this car seriously, at least nobody I take seriously! (sorry,I had a rough day today)

Hawaiian Don, do you also rant and rave about “New” Beetles, Minis, HHRs, and other “retro” cars? The PT is, at the very least, very practical with lots of storage room – it’s style only helps its usefulness as an actual car, unlike most cars designed around a particular style. (And let’s hope that any distaste you have for the PT goes double for the HHR, a rather sad carbon copy of the PT, built for people who want a PT but can’t handle buying a Chrysler.)

The problem I have with the PT is that the body style just doesn’t lend itself to a convertible, and the body is much too high. Short people can probably barely see over the tops of the doors and definitely not see anything behind you. Maybe Aaron can do a first-hand report on this.

Back in 2001, I went to nearby dealership and test drove a PT Cruiser. It had retro looks, great ergonomics, and a small footprint. The handling was surprisingly smooth. What was really sad was the engine. With a 150 horsepower automatic, the PT Cruiser was pathetic- forcing me to walk away.

With the 2006 model year of the PT Cruiser, things have greatly improved. With the initial test drive of my Inferno Red GT, I was hooked. I took my Dad with me, and he was impressed with its power. This year’s PT GT has as much power as my 1998 Dodge Dakota pickup with a V-8 (230 hp.). While most people see this car as another cute little PT, no one has any idea how much power it has until I come roaring past them!

Performance behind the wheel:

The power seems consistent throughout the entire application of acceleration. Apparently this is an improvement over the original, 2004 PT GT.

If you choose to acceleration conservatively, the engine performs like a normally aspirated engine. Push the accelerator hard, and the turbo screams to life along with the rumble of the exhaust system and Chrysler catalytic converter.

The Autostick transmission (standard on GT automatics) works surprisingly well. You can use it to hold gears longer and use engine breaking to save the brakes (this is great in stop and go traffic when most autos tend to over shift). If you forget to shift, the system works to up shift (when engine revs to 5400rpm) and down shifts when you come to a stop. Also, the Autostick safeguards from down shifting too soon. If you don’t feel like shifting, simply engage the shifter into “D”.

Steering under hard acceleration produces a fair amount of torque steer (the car wants to veer the opposite way of the intended direction). For this reason, don’t let an inexperienced drive operate this vehicle.

This car rumbles like a Honda with aftermarket performance parts. It is not the quietest vehicle on the market. Under hard acceleration, it is sometimes difficult to hear the stereo.

The car can cruise at 80 mph with little effort. With the turbo, it can easily accelerate at this speed. I hope I don’t get into trouble with this kind of power!

The turning radius is truly awful! With its 17 inch wheels and shallow wheel wells, this PT feels like I am steering my parent’s Ram Mega Cab 4×4. Thank goodness it’s shorter than a Dodge Neon.

Requires a minimum of 91 rated octane for fuel (due to the turbo). Not the cheapest to fill, but cheaper than my Dakota. The PT GT is currently getting 16 mpg while breaking the engine in. This is not very good for a four cylinder engine.

With AC on, the vehicle tends to vibrate a little. Four cylinder vehicles are not as smooth as Eights.

Interior:

Still looks great and practical. Two-toned leather seats with beige interior, plenty of chrome, and red panels on dash.

The “towel bar” on the dash of the passenger side is goofy. I guess it is the panic handle when you drive aggressively.

The PT GT has great versatility with the seating arrangements. The front passenger seat folds flat and the back seats are easy to remove from the vehicle. Since I’m a single guy with no kids, cargo space is more important than seating people. Also, since I’m tall (6’ 3’’) it would be difficult for an adult to sit behind me while I drive.

I never thought I would like heated seats. Living in Southern CA, it doesn’t get very cold. However, these seats warm up quickly and loosen up your back nicely. They work so well, that you don’t have to run the heater.

Exterior:

For 2006, the front and rear bumpers are integrated into the body. Those ugly, fat, grey bumpers are no longer available.

The PT GT has a nice chrome exhaust tip. It looks decent.

The grille has changed and no longer continues under the front bumper. However, the new grille has chrome inserts and looks good.

The standard 17 inch wheels look great. The only weird thing is that chrome is really plastic molded over the wheel which seems kind of cheap. They seem to make little creaking noises when they first begin to roll. I may have to replace these later.

The rear spoiler fits well with the stance of the PT GT. It not too big, but it gives the GT a more sporty appearance.

I’m still getting used to the push button door handles (think VW Beetle). They feel solid and look nice.

Overall, I would recommend this vehicle to anyone who is interested in purchasing a PT Cruiser. Yes, I know that the PT GT is significantly more than a standard PT Cruiser, but it makes you realize that having more power makes this vehicle a more enjoyable vehicle to drive. I also test drove PT GT convertible (due to one sales manager’s attempt to bait and switch me in hopes that I would spend even more). While I found it to be a roomy convertible, it is “chick” car (sorry, not for me). Even though this car is not the cheapest to maintain, it offers power, performance, and roominess- all in a small package which is easy to park and wash. What’s funny is my PT GT is cheaper than the 2001 model that I looked at five years ago!

JKyle…You got it right in your opening line: when it comes to the Pt Cruiser I “rant” out loud because its a neon in old clothes…and neons never did a thing for me. The HHR I hold my judgement till I’ve driven one,the Mini I “rave” about because I HAVE driven one and it’s retro look is a true retro that is easily recognizable as a modern Mini. The Pt. Cruiser does not evoke images of a mid-30’s Chrysler Airstream…just some old looking car. As for the Beetle, beneath which lurks the venerable Golf…if ever there was a great retro car this shall always be the standard. New retro? Camaro…Coool Challenger…giving the Beetle a run for the yardstick for all retros…As far as retros are concerned I “rant” about the lousy ones(PT Cruiser) and “rave” about the great ones!

So you consider the execrable “New Beetle” to be good and the PT Cruiser to be bad?

Ohhhhhhhhh Kayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy……………. guess there’s no point trying to talk sense to you.

And you don’t like the PT because you didn’t care for Neons? Hey, the SRT-4 was based on a Neon and that was quite a remarkable little giantkiller…

OK, JK…considering how many millions of golfs were sold worldwide, I would say that it’s pretty safe to say they were a pretty darn good car (I had 2 GTI’s). As to the beetle, it’s form is very true to the original, yet with a very modern twist. The PT resembles just “OLD”. It doesn’t harken back to any classics, the 36 Airstream hasn’t ever come up at any afternoon car chats that I can recall, nor any auto auctions for any serious dough. As for the SRT-4, basically it’s a classic unidimensional piece of motown crap…kinda like strapping a 300 hp engine to a “Radio Flyer” (child’s play wagon). It’s fast yes, but a totally primitive “boy racer”. Torque steer galore, can’t handle for beans, rides with the smoothess of a blender on “chop”, ugly like all it’s neon brethren and the interior is inspired by Zaporozhets (Russian junk,google it). Did I forget anything?

And exactly how much seat time have you have in an SRT-4? As I recall reading in multiple reviews, torque steer was remarkably controlled and handling was very good. No, I don’t own one and don’t plan on it, but I do respect them for their great performance for the price.

Regardless, you’re missing my point. The PT and the Beetle are both slaves to style. I think one is OK (not in live with it, but OK) and the other makes me vomit in my mouth (and I like the original Beetle), but we can agree to disagree on style.

The point is, every single concession to style that the Beetle makes hurts its practicality. The curved roof means little backseat headroom and enough trunk room to hold a box of Kleenex. Meanwhile, the style of the PT means a very large interior with a ton of space to haul things or take it on a road trip.

Furthermore, I suspect the most PTs are going to be more reliable than most Beetles (VW had a very bad time there, and check some long-term reviews – I think the clutch on C&D’s failed at 19k to say nothing of several other problems), and be significantly less expensive to fix when they do break… and the PTs had longer warranties for most of the years when the two were relatively new.

Consumers seem to agree. The PT has had “legs” while the New Beetles are just not cutting it. For 2006, Chrysler sold 138,650 PT Cruisers, while as of November, VW had pushed only 33,175 – and that was a good bit better than the year before! We’ve also seen a lot more stylish tall hatchbacks since the PT, while nobody has been interested in trying to go emulate the Beetle’s design.

And BTW, first off, it’s AirFLOW, not AirSTREAM (the latter are those shiny aluminum trailers), and second, the PT is not meant to recall the Airflow, nor any specific vehicle. It’s closest to Chrysler delivery vehicles of the ’30s and ’40s but is a new creation.

jk…you’re right…I was wrong…I take back what said….it was the Airflow, not the airstream, but that wasn’t my fault.It was a momentary flashback to the time I spent with this trailer trash floozie named Flo…oops I digress…anyway I don’t think anyone who considers these cars, cares about headroom issues and the like, it’s all appearance driven…my father-in-law was head of the Chryco.art dept at Highland Park(before the Tech center in Auburn Hills)and he said that the airflow was the direct inspiration for that car and it was in their ad materials when it was first released…as to “seat time”, I sold them at Maroone Dodge in Pompano Beach Fl…what really impressed me was the fact that when I sold the new beetle at Metro VW in San Diego, we were getting $4000 over sticker on them…leaving me with an eternally warm and fuzzy feeling for a car that netted me $1500 commissions per unit! Can’t recall getting more than $500 over sticker for a PT. That to me, answers the “question of taste”. Jk it’s been fun sparring with you…love your enthusism!