Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First thing to know: the classification gets vague. It falls under definitions for compact, hatchback, tall wagon, and even pick-up truck. This last classification was for CAFE standards in order to get the whole Dodge light truck line in compliance with fuel economy regs. If you remove the back seats entirely, the flat bottom is what earns the vehicle the "truck" classification. The fuel economy, as previous posters have attested to, is never better than about 24 mpg. And that's with the back seats removed.
Second, the shape of the front end of the car makes it so that engine work often requires a bottom-up approach. Maintenance begins to get pricey.
Its severely underpowered. Like, shut-the-AC-off-going-uphill underpowered. You'll enjoy the kind of get-up-and-go that Prius drivers have grown accustomed to, only you're getting half the fuel economy.
The interior space isn't as bad as others are making it out to be. You could do worse. But, you could also do way better.
If interior space and fuel economy are a priority, I'd agree with the recommendations of the Scion xB. I'd also throw in the Honda Fit. Having sold my PT for a Fit was like night and day.
If you like the overall ambiance and the vehicle is a decent deal (relatively low miles, clean CarFax, etc) GO FOR IT.
Generally speaking, all used vehicles are a Crap Shoot to some extent and rarely will one be perfect, however, if you like the looks of a PT Cruiser and it fits your particular needs, it is the vehicle for you. Also, I seriously doubt maintenance expenses for a PT Cruiser will be any better or worse than most of the vehicles that been recommended so far, especially those from "over there".
I personally know a few owners of PT's and they seem to be very happy with them.
This is the one that she is looking at right now. We have a list of others. !!!!!2004 pt cruiser pink !!!!!!!!
She is going to be the main driver of it and knows a lot about cars and is on top of keeping everything tuned up and making sure everything is done when it needs to be.
This is the one that she is looking at right now. We have a list of others.
She is going to be the main driver of it and knows a lot about cars and is on top of keeping everything tuned up and making sure everything is done when it needs to be.
OUCH, Prepper . . . definitely NOT FOR ME as it looks like a HUGE DOSE of Pepto-Bismol but I have a feeling you're not buying it for me anyway. ! ! ! !
From the picture I bet the Paint Job alone was fairly close to the asking price.
OUCH, Prepper . . . definitely NOT FOR ME as it looks like a HUGE DOSE of Pepto-Bismol but I have a feeling you're not buying it for me anyway. ! ! ! !
From the picture I bet the Paint Job alone was fairly close to the asking price.
Lol.. its for the wife. So the price is a good one?
First thing to know: the classification gets vague. It falls under definitions for compact, hatchback, tall wagon, and even pick-up truck. This last classification was for CAFE standards in order to get the whole Dodge light truck line in compliance with fuel economy regs. If you remove the back seats entirely, the flat bottom is what earns the vehicle the "truck" classification. The fuel economy, as previous posters have attested to, is never better than about 24 mpg. And that's with the back seats removed.
Second, the shape of the front end of the car makes it so that engine work often requires a bottom-up approach. Maintenance begins to get pricey.
Its severely underpowered. Like, shut-the-AC-off-going-uphill underpowered. You'll enjoy the kind of get-up-and-go that Prius drivers have grown accustomed to, only you're getting half the fuel economy.
The interior space isn't as bad as others are making it out to be. You could do worse. But, you could also do way better.
If interior space and fuel economy are a priority, I'd agree with the recommendations of the Scion xB. I'd also throw in the Honda Fit. Having sold my PT for a Fit was like night and day.
As you can see from the link I posted we are around the 2k-2500k range. What could/should we look at in that range? Something 2000 or newer and good gas mileage,4 doors.
We are considering getting buying a PT Cruiser for my wife. Good idea or bad? She will use it mostly for going back and forth to work and sometimes carrying kids around.
I am a former 2006 PT Cruiser Limited owner.
I bought it in 2006 and over the 7 years I had it I ran Mobil 1 synthetic. Other than oil changes every 5,000 miles and tires my maintenance/repair costs were:
$150 transmission flush @ 60k miles
$300 radiator fan @ 70k miles
$90 cam sensor @ 94k miles
I drove it coast to coast from Savannah, GA to Seattle in May 2011 on my move here. The 27 mpg I got on that trip (without running A/C) was the best mileage I ever got in that car... the norm was 18-22 mpg due to the brick like aerodynamics and the fact the car is very heavy.
I traded it @ 104k miles this past April for a Dodge Charger... overall the PT was a great car and I have no complaints. I took care of her and she took care of me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fargobound
There are things one needs to know about these cars.
The engine has to be dropped down to do a timing belt service so plan on spending a ton of money $1500-$1800 if it hasn’t been done.
That's why I traded mine in... to avoid that cost. I didn't want the car to start nickel and diming me and although I never had any transmission issues I felt as if I was on borrowed time based on what I'd read about the car over the years.
Last edited by Kees; 11-04-2013 at 09:57 AM..
Reason: ... added quote
I had an '02 PT Cruiser for 5 years and 70k miles. it was a 5 speed manual, Touring edition, and it was FLAWLESS for those 70k miles. As in not even a squeak or rattle and I used it HARD. It saw track time, it saw heavy duty loads (like all the lumber for our deck, or 1200 lbs of bagged crushed rock for teh driveway, etc).
The 5 speed ones were almost 3 1/2 seconds quicker to 60 mph than the automatic ones, and so yes, the automatic ones did seem like slow dogs without much passing power or hill climbing power. The manual version solved both of those issues AND solved the transmission problems that plagued the automatic equipped PTs (or any automatic Chrysler of that era). The automatic ones also, for whatever reason, had a much larger turning circle, making them harder to drive in parking lots (though not actually hard to drive)
They had a lot of space for their size, with an ingenious fold up/removeable back seat combo that lets you carry a LOT of stuff when you need to (like I carried all the custom windows for my house in teh back of mine, stacked floor to ceiling, with the hatch shut...)
Even with the seats up there's a lot of space, as mine shows:
I personally love the shrunken '37 Ford sedan styling. THis little car was probably the best car (at the job of being a car) that I've owned in 38 years and over 120 cars.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
! 
! 
