Time to buy the wife a different car. Stumbled across an 03 PT Cruiser GT with low miles. Seems it has the same engine and 5 speed as the Neon SRT. Should I buy it or should I run? It has 63K miles, leather interior, and a sunroof, and oh yea, it has the faux wood paneling on the side. I feel old just looking at it. Going to test drive it in the morning. What should I look for? I figured these were all old man cars or rentals. Never knew there was even such a thing as a GT model.
Call the dealer and ask for estimates on normal maintence things......IIRC, there is something that absolutely sucks on those(and I can't remember what it is at the moment)
yamaha wrote: IIRC, there is something that absolutely sucks on those
Driving it...
yamaha wrote: Call the dealer and ask for estimates on normal maintence things......IIRC, there is something that absolutely sucks on those(and I can't remember what it is at the moment)
Timing belt and water pump. Easy 8hrs of labor in any shop.
For as a big pile of E36 M3 as a PT is, it's bulletproof E36 M3.
I'd rock the hell out of one, and they can be found for CHEAP.
And there's something hilarious about driving a PT Cruiser with Mopar Stage 3 upgrades or whatever. You wanna go fast? It can do it.
I don't know much bad about them besides the timing belt/water pump. I wouldn't let it sway me away.
I find the interior/ergonomics funky, but if you like them, then get it.
How long does it take to swap the trans? Find one from an SRT Peon that already has an LSD in it. That much power (torque actualy) without an LSD makes for short lived front tires I'd think.
I I
I I
\ /
V
Says a man with a 250lb/ft open diff FWD DD
You can tune a stock turbo to 350+ ft-lbs and nearly 300whp. Just saying.
The 5spd is not the same as the SRT trans, but i think it is still very strong if not stronger. Its probably LESS of an issue than an SRT trans. I also dont think wood paneling came on GTs so thats probably aftermarket.
Timing belt+water pump is probably the worst thing on those cars as far as getting work done. 63k miles suggests it hasnt been done unless they're following the years recommendation which noone does.
I thought some of the front suspension bushings had to be cut off those things or something ridiculous.
That being said, I would totally rock a turbo PT Cruiser as a daily driver.
Turbo anything makes maintainence more difficult, but I've got to say this: I would rather change timing belts on a 2.4 PT than on a 2.0 second gen Neon, and I've done a few of each.
The front suspension bushings are not really a huge deal unless you are deep in rust country, because they need to be changed so often there is no time for the rust to penetrate.
They actually drive perfectly well for a little fwd econobox...which is what they are.
It is a Neon underneath, but they really didn't upgrade the suspension to handle the extra weight of the Cruiser body. Expect much body roll and legendary understeer.
Brett_Murphy wrote: It is a Neon underneath, but they really didn't upgrade the suspension to handle the extra weight of the Cruiser body. Expect much body roll and legendary understeer.
Neons have beam rear suspensions? I thought they were multilink in the back.
One of my old bosses had one. I think the gas mileage was pretty bad.
That's all I have to add.
I could see this being the "modern" analog to the 11-second turbo Caravan. Has anyone done that yet?
In reply to Alan Cesar:
I'm sure they have.......its probably painted like a short bus as well 
In reply to Swank Force One:
Neons are multi link rear, not straight beam.
asetech wrote: In reply to Swank Force One: Neons are multi link rear, not straight beam.
Ok so they are different.
Not that a straight beam is any better, but it is what it is. 
Its my opinion that the PT cruiser was not designed to be sold, but rather, to fill in a CAFE gap. If you look it up, its classified as a SUV, it only exists to make up for the inefficient dodge trucks of the era. Chrysler couldn't have cared less how many sold or how many blew up in 100k miles.
Imagine if you took a narrow 30s style engine bay and crammed a transverse FWD power plant in there. The timing belt pays something like 8 hours and there are no big shortcuts. The front end is mostly Neon, and the control arm bushings fail often.
This wouldn't be a massive problem if the cage nut in the frame rail wasnt so cheap. Instead of making it better, they just put a dimple in the floor to show where to cut.
Note the reinforcing ring around the hole.
93EXCivic wrote:yamaha wrote: IIRC, there is something that absolutely sucks on thoseDriving it...
Nope. We drove a GT ragtop when car shopping for my wife in 2004. She was coming out of a 2.4-swapped first generation Neon with mild suspension upgrades. The Cruiser was a hoot to drive, albeit in a dorky way. Plenty of scoot and it didn't feel like it would be too hard to cure the mom-and-pop handling. Don't dismiss them out of hand.
In reply to Duke:
I have driven a stock one. The steering was numb. It felt tall and heavy. Plus it gets E36 M3ty gas mileage. About the best I can say about them is that they are like cockroaches , you don't want them but they are unkillable.
they look dumb. my only friend who owned one complained about economy. and they're hard to work on. and i don't like mopar in general.
i still want one.
works fine for me but I don't have a GT - I'd like it. Not that bad to work on, seriously.
Rather have an HHR SS Panel(does it exist?).
We bought a 2009 brand new, by 30k miles it was falling apart, I'm talking serious things that shouldn't have gone bad with 130k miles.
As far as driving, when pushed to it's cornering limits, it had a frightening tendency to snap into a severe and sudden oversteer, which almost killed me at least 3 times. I will say however that this could have been partially or maybe even wholly attributed to the garbage OEM Goodyear crap tires.
The fuel economy is horrible also, my 4x4 Suburban got the same mileage, and it was painfully underpowered.
To quote a well known movie' "If you think you hate it now, just wait until you drive it."
I think because PTs were small cars, folks expected small fuel bills. Physically, a PT is about the same size (in length) as a Focus, but it's heavier and has a bigger engine, so it gets the kind of gas mileage that a larger car with the 2.4 (say, a Dodge Avenger) would get. THEN, you add in the turbo, and yeah, gas mileage is dismal...until you realize the kind of power the engine is generating.
There were 2 different levels of power for the turbo in the PT, I forget what they were, but think "stage 1" and "stage 2" in the older Dodge turbo cars. Check to be sure you are really getting a turbo (not sure when they "arrived" but '03 seems too early, by a year) could just be a trim package on this particular example. And the faux woody look was a factory option, but I don't remember seeing it combined with the turbo an/or a manual transmission.
Finally, in Europe, in those countries where Chrysler had dealers the factory "packaged" PT Cruisers with the Neons 2 liter engine instead of the larger / more highly taxed(?) 2.4 engine. I even think the last ones might have had a diesel option.
In reply to beans:
Oh yes it does exist.. Just not at a GRM-friendly price.
http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?zip=32303&endYear=2014&modelCode1=HHR&showcaseOwnerId=85590&startYear=2007&makeCode1=CHEV&firstRecord=126&sellerTypes=b&searchRadius=0&mmt=%5BCHEV%5BHHR%5B%5D%5D%5B%5D%5D&listingId=347612308&listingIndex=20&Log=0
You'll need to log in to post.
