New PT cruiser

Actually I think its more to do with the length-to-girth ratio (aka
"fineness" ratio). For a given cross section, there's a fairly large
range of lengths where drag coefficient goes *down* or stays the same as
you increase length, then goes up again because of "wetted area" drag
(surface area). I suspect this is exactly the same reason Smart car
highway fuel efficiency is so much worse than it should be for its
weight and engine.

Also the 41TE transmission is a power soak, and its software is tailored
to the EPA tests more than to the real world. Always has been, although
it's much better than when it first came out. That's why the manual PTs
got SO much better mileage in the real world, even though they were
only EPA rated at a couple more MPG.

 

Now THAT is ridiculous. Something has got to be mechanically wrong- more
seriously so than bad plugs or wires. Timing belt off a tooth? Dragging
brake? Binding transmission? Leaking injector? Are you basing that on
the computer mileage or by checking the fill quantity against the odometer?

I agree that the PT's 25 highway (we've gotten a max of 27) is
surprisingly low given that our old '93 LH car would get 29-30 in its
prime and had a 215 HP v6... but I honestly don't think I could *force*
our PT to get below 20 on the highway without dragging the brake or
disconnecting a spark plug. Heck, we get 21 in commuter traffic.

 

That lack of higher end power has a lot to do with the engine setup as
well.
Comparing my '95 Concorde 3.3L and my 300M 3.5L, there isn't much
difference below 40mph, but above that speed is where the 300M's higher
RPM torque really shows up. No comparison then, the 300M just keeps on
accelerating strongly to the max speeds I want to go. The transmission
is the same and the RPMs in each gear are very similar.
You would need to try the Altima to get a more realistic comparison, the
Sentra is more of an urban car.

 

I doubt the PT consumes enough fuel to qualify.
To my surprise my '95 Concorde doesn't, it's just below the cut off for
fuel consumption.
There must be something wrong with your PT, unless you drive at 90 mph!

 

I tried to check a Journey out at the local Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep/Hundyi
dealer.

He was pushing the Hundyi and a bunch of 09 Sebrings.

There was one Journey, already sold, on the lot.
Did not get a chance to road test anything.

Guess I will check out the 3 other Chrysler dealers in my area
after they get more than 2010 300's and minivans on the lot.

 

I've noticed that with my Dakota, simply with fly-by-wire throttle. I'm
pretty well convinced that the engine controller wants to set the
airflow based on pedal position, regardless of engine RPM (meaning a
given pedal position has a radically wider open throttle at low RPM than
high). I've been suckered an embarrassing number of times now, driving
along in sixth gear with my foot barely on the throttle, only to
discover that the engine must have actually been near full throttle
since giving it more gas did *nothing*.

 

I'm moving a little off topic here, but 2 things move power into the
lower speeds on the 300M:
(1) Changeout the tranny-to-diff. chain sprockets to the higher ratio
ones used in the 2.7L 2nd gen. LH cars (also used in the 300M Special),
(2) Install an intake spacer that someone on the LH car forums
(dodgeintrepid.net and lhforums.net) recently developed and currently sells.

 

Best thing is to drive one and decide for yourself. I read a ton of
reviews on the PT and most of the owner reviews are reasonably useful.
Most of the professional reviews are actually less useful as
"impressions" although they may be more useful if they have actual
test data. The pro's are using $50,000 cars as a baseline and they
criticize the most minor faults in less expensive cars.

 

Did they change CVT's since it first came out? My indelible
recollection of the original year was that it sat there and did
nothing much while the pedal was carpeted.

Had you done that with the 2.5L, you would not only be a safe distance
ahead of that truck, you would be most of the way out of the state and
wondering where those flashing lights came from.

 

Yes, it's very rare to keep a body style for more then a decade so I
don't think there is ever going to be any mechanical updates to the PT
at this point in time. I will repeat that I've been shocked at how
well I actually like the little puddle jumper - Chrysler really did an
outstanding job tuning the suspension and designing the interior to
make it look a lot more expensive then it sells for. The overall
build quality seems excellent, all the gaps are straight, no funny
noises anywhere, seats are comfortable and actually provide good lower
back support, I never feel cramped, and even though it's not a hot rod
it moves ok if you are willing to rev the engine.

 

They must be using the same team that handled marketing of the
Pacifica.

 

Either is an option, depending on the trim level.
ALLPAR.com has an interesting review of the Journey R/T with a video.
The video makes a point of showing us the v6 R/T getting 12MPG city.

 

Why the hell do these sites only show the "R/T" models and the ones with
the "biggest" everything!
What about the economy models that most people buy!

 

I think the computer scientist has nailed what I'm talking about!

These TBW systems are tailored to make a very appealing throttle
response, and sometimes it leaves you with nothing left in the bank when
you *think* there should be based on where your right foot is sitting.
Throwing CVT and VVT into the mix really lets the software do a lot of
different things for a given right foot position, depending on road
speed, engine temp, atmospheric pressure, and even your previous driving
habits.

I'm not saying its bad, just different and something that I'm acutely
aware of when I step into a modern car after driving my steam-age
big-block cars, where right-foot position is DIRECTLY correlated to how
hard you're backside is getting shoved forward.

 

Same JATCO transmission, much better software now.

Maybe with a THREE point 5, but I doubt the 2.5 in an Altima is
substantially different than the 1.8 in a Sentra. But anyway, the point
is that digitally controlled TBW/CVT/VVT does things behind the scenes
that don't directly correlate with how hard you're mashing on the "loud"
pedal. The net result with a bigger engine would have been faster
acceleration, but perhaps still no difference before/after adding that
last little bit of right foot.

 

Another bloody waste. The 4.0 Pacifica was *so* much better than its
competition (stuff like the Murano) that it was no contest. Yet, they
never even advertised the fact that the 4.0 had been introduced and that
it solved the low-end torque shortage with the 3.5.

 

yeah i liked the Pacifica but i hear interesting stories about wheel speed
sensors and transfer cases on the AWD model

 

Go rent one. You are in for a very big shock.