PT Cruiser to live on

Josh,
You have to remember that people were looking to "NOT" having to shift
all the time. I remember my grandfather always starting out in second
gear, then slipping it into third as quickly as he could. He got into
fluid drive when he started buying Dodges, and never went back to any
other make. As to the cost, Fluid Drive became standard on three car
lines: Chyrsler, DeSoto, Dodge. This reduced the cost by having just
one transmission. It was not the transmission that people were paying
for, it was the"trim" levels, interior "luxuries" etc.
As to noise, it is silent, no gear clashing. It is kind of like the CVT
transmission that when it gets into gear,it just gains speed without a
lot of noise. Also, people were not really interested in "off the mark"
and "O-60" times until car testers started these measurements when the
V-8's became the norm. Over 52% of Chrylsers were 6 cylinder, all
DeSotos were 6's and all Dodges were 6 cylinder. The 48% of Chryslers
that were not sixes were straight 8's. Then, in 1951, the hemi V-8 came
out for Chrysler, later Desoto and Dodge, but still the majority of cars
sold came with the flathead six. Chrysler only changed from Fluid Drive
when the V-8 needed a transmission that could handle the torque and HP
generated, then Chrysler came up with the PowerFlite, later the Torque
Flite. But Fluid Drive lasted from 1938 until 1953, and millions of
cars were sold with them.

 

As I replied to Josh, people then were not interested in 0-60 times,
when the speed limit was 35 during WWII and only about 60 after the war.
The word slug is used when comparing contemporary cars with cars made
before WWII and after, up until about 1955. I think I told you that
third gear was 1:75 and fourth was direct 1:1.00. If you want more
acceleration, you can start off in first, then shift at about 5 into
second, go to about 15 in third then about 25 in fourth. But with cars
weighing almost two tons, even this would not give much better
acceleration, plus this would negate the "no shift" benefit of Fluid
Drive. Even now with our 2007 Caliber, I still move off sedately and
try to build up speed slowly, now to save gas more than anything. The
days of "flooring it" and burning rubber and stomping on the biggest V-8
you could buy are essentially over. No more 426 Hemis, no more 455 GM
V-8's, no more 460 Ford V-8's, those days are gone, along with single
digit gas mileage. I checked the mileage last week on my 41, and it got
a little over 16 in town, and a little over 20 on the highway. I put
more miles on this car now, just driving to car shows and taking Sunday
drives than people put on back in the day! My car only has 23K original
miles, bought from the first owner. On our 2007 Caliber, my wife has
over 46K in less than two years!

 

My wife's 2005 PT Touring (non turbo) does rather well in the city
(about 21-22) but just doesn't get much better on the highway (about 23
with a full load and the AC on- best-ever was 27 last winter with 2
people and the AC on about half the time). By contrast, her 93 Vision
TSi 3.5 that we replaced with the PT got a little less in the city
(around 21) but that sucker could hit 30 mpg on the highway and
routinely got 27-28 in its prime years. And it had FAR more power than
the PT. I can't blame all that difference on the PTs engine/tranny
combo, some of it must be aerodynamics. I suspect that the PTs shape is
just inherently higher drag because its relatively short nose-to-tail
and tall with a flat rear hatch. The Eagle was the most streamlined car
we've ever owned, and much more sleek than most current cars in
production. But its worth it, my wife's wanted a PT since the first one
came out and is positively crazy about the little 05. She liked the
Eagle but it was more my choice and she never had the same attachment
to it that she does to her PT.

I remember you like your Caliber- but to me the styling is too blocky,
the interior positively spartan, and the interior materials on the cheap
side. Pretty much the case with most Daimler-era designed Mopars
*except* for the PT, actually- very "harsh" and spare interiors seem the
norm.

It would help some, but I do have to wonder if the aerodynamics due to
the styling are a bigger limit. The HHR only does very slightly better
than the PT and its got a somewhat more modern engine (Ecotec). Too bad
the rest of the execution of the HHR sucks so bad- its more cheap and
flimsy feeling interior-wise than the Caliber.


And back on the subject of the PT, I would recommend these:

http://www.energysuspensionparts.com/proddetail.asp?prod=5.1105#

For every PT out there whether driven hard or not. It eliminates some
drivetrain shudder that most of the PTs I've driven exhibit at various
speeds- usually between 20-30 mph just after 2nd gear engages. It says
its for the lower torque mount, but I bought two and installed in both
the upper and lower torque struts and the effect is wonderful. I think
it would also make the primary engine mounts last longer, and those are
very hard to replace on the PT. The only downside is a tick more
vibration at idle, but I'll trade that for less vibration while driving
any day.

 

There was a BIG difference in whose straight six you were talking about.
Chevy was still using a splash-oiled under-powered thing in their
manual-trans cars up until 1952, Chrysler/Plymouth/Dodge had full
pressure oiling from about 1935 on, and quite a bit more torque to go
with it. Chrysler flathead sixes were relatively low horsepower (the
Plymouth 215 CID was rated right at 100HP, IIRC, in 1949) but they had
gobs of torque and were electric-motor smooth.

 

But a Chrysler flathead six wouldn't spin a bearing due to oil
starvation while going up a steep hill like a splash-oiled 36 Chevy
straight six would.

 

Steve wrote:

Being an old car guy, 41 Windsor, I always thought that the PT was too
blocky also. If they had made the body more fluid, with the back sloped
downwards towards the fender, then there wouldn't be that "wall effect".
I too liked the first generation LH cars, they were good looking and
gave great perfomance and mileage. I also like them because the engine
was North-South so they were easy to work on!

I still think that this interior debate is way overblown. The plastic,
and yes, the Caliber has it in spades, is thick and well put together,
no squeaks or rattles. Our PT's had the same amount of plastic and
there was no problem with them either in that department. I agree with
you that Daimler screwed Chrysler to the point that we might lose the
whole company!

We rented a HHR for two weeks over Christmas. We drove it all over OKC
and up to Smith Center KS and back again, a lot of time in snow. It was
uncomfortable and you are right, the styling was crap, even though it
was designed by the same guy who did the PT for Chrysler! If I had
wanted a 48 GMC truck, then I would have gone out and found one to
restore!

Never pushed out PT's so that we felt that problem. I have thought that
is the reason for so much vibration in side-mounted engine mounts. The
old flatheads, like my 41 have the famous "floating power" mounts: one
in front and the other under the transmission. I does give a smooth
idling engine and a smooth running one at that, but we are never go to
see that again!

 

FWIW, the 2nd gen. LH's also have longitudinally mounted engines.

 

My 2001 Limited has elec remote mirrors on both sides. The base does not

My 2006 Touring has dual electric mirrors

 

I checked the mileage last week on my 41, and it got

At 55 mph I can get 29 mpg out of my 95 T-Bird with the 4.6 V8 modular
motor.
55 mph = 1,500 RPM

 

I bought our 2006 Pt Cruiser for my daughter. We could remove the rear
seats and fit all her college dorm room gear into
the car, while her friends were trying to wedge their "stuff" into every
nook and cranny of their honda civics. I also bought the car with ABS
and side air bags, thinking it would be safer for some one with a low
amount of time in the drivers seat.
She seems happy with the car.

 

And is wonderfully easy to work on.

 

It sounds like a cool car and must be fun to drive. I missed the
details of the 4 speed tranny and running it in third, that would help
combined with the fact that you aren't really trying to accelerate
fast.

 

Ashton,
I have been into the old car thing since I got my first car, a 1952 Pontiac Silver Streak Coupe, a 1948 Plymouth. a
1940 Chrysler Royal Coupe, then finally my 1941 Chrysler Windsor with the Fluid Drive. All except the 41 had
manual transmission, with the 40 Chrysler also having an overdrive. You are right, acceleration was not the
important thing then, smoothness, durability, and a quiet engine were the things people prized most.
I have always shied away from "fast" cars: I had my Grandpa's 64 Dodge Dart with a slant six, automatic, my own
1970 Dodge Dart with a slant six/automatic also. The closest thing I had to a "fast car" was a 1962 Pontiac Catalina
with a 326ci, tri-barrel carbs and I had it up to over 100 on a new stretch of Interstate 40 in OK when I was in high
school. The front end felt like it was going airborne, and my friend and I backed off the gas and realized we probably
came close to killing ourselves!

 

Is that with a/c running? Here in "paradise", i.e. South Florida, you have to run the a/c constantly or sweat your
brains out! My good friend had a two door full size T-Bird, with that same engine and got great mileage also. His
Jaguar with a six, got lousy mileage. He tried to find another T-Bird, but could not find one in time. He wound up
getting a Cadillac CTS. He would much rather have had the T-Bird. It was the last of the full sized two doors, a great
car( and I don't even like Fords!).

 

Here's my take- if you look at each individual interior piece in a
Caliber, its very comparable to the rest of the auto industry. But
somehow, in some intangible way when taken as a whole the Daimler-era
interiors (including the Magnum, Charger, and to a slightly lesser
extent the 300) come off as almost industrial- harsh, more than a little
monochromatic, angular, and uninviting. The PT, on the other hand, has
just as much plastic but it looks and feels softer, the colors are less
industrial, and it presents itself as a higher-quality material
(whether it actually is or not).

I also have to say that the trade magazines rip the Caliber for "acres
of cheap plastic," but every small Nissan, Toyota, and (especially)
Honda rental I've had also have acres of almost identical hard plastic
and they get a pass. Interestingly, some of the most solid-feeling and
classy-looking interiors on rental cars I've had recently are inside...
Hyundais. The Japanese carmakers better watch out or that company is
going to do to them what they did to GM.

 

No matter how much wifey likes the PT I have a hunch that as soon as the
it needs something more complicated than an oil change, I'm really,
really, REALLY going to miss the LH car. Just looking at the regular
belts gives me the willies, nevermind the timing belt. :-/

 

Almost the same goes for Crown Vics. People can rag on Panther chassis
Fords for being "dinosaurs" all they want, but they're North America's
favorite fleet vehicle for a reason. Actually quite a large number of
reasons, the reliability and efficiency of the modular v8 being a big one.

 

I wasn't going to go that far. There are some things on the 2nd gen. LH
cars that are PITA - more-so than on other cars - but I think they're
great cars - I own two and plan on maintaining them "forever".

 

Every car has *some* things that are a PITA. But these seem to have
about as few as possible.

 

Steve,
It is true about the Nissan, Toyota and Honda having the same kind of interiors, but the "auto mag" moguls and the
"testers" think that just because it is from Japan, it is better. That is why I don't read those bullshit magazines any
more. I used to read Motor Trend all the time while growing up. I was a big fan of "Uncle Tom" MaCahill in
Mechanix Illustrated. Shills who complain about "cheap interiors in American cars" need to look at some of the shit
from Asia, ie, Kia Rio, Honda Fit, etc. I assume that Korea and then China will take over and the Japanese cars will
begin to draw the same "ire" from the testers. Then maybe cars from India will come in, then we might see some
Eastern European cars.
Talking about cheap plastic interiors, my 77 MGB had the crappiest plastic on the dash I have ever seen. Of course,
it had that "fun to drive" image and gave the "boy racers" something to crow about.