Filed under: Crossovers/CUVs, Chrysler, LLC.
What to do with the PT Cruiser?
Automotive News had a chat with Chrysler execs about the next PT Cruiser, which is causing the company some sleepless nights. What do you do next with such a unique vehicle, so strongly steeped in retro cues? The car, which debuted in 2001 and has only had a small refresh since, may go on the new Dodge Caliber platform (which would probably make the folks in Belvedere, Illinois pretty happy), but if it gets a V6 for the next model year, it may end up on the new Chrysler Sebring platform. At this point, Chrysler is gauging the market to see if the vehicle will find any customers interested in a V6 for the vehicle.
Either way, the redesigned PT won't hit the streets until 2009 or 2010, giving the current model an awfully long lifespan.
[Source: Automotive News via AutoWeek]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
CJ 11:46AM (6/13/2006)
How about more power and updating the retro look? I know this concept is a bit old but this is a progressive direction with the design:
http://www.autointell.com/nao_companies/daimlerchrysler/chrysler/chrysler-california-03/chrysler-california-03.htm
And pleez don't just badge engineer it like they did the compass. Blah.
Reply
Howard Kerr 11:53AM (6/13/2006)
"....giving the current model an awfully long timespan."
HEY, IT'S RETRO, should it matter how long it has been on the market if it is PROPERLY kept up to date?
Seriously, this is one of those instances where it may be best to "clean sheet", at least on the styling. I'm not crazy about the trend to bigger, heavier, thirstier cars (oops, I forgot, DCX considers this to be a TRUCK so it can help their CAFE numbers) but the OPTION of a V6 would put them ahead of GM and their HHR. That's assuming GM doesn't slip a V6 under the hood in the 3 YEARS it will take DCX to come up with the next model.
Why not make the next P.T. a slightly larger Hornet?
Reply
Michael Karesh 11:54AM (6/13/2006)
More power than the 2.4 turbo? Not necessary. For the base engine? Much more necessary. Though my wife drives one without complaint.
It would probably be too large on the Sebring platform. One of the strongest aspects of the current model is the interior space / exterior size ratio. So the Caliber is probably the way to go. It has a less roomy rear seat, though.
My site's page for the PT:
http://www.truedelta.com/models/PT.php
Reply
PJ 12:01PM (6/13/2006)
#1 - Works for me. This design has held up remarkably well considering that it's been around for five years. Adopting the edgier roofline and other cues from the California Cruiser would make a fine styling update.
The only aspect of the PT that really suffers next to the competition is fuel economy. 20/25 MPG in a base-model small car (albeit one with the automatic) is pretty bad.
Here's an out-there idea that probably has all kinds of practical roadblocks: how about not messing with the PT much at all, thus saving R&D and plant re-tooling costs, and allowing its price to creep downwards relative to the competition? I doubt the PT's design has the legs of, say, the VW Bug's (and today's tougher, more frequently-tightened federal regulations would keep that scenario from ever happening again), but there's something to be said for an iconic, well-liked design that's within financial reach of as many customers as possible.
Reply
Giggles of Doom 12:02PM (6/13/2006)
How about putting in some seats that don't feel like park benches?
Reply
Bill 12:12PM (6/13/2006)
Don't change much. Refine it, keep it around a few years, then let it go. This the problem with retro designs.
What is Ford going to do when sales of the current Mustang slip? Redesign it with an updated version of a Mustang II? Same problem with VW New Beetle- what comes next? VW New Thing? New Squareback?
Reply
Joshi 12:45PM (6/13/2006)
Actually, Bill, I wish we would see a New Microbus, New Karmann Ghia, New Scirocco (the latter of which is alledgedly in the works, but will probably suck). I love VW, but they're trying to be too much like Audi. Don't get me wrong, Audi is great, but they need to find their own niche. For a while, it looked like it was going to be fun retro kitsch, but then they decided to go upmarket and failed. Everybody loves the old Microbus - why aren't they capitalizing on that? Instead, they let the New Beetle get stale (Eight years on the market, and no replacement in the cards?).
As for the PT Cruiser, I agree that adopting some of the cues from the California Cruiser concept could make for a nice update - the PT Cruiser has a recognizable shape, and they want to keep that. I hope they drop the "PT," though. The rather meaningless letters ("Personal Transport") were nice when it was going to be a Plymouth, but since the PT Cruiser is a Chrysler, they inhibit alliteration, rather than allow it.
Reply
Paul 12:48PM (6/13/2006)
Maybe Chrysler should fix the PT's mediocre gas mileage and ridiculous turning radius, first?
Reply
andi 1:10PM (7/02/2007)
Can anyone help me re: Gas Mileage on PT Cruiser? I have a 2002 PT Cruiser, and my Dad (who is mechanic) age 65 INSISTS that there is something "wrong" with my car. I drive to work daily M-F and each way is about 45 miles, and I fill up my tank 3 times a week EVERY week.. he insists that my car should be getting Incredible gas mileage , its a 4 cylinder and somethings wrong. It uses same amount of gas my old mustang did which was 6 cylinder? Any ideas??
Nate Wesley 12:55PM (6/13/2006)
I agree with PJ...like the New Beetle, the TT roadster/coupe, and the trio (soon to reduced to a duo) of Hummers, the PT Cruiser seems to have a bit of 'expected' design cues to it. Both it and Chevy's HHR aren't going to look dated in the contemporary, mass-produced design sense (because they already ARE dated, and intentionally).
Tool with it as best as you can, then phase it out for a new Caliber/Compass-based design in the next few years, say by late 2008.
Reply
Spineless 12:56PM (6/13/2006)
OK, if the release dat won't be until 2009/10, then why are they even wondering if they should include a V6. The decision they should be asking instead is which diesel engine will they use. Diesel is the best way to go for future vehicles. The tuner markets will have to figure out how to deal with diesel. Gasoline based engines shouldn't be allowed to have a much longer lifespan.
Reply
Nate Wesley 1:00PM (6/13/2006)
Joshi, point noted about 'PT' in front of 'Cruiser'. But we're talking about cars, not literary works...plus, it's been known and sold as the 'PT Cruiser' for years now...I doubt they'd dump the name unless DCX wanted a ground-up replacement crossover.
Reply
Frank 1:04PM (6/13/2006)
I'm not crazy about the trend to bigger, heavier, thirstier cars (oops, I forgot, DCX considers this to be a TRUCK so it can help their CAFE numbers)...
Posted at 11:53AM on Jun 13th 2006 by Howard Kerr
--------
Sorry Howard, DCX's considerations don't count in this case. It's the Federal government (EPA I believe) that classifies vehicles as trucks or cars, not the automakers.
Reply
Daggy 1:09PM (6/13/2006)
I don't understand why manufacturers have to keep coming out with new designs. Just improve the old model's faults and keep the price attractive.
I've noticed sales of PT cruisers have increased this year, no doubt due to new lower price and minor cosmetic improvements.
Reply
Brian 1:21PM (6/13/2006)
Daggy,
One reason is the fact that older versions of the same car come back to bite you.
Why would I buy a 2008 PT crusier when I can get a 2003 w/ 40k miles for 1/3 the cost? What is the benefit, besides a warranty to go new? New designs
Reply
Carlos 1:26PM (6/13/2006)
There are plenty of hot rod variations to get a new design out of.
But more importantly, this discussion should've happend years ago! Successful cars enter the redesign process 3-5 years before the next generation is due to come out. In other words, when one generation is released you'd better be working on the next one. Not when one generation is already old, you fools!
Reply
Vinny 1:47PM (6/13/2006)
Chrysler should have taken the design of the PT Cruiser and made it a minivan. There has never been a minvan out there that makes people want one based on it's STYLE and practicality. I want both and there's nothing out there. They're all neutered.
Reply
MarkWeb 1:49PM (6/13/2006)
I had a 2004 base model Cruiser and now own a 2006 base model. This is a very functional vehicle. I really appreciate the interior and exterior updates in 2006; they may not scream at you, but the interior is more functional, very classy, and the front end work is subtle but solid. Prices have been pushed down in the last two years and goodies have been added (this time around the base model has power door locks). Gas mileage is a sore point, but when you balance the fact that this comes off more upscale than an economy car and can easily haul around a small family (or camping gear etc.) PLUS rides a lot better than a CR-V or Honda Element, I can live with it.
The Beetle's failure is its continuing premium price. Real world PT Cruiser pricing is VERY aggressive unless you want the luxury of a Limited or the sportiness of the GT.
What I'd like to see in the future, is a switch to the new 2.4 "world engine" (little better power plus better gas mileage) and the addition of the new Chrysler 6 speed (or the CVT if that is cheaper/easier to fit). I think moving to the Caliber platform rationalizes production while allowing Chrysler to offer AWD, but if it means we lose the removable rear seats or great storage space (we considered a Caliber but decided against it just because of the difference in storage space) then forget it.
Other than minor styling updates, this is a functional little wagon that just won't quit if Chrysler starts doing more effective niche marketing (instead of trying to bludgeon the entire market with its styling).
Oh yeah, keep the manufacturing quality good, so it keeps winning Consumer Report's recommendation.
Reply
Howard Kerr 2:32PM (6/13/2006)
Re Frank,
do you REALLY think DCX didn't notice the large loophole in Federal laws when they were designing the PT Cruiser? For years (decades?)we've had folding rear seats that left a "stepped" floor when folded. The government includes the stipulation, in defining a vehicle like this, of MUST have a flat load floor when the rear seats are folded and viola....DCX can come up with a design where the seats fold flat. IF DCX fought to have the PT classed as a car, do you really think there would be V10 engines in Dodge Ram pickups?
Reply
Doogs 3:08PM (6/13/2006)
"The Beetle's failure is its continuing premium price."
That, and the fact that it has been on the market for eight years now with only the smallest of tweaks.
Oh, and a certain competitor called the Mini.
Reply