Review: 2009 Chrysler PT Cruiser is a tarnished Golden Oldie
by Sam Abuelsamid on Sep 2nd 2009 at 11:57AM 
2009 Chrysler PT Cruiser – Click above for high-res image gallery
It wasn't so many years ago that Chrysler's design department was considered among the best in the industry. Attractive, innovative shapes came one after another, then they took a sharp detour into the crash test building and the rest is Sebring/Compass/Caliber history. In the late Nineties when Chrysler design was still on a roll, one of the highlights was the debut of the PT Cruiser.
As insolvency fast approached, CEO Bob Nardelli and his staff were scrambling to find cars to kill and, unsurprisingly, the nearly decade-old PT wound up on that list. Surprisingly, after exiting bankruptcy court in July, Chrysler decided to keep the PT alive through the end of 2010 when new models start arriving. After perusing our review list and realizing that, like the S2000, we've never tested the PT, we called Chrysler to get one last go-'round in the retro-hatch.
Gallery: Review: 2009 Chrysler PT Cruiser
Photos copyright ©2009 Sam Abuelsamid / Weblogs, Inc.
Chrysler's PT Cruiser first debuted in 2000 as an evolution from a pair of earlier concept cars, the 1997 Plymouth Pronto and 1999 Pronto Cruizer. As is often the way with hardcore retromobiles, the PT's design has proven to be both a blessing and a curse. When it was minted, the Cruiser was instantly recognizable and couldn't be confused with anything else on the street – and things stayed that way until the Chevrolet HHR made a belated arrival to the party in 2005.
Unfortunately, the Bryan Nesbitt-penned paddywagon's heavy reliance on historical pastiche has made it difficult to update – perhaps not as much as a more literal exhumation like the Volkswagen New Beetle, but it remains tough to re-recreate an already familiar form. For the most part, Chrysler was stumped about how to evolve the PT, and as a result, today's edition doesn't look much different than the very first example that rolled off the line nearly a decade ago.
Over the intervening years, Chrysler created a gaggle of limited-edition PT variants – notably the Dream Cruiser series created in conjunction with Detroit's annual Woodward Dream Cruise. In fact, the tester you see here is a Series 5 Dream Cruiser – a trim job that doesn't feature any notable mechanical upgrades.
Aside from the addition of an optional turbocharged engine and a very mild facelift in 2006, almost nothing of significance has changed about the Cruiser since its debut. From a packaging and functionality standpoint, though, that's not an entirely bad thing. The PT was one of the original tall wagons, a genre recently popularized in the form of space-minded economy cars like the Scion xB, Kia Soul and Nissan Cube.
Like other econoboxes, our Cruiser has a more upright stance than most traditional hatchbacks and sedans of similar size. That verticality extends to the PT's driving position as well – it has the sort of formal, tall hip-point seating that crossover drivers celebrate. As it happens, the PT was also something of a pioneer in flexible packaging and seating in small vehicles. Along with the rear seats, the front passenger seatback also folds flat to accommodate long objects, and in the cargo area, Chrysler provides a sturdy parcel shelf/cargo cover that can be erected at two different heights or removed entirely. With the back seat up, the PT has 21.6 cubic feet of space ahead of the tailgate.
Unlike newer machines from other automakers, there are some oddly archaic details about the Cruiser, some – like the prominent push-button door handles – that are part of the vehicle's intentional nostalgic flavor, but it's hard not to notice the dated dashboard expanse. From the driver's seat, the PT's basic ergonomics remain sound (save perhaps the high center-mounted window switches), but Chrysler's lack of investment over the past decade shines through loud and clear in the materials and switchgear on duty. Further, assembly quality and panel gaps are noticeably subpar. When you grasp the spherically knobbed shift lever, you can feel the parting line around the center, and the button on top is ill-fitting and wobbly. Similarly, lifting the armrest reveals untrimmed flashing around the edge of the bin.
Another place where our PT Cruiser lags behind the competition is in powertrain refinement. Its 2.4-liter turbo four makes 180 horsepower and 210 lb-ft of torque. Considering its competitors, that's not a bad sum, but it's not particularly more powerful than the less expensive, normally aspirated competitors of similar displacement. In the case of our tester, that lack of power and comportment was hampered by a lethargic four-speed automatic. Predictably, acceleration isn't glacial, but it's also less than enthusiastic.
The PT's suspension tuning, on the other hand, remains significantly better than the powertrain it supports. As you may recall, the Cruiser was derived from the platform of the long-gone Dodge Neon, albeit with a beam rear axle replacing the independent configuration of the sedan.Yet even with its aging architecture, the ride quality exhibited over some of the worst pavement we could find was still very acceptable. The body's vertical motions remained fairly well-controlled and the suspension consistently did a commendable job of absorbing surface disturbances.
If there's a glaring flaw in the PT's suspension portfolio, it's insufficient roll control. Compared to the rest of the MPVs and hatchbacks on the market, the PT rides on a narrow track, something that's exacerbated by its relatively tall body form. As a result, the Cruiser leans rather heavily when cornering hard – not quite to the levels of a vintage cartoon paddywagon, but certainly more than what we're accustomed to experiencing.
Thankfully, the utility quotient of the PT Cruiser remains excellent thanks to its flexible seating, but given its compact dimensions and modest performance, the fuel economy we experienced was disappointing. After a week in our evaluator, we barely managed 19 mpg. The EPA has rated the turbocharged PT at 18 mpg city and 24 mpg highway, so our figure isn't an aberration. For comparison's sake, the base, normally-aspirated engine clocks in at 21/26 with a five-speed manual or 19/24 with the auto-box.
So, a milquetoast experience with an aging car. No surprises here, right? Hang on - there was one truly jarring moment we encountered with the PT – looking at our tester's sticker price. Chrysler charges $18,720 (including delivery) for a plain-jane Cruiser. The well-equipped Touring model starts at $20,530, landing on the wrong side of pricy for our tastes and our fully loaded Dream Cruiser came with a hang-on-to-your-wallet sticker price of $26,120.
Of course, given that sales for this senior citizen have fallen off precipitously from its salad days back at the dawn of the decade (not to mention Chrysler has long since paid for the PT's tooling) actual dealership transaction prices are significantly lower. Chrysler has been offering huge rebates on the PT for eons now, so if you are still charmed by the PT's relentlessly retro looks after all these years, you're in luck – not only have Chrysler's new Fiat overlords given the Cruiser a longer lifespan, you can actually get some pretty amazing deals.
Gallery: Review: 2009 Chrysler PT Cruiser
Photos copyright ©2009 Sam Abuelsamid / Weblogs, Inc.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
inv4zn 12:04PM (9/02/2009)
Honestly, it's not THAT horrible. In fact it's almost pleasant as a daily if you can get over the shape...
If only it was better managed by Chrysler...but I guess you can say that about most if not all their cars/company..
Reply
zamafir 12:25PM (9/02/2009)
honestly, it is. I'd much rather drive anything else in this price range. seating position is absurd (especially placement of gas/brake), interior quality is well below par, no pickup and below par fuel economy combined with the vaguest of handling and general resentment from other motorists. I've never been happier to part with a rental car, there are substantially better cars out there for the money, or less, with better looks, fuel economy, ergonomics, driver focus, speed, interior quality. There's just nothing appealing about this car after you've driven anything else. Especially for the base MSRP, or optioned examples.
Joe K. 12:27PM (9/02/2009)
But if you were ok with the shape and you wanted to use it as a daily driver, wouldn't an HHR be better? It has significantly better mpg.
I wouldn't do either, but have had them as rentals when I travel, with suitcases and a stroller they work out pretty well, and I refuse to be 'That Guy' with one kid and an SUV, even if its only for a weekend.
inv4zn 12:49PM (9/02/2009)
@ zamafir
I think you missed my point. Would I go out and buy one? No, probably not. But for those that already have, or have no choice to drive one, it's not something I'd sell my kidneys to stay out of. Everything you mentioned does detract from an attractive car that I would consider buying, yes, but it doesn't make this an abomination that should be wiped off the face of the Earth. Like I said, it's not THAT horrible.
That being said, I am being a little sympathetic to current owners..lol
Tool 12:55PM (9/02/2009)
You see a P.O.S. like this and it answers why Chrysler went bankrupt.
Rewarding Chrysler's ongoing mediocrity with a bailout was a huge mistake.
zamafir 1:02PM (9/02/2009)
I guess we're having two different conversations, lol. Normally when we talk about cars here on autoblog we talk about the prospect of purchasing them or driving them. To simply drop the caveat of 'i feel sorry for the owners' in reply is simply deflecting into an entirely different direction.
But that's fine, we can head that way. I guess i'm less sympathetic because all the reasons to actually purchase this car are so divorced from all the reasons we love cars that I simply can't identify with them. You're talking a hatchback a little larger than the Rabbit/GTI which occupies both car's prices, hell up to what the R32 was selling towards the end, and offers nothing those cars provide, or anything the Mazda 3/MS3 provide, or anything any of the hatchbacks in it's class provide. The ONLY thing the PT has going for it is a bit longer body and a bit more room in the back, but all that is moot when you actually drive one and realize how much more uncomfortable the car is for all occupants than the competition. The upright seating arrangement is abysmal even on short drives and certainly is not outweighed by the advantage of a bit more room in back.
There aren’t many car’s I’d toss on the ‘avoid at all costs’ list, but this is one. There’s simply a significantly better prospect in ANY of the PT’s competition, from any automaker, Japanese, German, American.
travisty 1:04PM (9/02/2009)
The shape is what actually kills it for me. Otherwise it does fit in to all of my criteria for a car: Small turbo'd hatchback. However, there's no way in hell I'd ever buy one, simply because the shape, in my mind, is dreadful. Absolutely, absolutely horrible. For some reason Fiat and MINI can pull off the retro styling, possibly because I can understand and appreciate the time period from where they're coming from. However, I really can't understand the appreciation of a 40s wagon... (hate the HHR too) When you have a throwback to racing, performance, etc, then sure, make it retro. You can add the Camaro and Mustang to the "isn't retro cool" as well, but the PT and the HHR just hearkens back to a time that I just don't care about.
And 180hp out of a turbo'd 4 is just pathetic.
jv2k 1:17PM (9/02/2009)
My aunt has one and it really isn't all that bad a car. People act as if it's a plague on the automotive world but I don't see what's so wrong about it. The interior isn't as bad as they say, the exterior is a matter of opinion(and given that it sells it has appeal), and performance is irrelevant for most of the people who buy the car.
Yea you can say "It's inferior to the competition" now, but when it came out it wasn't too bad. If Chrysler's fuhrer hadn't decided to turn the two brands into it's SUV division it could have been improved quite a bit.
Judy Zik 12:39AM (9/03/2009)
It's not everyone's cup of tea. It does however have a fairly loyal ownership base. I know of a few people that are quite happy with theirs. After 10 years rotting on the vine with no updates (riding on the old Neon Platform!) it still in my view is a better product than the Caliber. Now imagine for a moment if they had put the resources spent on the Caliber and it's bastard Jeep cousins into modernizing the Neon and the PT. That one decision alone might have saved Chrysler. As it stands they might as well keep making them until Fiat can provide a replacement product. I will miss the PT. Like it or hate it the PT at least had style.
Not THAT Matt 4:55PM (9/03/2009)
I was suprised to hear about how big of utility can be found in this vehicle, with the rear storage rack and folding front passenger seat.
If only it weren't as ugly as the devil's face...
Kumar 12:05PM (9/02/2009)
"Surprisingly, after exiting bankruptcy court in July, Chrysler decided to keep the PT alive through the end of 2010 when new models start arriving."
Try not surprising. Chrysler needs smaller cars to tide them over until the Fiats arrive. People are still buying PTs (or rental lots, either way...). The plants are there, so costs are low. Wasn't that the general consensus in the last PT post?
Reply
Luis 12:31PM (9/02/2009)
"The plants are there, so costs are low. "
This is the problem with GM/Ford and Chrysler... sure the cost to produce are low, but the message to the market place says: "looks at us, we produce crap". Instead, the Japanese, German and Koreans know to keep their products updated, even if that means profits are not as robust per model. The brand image is maintained and customer continue to come back. Why on earth would someone who owned a 2000 or 2001 PT Cruiser buy a new one? It's the same damn thing. Instead, they go to another model or likely another brand. Same thing with Ford. The Focus isn't that much different from 2001 looks wise, so if I owned one of those I'd be real hesitant to buy a new one - I'd want something that was fresh and different.
Ford is just learning this, I hope. Of course the recent re-design of the Escape leads me to believe they haven't quite figured it out yet, but they're better than the other two.
psu48187 1:33PM (9/02/2009)
Luis:
Gee I dunno, some folks (believe it or not) like this vehicle. If you had a copy that was tired but liked the original formula so be it. Not that I'm excusing Chrysler for doing so, but VW has done the exact same thing with the New Beetle. In fact that car has been around longer than the PT.
BTW are you blind? The current gen Focus doesn't even share the same greenhouse with the out going model. How they look the same is beyond me.
Not THAT Matt 5:28PM (9/03/2009)
I can agree with the "brand image" argument. At the same time, how many Chrysler products are truely competetive in their segment? The Challenger (which sells on it's own merits, but when cross-shopped with either the new Mustang or Camaro gets destroyed), the 300 series (which is dated but still somewhat intriguing - if you can avoid buying a Malibu instead), the Viper, the Ram, a few random Chrysler/Dodge CUVs (the Journey, if I recall, was a decent car with a respectable interior) and some of the Jeeps that are still an actual off-roading car (the Wrangler, and the new Grand Cherokee looks excellent).
That's what... six or seven vehicles, very few of them unique in their nature, our of dozens? Sorry, but even I feel pain for Chrysler.
I really really hope the new 200C concept comes out soon, because that's a car I'd love to spend money on.
Aldrich 12:09PM (9/02/2009)
Is it just me or does the PT Cruiser look like Lt. Aldo Raine from the front?
Reply
Invisible 12:08PM (9/02/2009)
Turbo P.T.s are cool
Reply
Das Borgen 1:51PM (9/02/2009)
apples to apples buddy,
take any car and turbo it and it will still be 5x better than the PT
Tricky dicky 12:08PM (9/02/2009)
looks like they pinched the rims from my beloved SRT4 neon!
Reply
fixitfixitstop 12:14PM (9/02/2009)
Good eye. Those absolutely look like SRT4 wheels.
Shotgunner 12:34PM (9/02/2009)
I noticed that too, and I think they look out of place on the PT. Combined with the chintzy cheese grater grill and mismatched roof and spoiler, it makes me wonder why anyone would pay extra for this package. I always kinda liked the PT, just wish they could have kept it competitive while maintaining it's polarizing style.