« Back to all Posts

They've Killed My Cruiser!

posted in: lost nut ii garage, news on January 15, 2009 at 11:18 AM

The late, great PT Cruiser

The late, great PT Cruiser

Bloomberg News reports today that Chrysler LLC will end production of the PT Cruiser this summer, making 2009 its last year in production. As an owner and enthusiast, this is a sad day for me, and an angry one, as I feel the reasons behind this were entirely the fault of the company, not the market nor the economy.

The PT Cruiser is a great design. Clearly, I’m not the only one who thinks so, as the car has been one of the top sellers for the brand since its introduction in 2000 as a 2001 model; GM thought enough of it to blatantly copy it in their HHR (even hiring the same designer to do it!). To this day, I see that whenever I pull up to a major intersection, there will be another PT Cruiser there more than half of the time. They’re everywhere.

But, sales have slipped, even more than the downturn in the industry can account for, and it’s that which I blame totally on Chrysler. If one looks at a chart of the content of the car from year to year, Chrysler has pulled more and more from the car, without dropping the price. Heated foldaway mirrors? No more. Underseat drawer? Gone. Roof rack? Gone. In 9 model years, only one freshening has been done, for 2006, and most agree that it made the PT look worse, or at least less distinct. The only major addition they made was the convertible, and as a convertible, it wasn’t nearly as attractive nor as practical. One of the body styles most clamored for was the ‘Panel Cruiser,’ as shown by the concept car in the PT’s first year, but Chrysler never offered it, leaving this market to GM eventually with their panel HHR.

In addition, the car was too heavy for its size, and sorely underpowered, unless you bought one of the turbo options.

Still, it’s a nice car. It drives well, does great on trips, and has an astounding amount of space inside. The interior fit and finish is better than many other Chrysler products, and overall, the car is very solid (one of the reasons for its weight!). All in all, it’s a good deal. But Chrysler seemed to think that all they had to do was put it in showrooms and it would sell itself. After the introduction, there was relatively little advertising. They offered almost nothing in the way of aftermarket goodies to customize it, other than a couple of decal packages. The annual ‘special editions’ were mostly trim and paint, and the penultimate one, the Sunset Boulevard edition, was based on the base model, with little more than a rather homely dried-blood-red paint color – it didn’t even have chrome trim on the grille! The final Dream Cruiser, however, was nice, with a turbo offered, a special billet grille and custom black-over-white paint that really stands out; of course, they also seem to be using up the last of the SRT-4 wheels on it, which just don’t look right on the PT. Other than these ‘special’ editions, however, Chrysler failed to offer anything new in the Cruiser since its introduction, while other manufacturers were introducing new cars and new features left and right in the same market. With the death of the Neon and the introduction of the Caliber/Compass/Patriot, the PT no longer shared a platform with anything else in the Chrysler line-up. And Chrysler frequently mentioned in the press that they had no idea how to follow up on the design of the Cruiser – seeing the Sebring, the Caliber and the Compass, I suppose I can believe that, but being stylistically bankrupt is not the same thing as there being no way to create a “next generation” of a successful retro design.

Just ask BMW

The PT Cruiser could’ve been Chrysler’s ‘Mini,’ and judicious and innovative improvements could have preserved sales while also retaining its unique identity. More power, less weight, higher mileage. They should’ve actively marketed it and made it a lifestyle vehicle; instead, they seemed to think that it would have instant youth appeal (which it didn’t, and I can’t think of a single reason why it should have), and when it turned out to appeal to an older demographic, they seemed to throw up their hands and let the chips fall where they may.

Well, the chips are down, now. The buffalo are moving on. My PT Cruiser is dead.

7

Comments

Checkertommy_cropped_small
Tommy's Garage
January 15, 2009 at 11:41 AM

Good riddance….. er.. I mean sorry to see you go…

Attachment_small
The Launch Pad Garage
January 15, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Although you sound like a big fan the car never apealed to me. I don’t even like to be behind one on the highway going up a hill they are way to under powered. Maybe around town they could be alright but the highway should be off limits a couple of my friends had them and the fuel economy well there was no economy my pick up gets better economy so maybe it’s time has come sorry but that’s my opinion.

Logo_2010hub_resise_small
Don Vierstra Design Garage
January 15, 2009 at 12:02 PM

No one likes to see their favorite car end production. The PT Cruiser was riddled with problems. Chrysler could have taken it in the right direction but let this one fade away and focus on their retro muscle car the Challenger. Now the focus is alternative. What next?

Lostnutii_logo_small
Lost Nut II Garage
January 15, 2009 at 01:08 PM
Reply to The Launch Pad Garage on January 15, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Even though the PT is admittedly underpowered, that only really applies to it from a standing start; maximum torque doesn’t come on until about 3350 RPM. It cruises effortlessly on the highway – I used to commute between Indy and Cincy every weekend, putting 250 miles on the car each time, and it’s stable and nimble, and has no problem running 85 MPH for the entire trip. On a trip back from Chicago to Indy, last year, I was doing 95 on the highway without realizing it. Hills are also no problem; it climbs just fine. Average MPG is 20, which isn’t much less than most crossovers. Still, at this size, it should be about 400 lb. lighter, which would make it much quicker and economical.

As Don Vierstra says, Chrysler could have taken it in the right direction, but failed to do so. I don’t disagree that a better mechanical car should have been pursued, but I think the nameplate, with a suitable follow-up in styling, would have been a good idea, and I think it’s yet one more of Chrysler’s recent bad decisions – one which, if they survive at all, will prove to have a further negative effect on their standing in the market. Unfortunately, Chrysler has been very bad at creating small cars in the last couple decades, and that’s where this market is heading.

Wall_paper_small
CincyCustoms & SSA Garage
January 15, 2009 at 06:39 PM

Poor PT, Poor Pt….

Shiny_elipse_black_small
Shiny-Hiney's Garage
January 15, 2009 at 08:15 PM

I have a Chrysler in my garage (the ‘68 Newport shown in my Hub Garage). The key to most of Chryslers ills; 1) they let the only guy in the building with any design talent go to GM 2) they got bought out by a holding company with little or no car experience or vision as to what people want to buy. It’s amazing to me that 3 months ago, GM and Chrysler were “weeks away” from closing their doors, going bankrupt, gone forever…yet, here they are getting ready to fire up the production lines again to make cars no one is buying… I’m sorry to see the PT Cruiser go away; at least it was a change from the other smaller cars.

Picture672a_small
63novatuckin20s Garage
January 16, 2009 at 09:44 PM

I’m sorry but i f I never see another one I wont loose any sleep.

Leave a Comment

Signup or log in to post comments.