 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / April 2006PT cruiser drivers;inherent sloths?
It seems that almost every PT Cruiser I encounter is a sloth driver. They just do not keep up with traffic. Could it be that PT's are inherent sloth vehicles? Maybe the name "Cruiser" causes them to unconsciously be slothful? Even a PT Turbo car was a sloth.  SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net Hey, there's a reason I try not to put myself in the lane behind a PT Cruiser. Almost without fail, the other lane(s) will move at a greater speed. But it's not a phenomenon limited to the PTC. Other vehicles I try to avoid following (other than the obvious larger transport vehicles) include Honda minivans and CR-Vs (safety-first soccer mom drivers), Buicks and Lincolns (retired old folks behind wheel), and 10+ year older vehicles whose drivers have little to lose if they change lanes at the last minute to try to make their exit. YMMV, of course. >It seems that almost every PT Cruiser I encounter is a sloth driver. >They just do not keep up with traffic. >Could it be that PT's are inherent sloth vehicles? >Maybe the name "Cruiser" causes them to unconsciously be slothful? >Even a PT Turbo car was a sloth. Think about the type of person who would buy a PT Cruiser. Anyone nutty enough to find a PT Cruiser attractive is going to have all sorts of weird ideas, like driving 55 MPH on the 75 MPH freeway in order to save gas. SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave >>It seems that almost every PT Cruiser I encounter is a sloth driver. >>They just do not keep up with traffic. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > sorts of weird ideas, like driving 55 MPH on the 75 MPH freeway in > order to save gas. A few weeks ago on a business trip the car rental place gave me a PTC. I hate the way they look but I was curious so, what the heck. It just confirmed for me that I'd never buy one. They drive the way they look: like a Volkswagon beetle with it's a.s shot full of collagen. HUGE blind spots too. Ugh. - Sharon "Gravity... is a harsh mistress!" Sharon, <frey@encompasserve.org> was motivated to say this in rec.autos.driving on 13 Jan 2006 15:55:16 -0600: > A few weeks ago on a business trip > the car rental place gave me a PTC. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > full of collagen. HUGE blind spots too. > Ugh. Double Ugh (and I've never driven one, just have the misfortune to have to see alot of them where I live... Stupid question, but exactly whose bright idea was the PT Cruiser anyway? > Double Ugh (and I've never driven one, just have the misfortune to have > to see alot of them where I live... Stupid question, but exactly whose > bright idea was the PT Cruiser anyway? Whoever it was got a promotion; they've been very good sellers for DaimlerChrysler. Seems a great many people don't share your "Double Ugh" opinion of them. >> Double Ugh (and I've never driven one, just have the misfortune to have >> to see alot of them where I live... Stupid question, but exactly whose [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > DaimlerChrysler. Seems a great many people don't share your "Double Ugh" > opinion of them. Whoever's boss's boss probably got the promotion. Whoever probably got downsized and is now making ends meet working at home depot. >> Double Ugh (and I've never driven one, just have the misfortune to have >> to see alot of them where I live... Stupid question, but exactly whose [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >DaimlerChrysler. Seems a great many people don't share your "Double Ugh" >opinion of them. Or they buy them BECAUSE of the double-ugh reaction that the vehicle elicits. Kinda like the kids who walk around with their pants falling off and their underwear showing: they are trying very hard to shock people. SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > >> Double Ugh (and I've never driven one, just have the misfortune to have > >> to see alot of them where I live... Stupid question, but exactly whose [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > off and their underwear showing: they are trying very hard to shock > people. They are ? I just thought it was a case of being sloppy. Graham >> >Whoever it was got a promotion; they've been very good sellers for >> >DaimlerChrysler. Seems a great many people don't share your "Double Ugh" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >They are ? I just thought it was a case of being sloppy. There are lots of ways to be sloppy without showing off your Private Parts. SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > Sharon, <frey@encompasserve.org> was motivated to say this in > rec.autos.driving on 13 Jan 2006 15:55:16 -0600: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Stupid question, but exactly whose bright idea was the PT Cruiser > anyway? Nothing really wrong with them,they were simply a Neon made into a "light truck" with a retro look.(and added weight,thus the sluggishness.) I gotta admit,Chrysler has been very innovative in styling,though. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net Jim, it is a common misconception that the PT Cruiser is a re-skinned Neon. The PT has a 2.4 liter engine, and the Neon has a 2.0 liter engine. The engine, transmission, chasis, rear suspension, interior, are all different. The original prototype that was used at car shows was built on a Neon chasis, but when it went in to production they discovered that a whole new chasis had to be designed. The only significant components in common are the 5 speed manual transmission (most are shipped with automatics), and front suspension. The standard PT Cruisers weight/power is 3076/150 = 20.5, a little worse than the Neon's 2581/132 = 19.5, but comparable. If you get the optional (low output) turbo in the PT you get 3176/180 = 17.6. Get the High output Turbo PT Cruiser GT and the ratio is 3176/230 = 13.8. > Stupid question, but exactly whose bright idea was the PT Cruiser > anyway? It seems to be another workaround for the stupid fuel-economy laws. According to the feds, the PTC is a "truck". I have no idea what hairs they split to receive that label. >> Stupid question, but exactly whose bright idea was the PT Cruiser >> anyway? > > It seems to be another workaround for the stupid fuel-economy laws. > According to the feds, the PTC is a "truck". I have no idea what > hairs they split to receive that label. The seats can be removed. Also,I think it's just Chrysler DECLARING the vehicle to be a "light truck" and submitting it for testing under that protocol. I believe the PTC lost its "light truck" definition when they came out with the convertible PTC. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > In article <h5aes191e1oa63uhlbq5b0kshd0h14sd82@4ax.com>, Scott en > Aztlán <scottenaztlan@yahooNOSPAM.com> writes: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > - Sharon > "Gravity... is a harsh mistress!" They used to be classed as "light trucks".(to fly under CAFE rules) When the cabrio PTC came out,that designation would not fly. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net I think there are two classes of people who drive the PT Cruiser. First, there are the old folks (mostly in Florida) who like the high seats (easier to get in and out of), and the hatch which holds their wheel chair. The Second class is the hot-rod retro type. They tend to go for the GT model. I can assure you it is a rarity for anyone to pass me in my PT GT. The GT is hard to beat in terms of a small, functional and fast car. 7" shorter than a Nissan Sentra but passenger volume greater than a Lincoln Towncar http://www.automotive.com/reviews/12/2004/chrysler/pt-cruiser/interior/ Cargo capacity of 60.2 Cu. Ft. is about the same as a Chevy Blazer's 60.6 CF (with seats folded down). A good sized load of 8 foot lumber fits with out having to stack it on the dashboard. You could probably fit a load of 50 8 foot long 2x4s with the hatch closed. Breathtaking acceleration, 0-60 in 6.7 seconds: http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2210a.shtml Faster than a 1982 Ferrari GTB/SI Quattrovalvole 6.8 sec. http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=52&i=9840 or a A V8 1967 Ford Mustang (390ci w/4spd) - 7.4 sec. It may not beat a Corvette, but try fitting lumber in a 'Vette. As for looks, that is of course very subjective, but the bold forward rake and clean beltline which forms a smooth parabola around the hood line are all signs of a good aesthetic design. I am an architect, and most my coworkers (designers) like the design of the PT Cruiser, except for those who think traditional designs like Mercedes or Camry are the only way to go. Some just hate the idea of a different design. As with most unique designs, people love them or hate them. > I think there are two classes of people who drive the PT Cruiser. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > model. I can assure you it is a rarity for anyone to pass me in my PT > GT. I suspect you are the exception rather than the common PTC driver,GT or not. > The GT is hard to beat in terms of a small, functional and fast car. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Breathtaking acceleration, 0-60 in 6.7 seconds: > http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2210a.shtml I don't believe any of the car magazines road-tests WRT acceleration. C&D first listed the Integra GSR as 6.7sec to 60,then it grew to 7.5sec. > Faster than a 1982 Ferrari GTB/SI Quattrovalvole 6.8 sec. > http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=52&i=9840 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > only way to go. Some just hate the idea of a different design. As > with most unique designs, people love them or hate them. I've encountered sloth PTC GT's; I have yet to see -any- PTC driven spiritedly. I have nothing against the "looks" of the PTC. What's the curb weight of the PTC? SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net PT Cruiser weight is 3100 lb with 220 horsepower and 245 ft-lb of torque @3600 RPM 1/4 mile in 15.7 seconds. BTW, as of 2004, Consumer Reports rates the PT Cruiser reliability better than Toyota Matrix, Subaru Impreza, Subaru Legacy/Outback (4cyl.), Subaru Outback H6, Volvo XC70, Volkswagen Passat (V6,AWD), and a host of other Wagon/Hatchbacks. The only car to beat it in that clss was the Pontiac Vibe. Pounds of smog per 15,000 miles: 7.9-11.8. Compare that to the similar sized, but slower Subaru Forrester: 12.3-12.9. The PT Cruiser's weakness is it's turning radius of 42 Ft, and EPA gas mileage of 19/26 (which are accurate by my records). > PT Cruiser weight is 3100 lb with 220 horsepower and 245 ft-lb of > torque @3600 RPM > 1/4 mile in 15.7 seconds. That would be the PT *TURBO*;and few of them around. Thus,it doens't change the PTC's classification of "inherent sloth vehicle". One could say that -most- people who bought a turbo or hi-performance version of any vehicle would tend to drive it in a more-spirited manner. (the standard PTC has a 150 HP motor) SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net Jim, thanks for clarifying that it is indeed the Turbo PT Cruiser that has 220 HP. To be more specific, the GT Turbo, and you are also right that there are few turbos out there. The PTC now comes with three engine types: Standard: 150 HP Turbo: 180 HP GT Turbo: 230 HP I had mentioned this in my previous post, but neglected to indicate that the 220 HP version was the GT in my last post. BTW, older GTs had 220 HP and could use regular gas. The newer GTs (I think starting in 2006) have 230 HP and require Premium. Any way you look at it, a GT driver can be a sloth too. The whole HP discussion is a bit of a tangent from the "sloth" topic. > Jim, thanks for clarifying that it is indeed the Turbo PT Cruiser that > has 220 HP. To be more specific, the GT Turbo, and you are also right [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Any way you look at it, a GT driver can be a sloth too. The way I figure,some people buy the "best" or top-of-the-line no matter if they use the capablities or not. ;-| > The whole HP > discussion is a bit of a tangent from the "sloth" topic. Well,it baffles me that some people buy powerful cars (at extra expense)and drive clueless and slothfully. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > Well,it baffles me that some people buy powerful cars (at extra expense)and > drive clueless and slothfully. Yet, the more powerful and expensive the car, the more likely that is... There was that white aston martin vantage that one day I out accelerated with my bicycle and then came across a couple days later and out turned with my maverick. All because it was being driven clueless and slothfully. I should have been allowed to take custody of that car on the spot ;) >The Second class is the hot-rod retro type. They tend to go for the GT >model. I can assure you it is a rarity for anyone to pass me in my PT >GT. So are you saying you speed up to prevent people from passing you? That would make you the MFFY LLB type... >Breathtaking acceleration, 0-60 in 6.7 seconds: True enough - when I read that I laughed so hard I was gasping for breath. >It may not beat a Corvette, but try fitting lumber in a 'Vette. That's why I also have a pickup truck. SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave Hi Scott, No, I don't speed up to prevent people from passing me. Why would you assume that? I just simply drive fast. And I don't drive in the left lane unless I'm passing. I could be doing 80 MPH, but if the road is clear, I'll be in the right lane. What was so funny about the "Breathtaking acceleration... " line? Pickup trucks are great, but I don't own one, and I've never felt the need to buy one. >No, I don't speed up to prevent people from passing me. Why would you >assume that? I just simply drive fast. Well, I drive fast, too, but I still get passed (on the left) all the time. I guess I've just never met a 99th percentile driver before. >What was so funny about the "Breathtaking acceleration... " line? 3100 lbs / 220 HP = 14 lbs/HP, or about double what I would consider to be "breathtaking." But then, I'm kind of spolied. ;) SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave >3100 lbs / 220 HP = 14 lbs/HP, or about double what I would consider >to be "breathtaking." But then, I'm kind of spolied. ;) Heheheh. My car is roughly 24 lbs/HP, yet sloths still piss me off. It now disturbs me more the number of PT GT Sloths that can't even accelerate at the speed a 106 HP econobox can manage without stressing it. Dave Hogan "It now disturbs me more the number of PT GT Sloths that can't even accelerate at the speed a 106 HP econobox can manage without stressing it." Dave, we can all agree with that! I wanted to correct something I said before. The PT Cruiser has passenger volume "comparable to" the Lincoln Town Car (not greater than). I suspect that the reason that people get annoyed by slow PTs and notice it is that the PT Cruiser is a memorable car. If a Camry drives slow in front of you, you get annoyed, but you don't remember the Camry because it's such a common car and a common design. With the PT Cruiser, you remember it because a) like it or not, it's a memorable design b) that big Art Deco Chrysler logo is staring you right in the face. >"It now disturbs me more the number of PT GT Sloths that can't even >accelerate at the speed a 106 HP econobox can manage without stressing [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >a) like it or not, it's a memorable design >b) that big Art Deco Chrysler logo is staring you right in the face. I try to remember them all. I even catagorize them, but I get bored while driving. The saddest part is the number of new GT Mustang Sloths I encounter by far outnumbers the PT Sloths. Camrys are up there, but Civics & Corollas are not. Surprisingly almost every Corvette I get behind is AZ plated and SuperSlothing. I've recently seen a good number of Deloreans even, and they never seem to sloth around long. LLBS: Older Caddys, PT's (all models), Toyotas (all models), Corvettes, BMWs, Mercedes, Yellow Cab (that brand, specifically), and all types of limos/private drivers. Rarely Porsches, Saleens, classic cars, old VW Bugs. See also: SUV or motorcycle (w/Leather). Stop sign runners: Minivans, SUVs, and older Subaru wagons, but I live near a pre-K. Also BMW 5+ series', electric golf carts, bicycles, and Buicks, plus people who would never be carded for an AARP discount (see also Buicks), and FedEx/UPS drivers. Fart-can exhausters: Almost always Civic, Accord, Camry, or Mustang. If not, see also WRX and/or chrome. Ignorant left turners: Trucks (pick up or larger), Caddys, Buicks, anything else senior ciitzens regularly drive, Neons, Cavaliers, 1994-2003 Mustangs driven by large ladies. High beam drivers: Females ages 16-120, rednecks, illegal immigrants, people who's BAC exceeds their IQ, see also: AARP. Dave "The King of Stereotypes" Hogan Koreans in Camrys are the #1 road menace on Beach Boulevard.. Scott, what car are you driving that has a 7 lbs/HP weight to power ratio? I mean, a 2004 Porsche 911 TURBO has a Twin Turbo Water Cooled Flat 6. It does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds, does 1/4 mile in 12.2s. It's no "sloth". But it weighs 3,396 lb and has 415 HP. That's a 8.18 lbs/HP ratio. http://www.theautobahn.com/forum/showcar.php?do=overview&car_model_id=40 What are you driving that has 7 lbs/HP? A Saleen? Or are you thinking Kilograms/HP? Anyways, the point I was making was to counter those who suggested that the PT Cruiser is a piece of junk. As a whole package, it performs pretty well. >Scott, what car are you driving that has a 7 lbs/HP weight to power >ratio? A C6. >Anyways, the point I was making was to counter those who suggested that >the PT Cruiser is a piece of junk. And the point I was making is that the acceleration of even the fastest PT Cruiser is far from what I would call "breathtaking." SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > >Scott, what car are you driving that has a 7 lbs/HP weight to power > >ratio? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And the point I was making is that the acceleration of even the > fastest PT Cruiser is far from what I would call "breathtaking." Depends. If the comparison is a regular PT Cruiser, then yeah, it's breathtaking. Compared to a 993TT? Slow as molasses in January. Of course, one must not consider the price difference... E.P. Well Scott, I'm here eatting my hat. I must concede that "breathtaking" might have been a stretch in the context of the likes of your Corvette. On the other hand, maybe breathtaking is adequate for the likes of the PT GT, and "heartstopping" would be appropriate for the likes of your C6. :) A little story: My previous car was a Saturn Wagon SW2 which was more powerful than my previous cars. When I got the PT Cruiser GT, the first time I was on a 2 lane country road stuck behind a slow poke, I prepared to pass him the way I would with my previous cars. Hit the gas, wait to get up to speed, then change lanes. With the PT GT before I knew it I was on the guys tail and had to swerve hard to avoid rear-ending him. It was literally "breathtaking" to my inexperienced heart. I suspect the PT Cruiser GT is in the top 1% of cars on the road today in terms of acceleration. Add to that the convenience, reliability, utility and comfort, and it's a pretty good value at $24,000. >Well Scott, I'm here eatting my hat. I must concede that >"breathtaking" might have been a stretch in the context of the likes of >your Corvette. On the other hand, maybe breathtaking is adequate for >the likes of the PT GT, and "heartstopping" would be appropriate for >the likes of your C6. :) The sad part is, once the Law of Diminishing Returns kicks in, neither one feels quite as breathtaking as it once did. :( SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > A few weeks ago on a business trip the car rental place gave me a PTC. >I hate the way they look but I was curious so, what the heck. It just >confirmed for me that I'd never buy one. They drive the way they look: like a >Volkswagon beetle with it's a.s shot full of collagen. HUGE blind spots too. >Ugh. Wanna know what's uglier than a PT Cruiser? A PT Cruiser *convertible.* SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > Wanna know what's uglier than a PT Cruiser? A PT Cruiser > *convertible.* With the top down, those PT 'verts look to me like a bathtub on wheels... Signature~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." (pgp@v6stang.com for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) That was my first impression only. A motorized clawfoot tub. > That was my first impression only. A motorized clawfoot tub. Hey, I *LIKE* Hudsons, I wouldn't mind having a nice Hornet. nate Speaking of this thread... I was behind a minivan with handicaped plates who was behind a PT cruiser with handicap plates. Let me just say it was the perfect storm of sloth. It took nearly the entire green cycle for just the PT cruiser to make a right hand turn. (or maybe it just felt that long.... but even the minivan driver was annoyed with the PT cruiser driver) I don't know about that. My wife as a Turbo PT with a stage 1 kit and ios regularly at warp speed. Non Turbo PT owners though, tend to drive as if they are in a Buick.. > It seems that almost every PT Cruiser I encounter is a sloth driver. > They just do not keep up with traffic. Good observation. Every few years the sloths all seem to adopt some sign that allows us to spot them easily. After 9-11 it was big US flags on the antennas. Before that it was SUVs, and before that it was "Baby on Board" signs. Now it's PT Cruisers. Moral: Never let one get in front of you if you can possibly help it. >> It seems that almost every PT Cruiser I encounter is a sloth driver. >> They just do not keep up with traffic. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Before that it was SUVs, and before that it was "Baby on Board" signs. >Now it's PT Cruisers. The "P" stands for "Putz" and the "T" stands for "Tard." >Moral: Never let one get in front of you if you can possibly help it. Having owned a Durango and knowing firsthand as I do how piss-poor Chrysler's truck brakes are, I wouldn't let one get behind me, either. SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > It seems that almost every PT Cruiser I encounter is a sloth driver. > They just do not keep up with traffic. You should see my uncle drive his. Bat out of hell, all the time. Guess it's not inherent after all. E.P. >> It seems that almost every PT Cruiser I encounter is a sloth driver. >> They just do not keep up with traffic. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > E.P. There are always exceptions to the norm. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > >> It seems that almost every PT Cruiser I encounter is a sloth driver. > >> They just do not keep up with traffic. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > There are always exceptions to the norm. You didn't say "norm". You said "inherent." Maybe you should just admit to a bit of hyperbole. Unless, of course, that you have difficulty admitting a mistake. E.P. >> >> It seems that almost every PT Cruiser I encounter is a sloth driver. >> >> They just do not keep up with traffic. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You didn't say "norm". You said "inherent." So? People occasionally manage to overcome "inherent" limitations. > Maybe you should just admit to a bit of hyperbole. Unless, of course, > that you have difficulty admitting a mistake. > > E.P. Maybe you should admit to nitpicking. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > >> >> It seems that almost every PT Cruiser I encounter is a sloth driver. > >> >> They just do not keep up with traffic. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Maybe you should admit to nitpicking. LOL. You were wrong to make such an all-inclusive statement, and now you're not man enough to own up to it. But I had that one figured out way before this thread. E.P. >> >> >> It seems that almost every PT Cruiser I encounter is a sloth >> >> >> driver. They just do not keep up with traffic. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > E.P. Maybe you were wrong to consider it an "all-inclusive statement". SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > >> >> >> It seems that almost every PT Cruiser I encounter is a sloth > >> >> >> driver. They just do not keep up with traffic. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Maybe you were wrong to consider it an "all-inclusive statement". I see. I guess if I had access to the "Jim Yanik Dictionary", I too could just make up my own meanings for words. Go look up the word "inherent" in a real dictionary. While you're there, look up the words "maturity" and "courage". E.P. The two tragic flaws of internet discussions: no one likes to admit error, and nitpicking. :) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.