 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / December 2004PT CRUISER THE WAY TO GO
i have been watching the group for comments on the cruiser, i have not seen any and there are thousands on the road, i am going to buy one in january, is there a seperate ng for them. there are PT groups out there, but no actual newsgroups that I'm aware of. This group seems to be more car-problem oriented. Love my own cruiser. Enjoy yours! ****************************** Got wood? Check out my exotic hardwood pennywhistles at fair prices...http://www.Busmanwhistles.com Just created this non-commercial forum on Google Groups: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/PT-Cruiser http://www.ptcruiserclub.org/ http://www.ptcruiserlinks.com/ http://www.ptcruizer.com/ http://www.zuko.com/Cool_Rides/PT_Cruiser.htm http://www.ptownersclub.com/ http://groups.msn.com/PTCruiserLovers You might want to check www.edmunds.com for a group >i have been watching the group for comments on the cruiser, i have not seen >any and there are thousands on the road, i am going to buy one in january, >is there a seperate ng for them. > You might want to check www.edmunds.com for a group > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >january, > >is there a seperate ng for them. Or checkout http://www.ptenthusiasts.org/ it has a fairly active forum section as well as many other attractions for the PT enthusiast; some require registration, which is free. The PT Crusier has proven to be a very reliable vehicle without any problems so far, plugs and wires going bad has been the issue and Chrysler came out with a different type of both that seemed to fix the problem Glenn Beasley Chrysler Tech Three big negatives with mine. Too slow (for me) with automatic. Poor fuel economy (18 to 20 over three years). Very very wide turning circle with automatic. Other than that it has been a great experience. Richard. Another problem that seems to be cropping up more and more: The multi-function switch, which controls the lights, fog lights, high-beams, dome (interior)lights and turn signals, fails and works erratically. SRG > Three big negatives with mine. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Richard. hmm I havent seen that yet, dont think i have had to replace a multifunction switch to date Glenn Beasley Chrysler Tech > Another problem that seems to be cropping up more and more: The > multi-function switch, which controls the lights, fog lights, high-beams, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > > > Richard. Well, I've seen it in mine, at least one other club member, and its listed as one of the top 10 problems on PTDIY. I've also read numerous posts about it on different PT forums. As I said, "it seems to be cropping up more and more", probably because PTs are getting older. SRG > hmm I havent seen that yet, dont think i have had to replace a > multifunction [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >> SRG > Well, I've seen it in mine, at least one other club member, and its listed > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > SRG I just mentioned it in reply to another message in this thread. On my 2001 (delivered in 2000) the control started smoking and had to be replaced). The problem occurred about a year ago. > Another problem that seems to be cropping up more and more: The > multi-function switch, which controls the lights, fog lights, high-beams, > dome (interior)lights and turn signals, fails and works erratically. This isn't unique to the PT. I've replaced the one on my 96 GV as well as my 94 Chevy K1500. Matt >> Another problem that seems to be cropping up more and more: The >> multi-function switch, which controls the lights, fog lights, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Matt I have never seen a good multi-function switch. They all have problems because of all of the functions, and therefore connections and switches, required in such a small space. I have replaced them on Toyota Tercels, Dodge Neons, a Ford Taurus and a Ford Escort GT. Put the damned switches on the dash and reach, once in a while, it might be good exercise! |>) Dan The worse is GM. THey must have a contest to decide how many functions can go on one stalk so it cannot be figured out while driving. >>> Another problem that seems to be cropping up more and more: The >>> multi-function switch, which controls the lights, fog lights, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Dan > The worse is GM. THey must have a contest to decide how many functions can > go on one stalk so it cannot be figured out while driving. No, I think the European makers won that war hands down back in the 80s. Some of those cars didn't have a single important control left on the dash, and have extra stalks added to the column to carry all the switches :-p >>> Another problem that seems to be cropping up more and more: The >>> multi-function switch, which controls the lights, fog lights, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Dan Personally, I liked the foot operated dimmer switches better than the stalk ones. The only downside there was that they tended to corrode after a few years in our PA winters. Matt > Personally, I liked the foot operated dimmer switches better than the > stalk ones. The only downside there was that they tended to corrode after > a few years in our PA winters. > > Matt I remember those too. I don't remember a corrosion issue with them though. Actually, I don't like controls on a stalk at all. In addition to the floor dimmer switch, I prefer all controls mounted on the dash. I want the stalk to only operate the signals. >>Personally, I liked the foot operated dimmer switches better than the >>stalk ones. The only downside there was that they tended to corrode after [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > dimmer switch, I prefer all controls mounted on the dash. I want the stalk > to only operate the signals. Depends on where you live. A few trips across a salted parking lot and then depress the switch a few times with your salt and water covered shoes, and after a few years you are ready for a new switch. The good news is that they were cheap and easy to replace. no need to disassemble half of the steering column. Matt >>> Personally, I liked the foot operated dimmer switches better than the >>> stalk ones. The only downside there was that they tended to corrode [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Matt Ayup, and there were like three part numbers for all cars made in the US. (I'm exaggerating a little, but not much.) Peel back the carpet, undo two screws and one electrical connector, reassembly is the reverse etc. etc. etc. I personally like the dimmer on the stalk, I've grown used to German cars with one stalk for directionals/high beam and the other for the wipers. It's very easy, once you figure it out. What I do hate is the typical GM turn signal stalk controls just about everything except the seat heaters deal... what an ergonomic nightmare. Why bother to put the control for the wipers on the stalk when you still have to take your hand off the wheel to turn the little knobby thing anyway? nate  Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel 041215 2005 - James C. Reeves posted: >> Personally, I liked the foot operated dimmer switches better than the >> stalk ones. The only downside there was that they tended to corrode after [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > dimmer switch, I prefer all controls mounted on the dash. I want the stalk > to only operate the signals. I recall the first car I had that had the stalk dimmer for the headlights. It was a 1980 Buick Skylark, one of the GM X-Car models. I bought it new. The first time that I drove it at night I turned on the lights and the headlights were on bright. I poked around the floor for the dimmer and couldn't find it. Then, I recalled that the dimmer was no longer on the floor in these newer cars. But, where was it? I looked around the dash for it and couldn't find anything. Then I remembered a joke that was going around at the time about these new dimmer switches. It was about Polacks, and why they didn't like the new dimmer switches: it was because they kept getting their foot caught in the steering wheel. So, I looked around the steering wheel and the column, and finally moved the turn signal lever on the left of the column, and found the dimmer on that by pulling it up toward me. > Personally, I liked the foot operated dimmer switches better than the > stalk ones. The only downside there was that they tended to corrode > after a few years in our PA winters. I like foot switches with automatics, finger switches with manuals. I was amazed by the ease of replacing the multifunction switch in my daughter's '95 Neon -- comparing that to my son's '87 Le Baron.... SignatureJoseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer >> Put the damned switches on the dash and reach, once in a while, it >> might be good exercise! |>) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Matt I agree 100%. The dimmer switch is ergonomically better on the floor. I hate having to take one hand off the wheel (or slide it around the wheel to reach the stalk) in the middle of a curve when a car approaches. I never found that the dimmer switch conflicted with using the clutch, but it SURE does interfere with steering. > Another problem that seems to be cropping up more and more: The > multi-function switch, which controls the lights, fog lights, high-beams, > dome (interior)lights and turn signals, fails and works erratically. I belong to various pt groups and haven't come across this one yet, hopefully that's a bug that's been ironed out of newer models. I agree with the turning, it stinks > Three big negatives with mine. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Richard. > Three big negatives with mine. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Richard. Negatives 1 and 2 are closely related<smile>. I was at first disappointed with the performance of my PT w/automatic (delivered June 2000); after a short while, I learned where the power curve is on this vehicle and found enough power for my needs. The worst mileage I ever had was 20mpg in mixed driving, during summer with A/C in frequent use. No or little A/C, in mixed driving I get 22mpg. I have never taken it on a long, highway only trip, therefor have no idea what mileage it could get. Never noticed the trning circle issue. The problems I have had (other than two recalls, which were taken care of before becoming a problem) are electrical. The radio controls stopped working; the radio played just fine, I just couldn't change the station, change the volume or turn it off; repaired under warranty. The only other problem was smoke started coming out of the steering column, where turn-signal lever goes in; turn the key off, still smoke. As it happened, I was driving past a dealer when it started, I turned around, pulled in the dealer's service area and 45 minutes later was on my way; no, charge. Even with those problems, this was the best new car I have ever bought. Fit and finish were outstanding; four-and-a-half years later, fit and finish is still good. > Three big negatives with mine. > > Too slow (for me) with automatic. 240 hp with turbo high output and mopar stage 1 in automatic > Poor fuel economy (18 to 20 over three years). yep it sucks!!! > Very very wide turning circle with automatic. never noticed, but you could practice 3 point turns, or emergency brake turns : ) > Three big negatives with mine. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Richard. I have an 01 6 speed manual. It too has a wide turn radius. Why would the automatic have a wider one? Jerry >> Three big negatives with mine. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Jerry not sure, but it does have wider, I believe the tranny casing is bigger, thus not allowing the steering "linkages...." to turn as much as the standard car. If the base model seems too slow, get the GT (turbo). It will out sprint most other cars on the road including most Mustangs (including the '85 GT' and '68 V8), Mercedes C320 sport, Porsche 944 (and 928), BMW 750, '96 Thunderbird LX V8, and an '85 Nissan 300 ZX Turbo. But you're right about the lousy mileage and turning radius. The PT Cruiser wouldn't be too slow for you. Here are some 0-60 and 1/4 mile times (in seconds) http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html : 2003 PT Cruiser GT (Turbo) w/auto 7.2; 15.7 1989 Porsche 944 7.5 15.7 1980 Porsche 924 Turbo 9.3 17.0 1991 Toyota Supra Turbo 7.1 15.6 1991 Nissan NX 2000 7.8 16.1 1985 Nissan 300ZX 8.2 16.4 1985 Nissan 300ZX Turbo (auto) 7.4 15.7 2000 Mitsubishi Eclipse GT 7.0 15.4 1990 Mazda RX-7 GTU 8.6 16.7 But try fitting a load of 8 foot long 2X4's in any of the others, and yo're out of luck. They'll fit nicely in the PT Cruiser GT with the hatch closed. Mileage and turning radius are not so great though. Although it parks pretty well despite the turning radius thanks to the rounded front end. Read more at my PT Cruiser photo gallery: http://www.pbase.com/robinjoe/pt_cruiser BTW, I LOVE my PT Cruiser GT. I love walking up to it, I love sitting it, I love driving it, I love the higher seating position, I love hitting the accelerator, I love catching a glimpse of it from a distance, I love loading it with stuff. What can I say, I'm in love with my car. Funny thing is I didn't care for them when they first came out. I thought they were gimmicky, but I didn't realize how practical and fun they were to drive. |
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.