 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / September 2007Why does PT foglight come on with right turn signal?
Recently when I put the RIGHT turn signal on, the foglight comes on. I assume it comes on, because the instrument panel foglight indicator comes on. Doesn't do it on a LEFT turn signal. Any ideas? I know how to turn the foglights on and off. The handle is pushed in to the OFF position, but signal for a right turn, and on comes the indicator light. And maybe the fog lights. > Recently when I put the RIGHT turn signal on, the foglight comes on. I > assume it comes on, because the instrument panel foglight indicator > comes on. Doesn't do it on a LEFT turn signal. Any ideas? I know how > to turn the foglights on and off. The handle is pushed in to the OFF > position, but signal for a right turn, and on comes the indicator > light. And maybe the fog lights. The switch may be getting ready to go out. I have seen several instances where the fog lites would not turn off even with the key out of the ignition and run the battery down. Just a thought Glenn Beasley Chrysler Tech > The switch may be getting ready to go out. I have seen several instances > where the fog lites would not turn off even with the key out of the ignition > and run the battery down. Just a thought > > Glenn Beasley > Chrysler Tech ++++++++++++++ Thanks Glenn, I just went out and checked. YES, when the turn signal lever is ser for a right turn, the indicator light and the two fog lights come on. Can I have the fog lights disconnected, I've never used them one time, or am I still cruisn'* for a new light switch. *Pun intended, how much should I be prepared to spend to have the switch replaced? If I need a light switch (PT has 45K on it) it just further confirms my suspicion that PT means Piece (of) Trash! > > The switch may be getting ready to go out. I have seen several instances > > where the fog lites would not turn off even with the key out of the ignition [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > switch replaced? If I need a light switch (PT has 45K on it) it just > further confirms my suspicion that PT means Piece (of) Trash! You can disconnect them at the lites if you want. the switch is easy to replace, just make sure you don't forget to put the old T/S relay into the new switch if you do the job. Im not sure how much the switch is, maybe $100? Me personally I think the PT Cruiser has been a very good reliable vehicle. Glenn >>>The switch may be getting ready to go out. I have seen several instances >>>where the fog lites would not turn off even with the key out of the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Glenn You're right Glenn. The PT is one of the better vehicles out there. We are on our second one ('07 in Opal metalic w/ 5 speed stick) and we love it. We put 131,000 miles on our first one and only replaced brakes and tires. > >>>The switch may be getting ready to go out. I have seen several instances > >>>where the fog lites would not turn off even with the key out of the [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > it. We put 131,000 miles on our first one and only replaced brakes and > tires. I agree with the reliability and style of the PT, however, having had a 2003 sedan and 2005 convertible, the gas mileage is mediocre. The 03 had the standard engine and did not get over 22 ever! The 05 had the 180HP turbo and the best it could acheve was 24, once! We traded it in two weeks ago for a 2007 Dodge Caliber and have been very pleased with the car, getting over 26 city and on our first short trip, 27, the car has less than 700 miles on it. I would like to have seen the PT with the 2.0 engine and the CVT gearbox, or better, the diesel that is sold in Europe.  Signature"What do you mean there's no movie?" I bought our 2006 PT Cruiser not for mpg but because it seemed like a fairly safe car for my daughter to drive, could carry her entire dorm room in the back with the seats removed, and was the right price point for me. I do get grief from the Accord / Honda owners over how loud the engine sounds and what they consider piss poor mpg (about 10 mpg less than their rice wagons) > I bought our 2006 PT Cruiser not for mpg but because it seemed like a > fairly safe car for my daughter to drive, could carry her entire dorm > room in the back with the seats removed, and was the right price point > for me. I do get grief from the Accord / Honda owners over how loud the > engine sounds and what they consider piss poor mpg (about 10 mpg less > than their rice wagons) I agree with all that you say about the safety, the style, the reliability, etc. The gas mileage was killing us: what with gas here in South Florida at $3 and sometimes over, it was costing us $400 a month just to commute 200 miles a week, not counting going to the store or to eat locally. I am saying that the PT should have been designed with an engine that gets better mileage to go with its great looks. I also own a fully restored 1940 Chyrsler Royal coupe with overdrive,and it can get 21 on the road with a 241.5 c.i. flathead six. I would have purchased another PT if it would have had a different engine/transmission combination. Signature"What do you mean there's no movie?" >I agree with all that you say about the safety, the style, the >reliability, etc. The gas mileage was killing us: what with gas here [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >six. I would have purchased another PT if it would have had a >different engine/transmission combination. 200 miles a week x5 weeks in a long month 1000 miles add in a couple hundred miles for the store and stuff 1200 miles /15mpg if you drive like a maniac 80gals gas per month X $3 a gallon $240 for an absolute worst case month with a maniac driver. You better buy a locking gas cap! Steve B. > >I agree with all that you say about the safety, the style, the > >reliability, etc. The gas mileage was killing us: what with gas here [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Steve B. Save you money on the cap!! Glenn Beasley Chrysler Tech > >I agree with all that you say about the safety, the style, the > >reliability, etc. The gas mileage was killing us: what with gas here [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Steve B. Steve, I am not complaining about the PT. However, what you didn't know is: $500/month payment on the turbo PT, yea, my wife wanted her first "expensive" car, gas running close to $400 bills a month, in South Florida, you don't go anywhere without a car and gas is the most expensive here in Palm Beach and Martin County, maybe because they think that just because Tiger Woods lives on Jupiter Island, we all can pay high prices. Last night, just to meet friends for a weekend, we had to drive to South Broward, that was 70 miles one way,of course we didn't have to do that. So, I hope that where you live, that a car is not so important. As I stated, we really only have one car, the antique has been around for a long time and is used for car shows and our club hobby, only driven to shows and maybe for a Sunday drive. So, when you add up my figures for the PT, it was getting close to $900 a month just to drive the thing! Now with the Caliber, $141 a month less, and our gas bill has been cut, so far in half. If the PT Cruiser had that mileage and payment, I would still be driving one. Signature"What do you mean there's no movie?" >> >I agree with all that you say about the safety, the style, the >> >reliability, etc. The gas mileage was killing us: what with gas here [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >month less, and our gas bill has been cut, so far in half. If the PT >Cruiser had that mileage and payment, I would still be driving one. My point was that you are either driving a lot more than you said you are or you had an issue with gas theft as there is no way you could get a PT to use that much gas in so few miles. I agree that mileage on a PT sucks. I drive a '95 Fleetwood for work and regularly get better mileage than my friend gets out of their two PT's. My car weighs twice as much and has an LT1 higher performance 350 in it so I just can't figure out what the heck a PT can do with all that gas. Steve B. > >> >I agree with all that you say about the safety, the style, the > >> >reliability, etc. The gas mileage was killing us: what with gas here [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Steve B. The only way to remove fuel from this vehicle would be to pop a hole in the fuel tank or actuate the fuel pump with the line disconnected from the fuel rail and pump it out. Just about every one( 2001 to present) of Chrysler vehicles has a ping pong type roll over ball in the bottom of the fuel inlet. This ball is used to seat the fuel tank and prevent fuel from spilling out in case of a vehicle rollover. A siphon hose will not get past this ball and into the tank to remove the fuel Just a thought Glenn > >> >I agree with all that you say about the safety, the style, the > >> >reliability, etc. The gas mileage was killing us: what with gas here [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Steve B. Steve, We seem to be getting into agreement here on the fact that the gas mileage on the PT sucks big time. There was no gas theft, and the mileage I stated that we drove was correct. The 180hp turbo Touring Edition was supposed to get better than the 150hp standard that I had in my 2003, but did not! I drove a 1949 Chrysler with a 135hp straight eight and got better mileage! I, and many others on PT forums cannot understand how the car will just not get the gas mileage. I realize that it is an "emotional" buy and not one for pure mileage, but come on! A 2.4 four cylinder that cannot get better than 22! Just refilled my Caliber today, got 28.115mpg, now that is getting some good mileage! I used and am using Mobil One synthetic oil in all my cars, except the 1940, and even used the K & N air filter in the PT's because I read that it did increase the mileage by a little bit, which it surprisingly did, but not much. I had a 1992 Lincoln Continental V-6 that would get 30 mpg on the road and 24 in town, so something is very wrong here. Signature"What do you mean there's no movie?" >>>>>I agree with all that you say about the safety, the style, the >>>>>reliability, etc. The gas mileage was killing us: what with gas here [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > Lincoln Continental V-6 that would get 30 mpg on the road and 24 in > town, so something is very wrong here. All I know is that both of our PT's had 5 speed sticks in them and both ALWAYS get 30 to 31 MPG with mostly highway miles (which is how my wife uses it for going to work). It doesn't matter if the A/C is on or not. Even city driving only drops it to the to high 20's. We don't have a turbo, just the standard 2.4 and 5 speed. I'm seeing something about 15 mpg ??? I don't believe that. Even the 21 mpg sounds wrong, or else something is wrong with the engine or someone has a lead right foot. I have an old '94 Plymouth Acclaim that I use for back and forth to work . It has the 2.4 and auto and even that thing gets around 28 mpg in mixed driving. > >>>>>I agree with all that you say about the safety, the style, the > >>>>>reliability, etc. The gas mileage was killing us: what with gas here [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > . It has the 2.4 and auto and even that thing gets around 28 mpg in > mixed driving. Ron, I don't want to get into an emotional discussion here, my two PT's both had the 4 speed automatics, air, power windows, seats, etc. My driving habits are the same ones that I use on my 1940 Chrysler Royal with Fluid Drive, very conservative. I got as low as 17mgp, but could not get higher than 22, that is not a lie, my wife does not "jack rabbit" either! As I stated, I went on forum after forum and did what they suggested, the K & N which upped it to about one mpg, kept the tach as close to or below 2,000 rpms as humanely possible, etc. One month ago, we flew into Pensacola and rented a 2007 PT Sedan, with the usual equipment, non-turbo, the highest we got was 25 on Interstate 10, driving a steady 60mph with the cruise control on. Coming back, we upped it to 65 with cruise and got 23mpg. That is not acceptable. As I stated, I love the car's design, the utility, etc. When my 1940, with 3 speed overdrive can get 20mpg with a 108hp, flathead six, then I think that Chrysler should use a different engine combination, such as in the Caliber. I and my family have driven Chrysler cars since the 40's: 46 Windsor, 47 and 48 Plymouths, 49 Windsor, 49 Plymouth, 51 Dodge, 55 Dodge, two 64 Dodge Darts, 67 Plymouth Fury, 70 Dodge Dart, 86 Dodge Lancer, etc. so I am not a Chrysler basher, far from it. You stated that you had the five speed manual, well, if that makes the difference, then that must be it. The only time that I can drive a manual is when I have to use the clutch once/twice to get the 40 Fluid Drive into gear, then it stays there. The engine on both PT's were serviced every three thousand miles with synthetic Mobil 1, the transmissions were serviced by the Chyrsler dealer, so these cars were immaculate. If you want to really discuss why these cars do not seem to get the mileage, then fine, but I can match you mile for mile if you want to go back 60 years or more. BTW, the Darts, had 225 slant sixes and got over 30 on the highway, but we are talking 2007 here, not the old days. Signature"What do you mean there's no movie?" >>>>>>>I agree with all that you say about the safety, the style, the >>>>>>>reliability, etc. The gas mileage was killing us: what with gas here [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] > sixes and got over 30 on the highway, but we are talking 2007 here, > not the old days. I stand by what I said re: fuel mileage. Just for the hell of it, I went to the AllPar site (here's the link : www.ptcruizer.com/cruize.html) and looked at their road test of an '02 PT. Check it out, at the begining of day 3 he refilled the tank and was getting 30 mpg. Also, there's a couple guys in our car club (with an '04 and an '06) and they get slightly less mileage than ours (27-29), but we chalked it up to the automatic. I mean think about my '94 Acclaim getting high 20's (2.5 with no o/d). That Acclaim was not unusual as the public utility co. I work for used to have a whole fleet of those Acclaims and Spirits with the 2.5 and 3 speed automatic and they all got that kind of mileage. Those cars were 15 year old tech with no o/d's and throttle body fuel injection. I would expect new 4 banger tech with o/d's to at least deliver fuel mileage to match. BTW, I'm 56 and have had ChryCo products since the 60's, even before Uncle Sam gave me a free all expense paid trip to Southeast Asia. After I got out I used my mustering out pay and bought a new '71 Road Runner (which still sits in my garage today along with a '69 GTX and a '71 Demon 340). I've owned so many hi-performance MoPars I have literally lost count. I've always turned my own wrenches on them and have rebuilt a half dozen big blocks and a couple small blocks in the past 20 years, along with T-flites, 833's, and 8 3/4 rear ends. I know real well what ChryCo cars and trucks are capable of. For example I remember a '66 Belvedere I had with a 383 4 bbl and 833 4 speed and 3.23 rear end that would get nearly 20 mpg all day long on the Thruway (as long as I kept my foot out of the secondaries). My buddies were running around in big block Chevies and they never would believe me regarding my gas mileage. i'm thinking a 383 4 speeder is way better than my rt dakota as far as milage goes turns 4500 r's at 60 in drive, thanks for od it goes to 2500 r's at 60 12 mpg is best i get my brothers 66 396 dual quaded chevelle gets 28 on the highway at 60 as long as like you said! keep your foot out of it and that still amazes me > >>>>>>>I agree with all that you say about the safety, the style, the > >>>>>>>reliability, etc. The gas mileage was killing us: what with gas here [quoted text clipped - 142 lines] > my foot out of the secondaries). My buddies were running around in big > block Chevies and they never would believe me regarding my gas mileage. > >>>>>>>I agree with all that you say about the safety, the style, the > >>>>>>>reliability, etc. The gas mileage was killing us: what with gas here [quoted text clipped - 142 lines] > my foot out of the secondaries). My buddies were running around in big > block Chevies and they never would believe me regarding my gas mileage. Well, Ron, god bless you, but I had to go to a more efficient Chrysler product, it would be very strange to have two "lemons" on gas mileage, from two different years, from two different dealers, with two different engines. I, myself, am 55 years young, and proud to drive Chrysler products. I also forgot to mention my step-dad's 61 Dodge Phoenix with a 318, it got great mileage for that era. I forgot to also mention my 73 Fury Suburban, 360 that would eat you out of house and home even when gas was around fifty-three cents: 10-12 city/15-16 highway. As I mentioned, I am no stranger to Chrysler products. Road tests are so subjective: I remember Uncle Tom's test from Mechanic's Illustrated. He would run those like "scalded cats" and he admitted that those were not real world figures. You said that you came up through the world of muscle cars, I came up through a family that prized the old flathead sixes, and the only eight my grandfather had was a straight one in an old Chrylser. So, I guess that we will just have to agree to disagree about the PT Cruiser mileage. If they would put the smaller 2.0/CVT combo in there, or better still, the diesel option that is in the European PT, then I think we would all be driving them! Last night, filling up the Caliber, only have had it three weeks, it got 26 around town. My 1940, which goes out on sunny Florida days got 15 just driving it slowly around Jupiter Island and some stop and go. Took it out on the highway for an old-fashioned "clean out" with the overdrive engaged and it got 20.45mpg, not bad for a 241.5 flathead six with a whopping 108 hp, maybe I could have gotten more if I had the high perfomance head, 112hp! Signature"What do you mean there's no movie?" I'm beginning to think that there's something inherent in the Chrysler engine control designs that is responsible for such variations from one sample to another of the same vehicle. I have seen many, many posts showing discussions of similar relatively huge unexplainable variations in fuel mieage on the 300M Club over the years. Certain people do everything suggested including checking codes, replacing O2 sensors, cleaning throttle bodies, replacing air filters, etc., etc. There are just too many owners of certain 300M's scratching their heads for it to be due to driving habits that they are not admitting to or differences in terrain. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > I'm beginning to think that there's something inherent in the Chrysler > engine control designs that is responsible for such variations from one [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Bill Putney Bill, I read your very informative posts and have gotten some good information from them. I am glad that someone besides myself on this particular thread is starting to see that no matter what one does to a particular engine/transmission combo, as I did in my two PT Cruisers, they just cannot get the mileage to improve! I have told Ron that I am not a "lead foot" nor do I jackrabbit around town. My 2003 Sedan and 2005 Convertible were getting terrible mileage figures, not even meeting the EPA sticker figures. I also mentioned that on a 2007 PT Sedan rental, I only got 26 with cruise going 60 on I-10 and around 21-23 going back the same way, same speed, with cruise! I did all the things that the forums suggested and the two items: K & N filter/Mobil 1 only gave me 2 more mpg. I ran the tires at 35, as suggested and still nothing. When I get in my 40 Royal, I know what I am going to expect as far as mileage is concerned. That is why my wife and I got rid of our "emotional buy" PT's and got a practical Caliber. To me, the Caliber reminds me of my older Darts, good mileage but not too exciting! Signature"What do you mean there's no movie?" >>I'm beginning to think that there's something inherent in the Chrysler >>engine control designs that is responsible for such variations from one [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > the Caliber reminds me of my older Darts, good mileage but not too > exciting! Well thanks! I also believe that for a given vehicle with atypical (for that vehicle) bad fuel mileage, there has to be some component (or timing tolerance, or computer anomaly) that is causing it. All I'm saying is that there has to be a reason. We (and dealers and their diagnostic equipment) just don't have the smarts and infinite time/money to narrow it down to that particular component. The best we can do, in the absence of some obvious clue, is hit all the usual suspects (plugs, throttle body, exhaust. sensors, PCM firmware and hardware, fuel quality, timing belt, etc.), and a few shots in the dark, and hope to luck out before the money and/or our patience run out. Fortunately for me I am blessed with two Concordes - one a 2.7, the other a 3.2 - that both are on the high end of the typical mileage numbers. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') I had an 88 New Yorker with Mitsu 3.0 that easily got 32 mpg highway. Our 2000 3ooM will get up to 28 mpg highway if I make sure the tires are properly inflated. The n/a 2006 PT Cruiser automatic can barely get 24 mpg highway with a rare 25 mpg. Lets go back to basics.. Is there anything impacting airflow into or out of the engine that would reduce mpg ? Early 3ooM mods included playing with cat back dual exhaust systems using after market camaro mufflers, which increased highway mpg by 5 mpg under most tests. Does the PT Cruiser have exhaust or intake restrictions ? Is the intake air too hot ? Is the catalytic convertor too restrictive ? Are the factory tires use a tread pattern or compound that lowers mpg ? Are there too many internal losses in the automatic transmission ? Are there better design intake manifolds that will fit in that tiny engine bay ? one thing i do see form time to time is somehow the pinion factor setting for tire size gets changed in the pcm and that can affect milage and if you go to a taller tire it will improve milage > > I'm beginning to think that there's something inherent in the Chrysler > > engine control designs that is responsible for such variations from one [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > -- > "What do you mean there's no movie?" > one thing i do see form time to time is somehow the pinion factor setting for > tire size gets changed in the pcm and that can affect milage and if you go to > a taller tire it will improve milage A taller tire will imporve *real* mileage, but not as *calculated* using the odometer or the overhead computer (if the pinion factor is not corrected for the tire size change). Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > > one thing i do see form time to time is somehow the pinion factor setting for > > tire size gets changed in the pcm and that can affect milage and if you go to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the odometer or the overhead computer (if the pinion factor is not > corrected for the tire size change). Bill, I forgot to say that in all the talk about the PT Cruiser mileage, I went to a 65 series tire, the largest that would fit running it at 35 lbs. It only made the car ride smoother over those terrible, Eagle standard size tires that came on my 2003 and 2005. As stated, I finally gave up the ghost on the PT and went with the Caliber, whose larger 215 17" tires give a very smooth ride, almost as good as my 1940's 6.50/16! Signature"What do you mean there's no movie?" > Bill, > I forgot to say that in all the talk about the PT Cruiser mileage, I > went to a 65 series tire, the largest that would fit running it at 35 > lbs. I have to ask you how you figured your fuel mileage with the larger tires. You do realize that the odometer would not read correctly - that with a larger OD tire you would have been getting better milage than you would have read or calculated from any of the vehicle's milage calculating systems or odometer? Also, I don't know what the factory tire size was, but the 65 probably wasn't more than a couple of percent different in OD and mileage effect than the factory size tires. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') who cares what the overhead states. it is a average anyway just filling the tank pulling out on the road and matting it throws milage out the window by going with what the overhead reads! real is what i am all about > > one thing i do see form time to time is somehow the pinion factor setting for > > tire size gets changed in the pcm and that can affect milage and if you go to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > address with the letter 'x') I agree that the overhead is not as accurate as the odometer in a given situation with the correct tire size. But average over a tank would be fairly consistent on a given vehicle. But yes - I agree that the overhead is not the most accurate. So you're saying you'd go by the odometer? It definitely would not reflect any improvement in mileage from a larger OD tire without either correcting the pinion factor or putting a correction factor into the calculations. The odometer does not know the tire is bigger. Any improvement in mileage from a bigger tire will not come out in the calculations (and may even result in a decreased *calculated* mileage due to the slight extra load - but only because the odometer reading does not reflect the extra distance traveled due to the larger tire - once that is factored in - yes - the calculation will reflect the positive effect of the larger tire). Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > who cares what the overhead states. it is a average anyway > just filling the tank pulling out on the road and matting it throws milage out the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my >>address with the letter 'x') > one thing i do see form time to time is somehow the pinion factor setting for > tire size gets changed in the pcm and that can affect milage and if you go to > a taller tire it will improve milage I went to a 65 series tire, the largest that would fit, along with all of the other things that I did to try and increase the mileage. You came up with a lot of good ideas that it takes engineers to work on! > > > I'm beginning to think that there's something inherent in the Chrysler > > > engine control designs that is responsible for such variations from one [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > -- > > "What do you mean there's no movie?" Signature"What do you mean there's no movie?" > rented a 2007 PT Sedan, with the > usual equipment, non-turbo, the highest we got was 25 on Interstate > 10, driving a steady 60mph with the cruise control on. Coming back, > we upped it to 65 with cruise and got 23mpg. That is not acceptable. > As I stated, I love the car's design, the utility, etc. I agree it's low, but I see one thing that could be a significant factor in the low PT Cruiser MPG that appears common. Poor streamlining; the front, steep rear and particularly the NON FLAT sides. BTW the EPA HWY mileage figures are measured at much less than a steady 65MPH, so poorer streamlining would show more difference at a steady 65MPH. I consistently get 29MPG HWY at 65MPH with my '95 3.3L Concorde. Just compare the VW new Beetle 2.5L 23/31 mpg New Beetle Convertible 2.5L 22/30 mpg of the same engine. The convertible has not as smooth a roof and is likely slightly heavier, resulting in slightly lower EPA mileage. The difference would be greater at a steady 65MPH. The '07 PT Cruiser 2.4L I4 150HP is rated at 22/29 mpg. How about this for an all around FAST compact car for $23k! Caliber SRT4 2.4L turbo 285HP 22/28MPG. 0-60 = 6 sec. http://www.allpar.com/cars/dodge/caliber-srt4.html |I bought our 2006 PT Cruiser not for mpg .... I forgot to mention the first dealer I went to was pushing the new Caliber at the time.. It didn't seem to be able to carry as much "stuff" as the PT Cruiser would, but I was told my daughter would love being seen in the Caliber and it had all this whiz bang neato stuff.. like the glove box cooler and drop down rear thumper speakers and lots of cup holders and power outlets.. whoopee ! > |I bought our 2006 PT Cruiser not for mpg .... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > like the glove box cooler and drop down rear thumper speakers and lots > of cup holders and power outlets.. whoopee ! My wife and I had 2003 and 2005 PT's. We got a new Caliber SXT and are loving it. You do not need to get the R/XT with all the bells and whistles. Signature"What do you mean there's no movie?" one of the better vehicles on the road i'll second that and cheaper to fix than honda'sor toyotas i see them with now 200 k and running good and still just needing brake jobs > > > The switch may be getting ready to go out. I have seen several instances > > > where the fog lites would not turn off even with the key out of the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Glenn > > The switch may be getting ready to go out. I have seen several instances > > where the fog lites would not turn off even with the key out of the ignition [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > switch replaced? If I need a light switch (PT has 45K on it) it just > further confirms my suspicion that PT means Piece (of) Trash! That switch is a problem which a new one will only solve for a few years until it goes again. A friend of mine had his fog lights occasionally come on when he was parked and drain his battery. I've read that many owners either pull the fog light fuse, or install a separate fog light switch. The handle is pushed in to the OFF > position, but signal for a right turn, and on comes the indicator > light. And maybe the fog lights. Peter Perhaps the ground for the signal lights and the fog lights is shared and needs some help. Bob AZ |
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.