Thinking of buying a Chrysler PT?

jase1

forgotmyname wrote: »

Money would be better spent on a ford focus.

I think the reason for the PT Cruiser question might have been because the OP doesn't want the boring default choice (I own a Focus and they aren't all that, nowhere near).

And no, Chrysler are not, and never have been anything to do with GM. Chrysler is/was the third of the US "big three" and traditionally by far the weakest.

The Chrysler petrol engines are fundamentally good lumps (they are based on Mitsubishi designs) but Chrysler gubbed the head-gasket design and as a result I'd be cautious (I know they were fixed around 1998 but I'm still not sure I'd trust them). The problem is the rest of the car really -- Chryslers have always been very cheaply made and they don't tend to age very well.

That said they aren't as bad as some people make them out to be and they're certainly no worse than the typical French car.

Pinkypants

jase1 wrote: »

I think the reason for the PT Cruiser question might have been because the OP doesn't want the boring default choice

Got it in one.

pulliptears

Pinkypants wrote: »

Got it in one.

Thats what led us to ours. We were on holiday in South Wales when the PT's first came to the UK and one came past us as we walked up a country lane. OH and I both said in unison "Wow what was that!". Some friends of ours bought one a few months later and we really fell in love.

Ours is silver, not lots of chrome like some you see, just startech accessories. Its certainly got some oomph and can happily see off your average boy racer at traffic lights, who then spend the next mile wondering how you did that in that car lol

Its one of those cars people either love or hate. I believe the dealers called them the Chrysler Marmite. Have to say I wasn't keen on the facelift model, the interior for me lost some charm and became a lot more plasticy.

From a practicality point of view the removable seats turn it into a small van and we have carried lots of stuff in there over the years. It also happily tows our old caravan (although our van is lightweight so there are very few modern vans the PT will tow)

Oh, and don't know where you are from Pinky, but avoid 'Cumbo's' in Stoke on Trent if you do go to a dealer.

King_Nothing

Don't like the look of them personally, I think they're hideous looking cars.

ukjoel

King_Nothing wrote: »

Don't like the look of them personally, I think they're hideous looking cars.

Which an opinion a lot of people have - and that makes them quite cheap cars especially in the used car market.

OP' example is chasing far too much money.
3 year old examples with 20-3ok can be had for the 3k mark to the trade although might be lower specs.

jase1

King_Nothing wrote: »

Don't like the look of them personally, I think they're hideous looking cars.

I'm not fussed on the look of them either but it's horses for courses -- eye of the beholder and all that. They're certainly distinctive enough.

But then as the owner of a series of nasty-looking Korean knock-offs (all of which have been decent cars) perhaps I'm not the best person to ask :rotfl:

As mentioned above these cars are of the type that depreciate like a stone in the first 3-5 years then settle down and don't lose much thereafter. As a result I'd be buying the newest example I could afford over three years old.