# PT Cruiser production to end



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 8, 2010)

> By Eric Mayne - WardsAuto.com, Jun 7, 2010
> The countdown to oblivion has begun for the iconic Chrysler PT Cruiser.
> 
> Chrysler Group LLC declines comment, but numerous sources tell Ward’s the C-segment hatchback is scheduled for build-out July 9.
> ...


Full article at: http://wardsauto.com/ar/pt_july_build-out_100607/


----------



## MA_PE (Jun 8, 2010)

The PT cruiser had a retro "truck" look to it. The HHR has a retro CHEVY truick look to it. IMO, the HHR was spawned as a response to the successful PT, but it wasn't a copy or a clone. The idea was copied but the vehicle was not. That's like saying the new camaro or new challenger are new mustangf clones. All the vehicles are flashing back to old styling cues but they aren't necessarily copying each other.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 8, 2010)

That's pretty much my take on it, MA.


----------



## ALBin517 (Jun 8, 2010)

Gary Coleman dies and production of the little hearse comes to an end. Coincidence?


----------



## EnvEngineer (Jun 8, 2010)

I really cannot figure out the auto industry, they have a car that sells, but they will discontinue and go into a costly campaign to replace those sales with something else. I guess there is some economics in there somewhere that an engineer cannot understand. Then we have the Saturn which they claim never turned a profit despite all the sales??


----------



## NCcarguy (Jun 8, 2010)

The PT cruiser is a dog though. The problem is kinda like the new VW bug. They made something that looked cool enough to sell, they just forgot to add any fun to it. The engine combo package was sluggish at best....it was just not much. I think the Chevy version is a little bigger and has some more potent engine combo's to choose from.


----------



## MGX (Jun 8, 2010)

EnvEngineer said:


> I really cannot figure out the auto industry, they have a car that sells, but they will discontinue and go into a costly campaign to replace those sales with something else. I guess there is some economics in there somewhere that an engineer cannot understand. Then we have the Saturn which they claim never turned a profit despite all the sales??


There aren't any economics other than pandering to the government for more bailout money and that is why so many went tits up.


----------



## Bean PE (Jun 8, 2010)

NCcarguy said:


> The PT cruiser is a dog though. The problem is kinda like the new VW bug. They made something that looked cool enough to sell, they just forgot to add any fun to it. The engine combo package was sluggish at best....it was just not much. I think the Chevy version is a little bigger and has some more potent engine combo's to choose from.


A 230hp/245ft-lb turbo with 90% of peak torque from 2300-5000rpm isn't potent enough for you?


----------



## MA_PE (Jun 8, 2010)

NCcarguy said:


> The PT cruiser is a dog though. The problem is kinda like the new VW bug. They made something that looked cool enough to sell, they just forgot to add any fun to it. The engine combo package was sluggish at best....it was just not much. I think the Chevy version is a little bigger and has some more potent engine combo's to choose from.






Bean said:


> NCcarguy said:
> 
> 
> > The PT cruiser is a dog though. The problem is kinda like the new VW bug. They made something that looked cool enough to sell, they just forgot to add any fun to it. The engine combo package was sluggish at best....it was just not much. I think the Chevy version is a little bigger and has some more potent engine combo's to choose from.
> ...


Was that motor offered in the PT? The only time I drove one is when I got one for a rental on a business trip. To me it seems just like an original VW bug (I had a '69 at one time). Very close quarters inside, big one-gage dashboard, couldn't punch it's way out of a paper bag.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Jun 8, 2010)

MA_PE said:


> Was that motor offered in the PT? The only time I drove one is when I got one for a rental on a business trip. To me it seems just like an original VW bug (I had a '69 at one time). Very close quarters inside, big one-gage dashboard, couldn't punch it's way out of a paper bag.


Same here. It got me where I was going but that was about it. Not a lot of room and not a lot of power.


----------



## Supe (Jun 8, 2010)

Both the PT Loser and the HHR were ugly as sin. Only difference was that the HHR cost double.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 8, 2010)

MA_PE said:


> NCcarguy said:
> 
> 
> > The PT cruiser is a dog though. The problem is kinda like the new VW bug. They made something that looked cool enough to sell, they just forgot to add any fun to it. The engine combo package was sluggish at best....it was just not much. I think the Chevy version is a little bigger and has some more potent engine combo's to choose from.
> ...


IIRC, two turbo engines were optional. 220hp with automatic, 240 with a stick. basically the Neon SRT engine in differnt tunes.

240hp in a PT CRuiser ought be plenty.


----------



## NCcarguy (Jun 8, 2010)

Bean said:


> NCcarguy said:
> 
> 
> > The PT cruiser is a dog though. The problem is kinda like the new VW bug. They made something that looked cool enough to sell, they just forgot to add any fun to it. The engine combo package was sluggish at best....it was just not much. I think the Chevy version is a little bigger and has some more potent engine combo's to choose from.
> ...


you didn't really ask me is 230hp wasn't enough, did you? lol


----------



## Master slacker (Jun 8, 2010)

> By Eric Mayne - WardsAuto.com, Jun 7, 2010
> Chrysler delivered 106,829 PT Cruisers the first year in North American, Ward’s data shows. The next year saw sales peak at 160,382. The sales tally did not fall below 100,000 units until 2008, driven by more than a dozen limited-edition models that played up the *PT’s street-rod flair*.


WTF? :jerkit:



Bean said:


> NCcarguy said:
> 
> 
> > The PT cruiser is a dog though. The problem is kinda like the new VW bug. They made something that looked cool enough to sell, they just forgot to add any fun to it. The engine combo package was sluggish at best....it was just not much. I think the Chevy version is a little bigger and has some more potent engine combo's to choose from.
> ...


A turbo'd car going mid 15's in the 1/4 mile gets a tick mark in the FAIL column for me.


----------



## Bean PE (Jun 8, 2010)

NCcarguy said:


> you didn't really ask me is 230hp wasn't enough, did you? lol


It's a grocery getter, not a drag racer.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Jun 8, 2010)

^A 454 powered car is perfectly capable of getting groceries.


----------



## Bean PE (Jun 8, 2010)

And you can use a 5lb sledge to frame a house. Right tool for the right job.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 8, 2010)

I was wrong. The turbo was 180hp with the automatic, 220 with the stick.


----------



## Bean PE (Jun 8, 2010)

Apparently there was some change later in the life of the model that made the turbo auto faster, though I'm not fully aware of the details.


----------



## Supe (Jun 8, 2010)

Bean said:


> Apparently there was some change later in the life of the model that made the turbo auto faster, though I'm not fully aware of the details.



Probably a crappy driver.


----------



## Master slacker (Jun 8, 2010)

Driver mod does help.


----------



## Bman (Jun 8, 2010)

I've only driven the PT rental car as well and it was crap (i'd say the same for the mustang rental cars I've been stuck with too though...). I used to have to fly into New Orleans for a meeting every month. I would rent a car in the morning, drive to the job site, attend a meeting, and fly back out that afternoon. The PT Cruiser I rented twice and gave up; no power and it sucked down gas. For whatever reason I usually ended up with a Grand Marquis (or similar) and the gas gauge wouldn't even register the trip, so it would look like I was returning the car with a full tank. The PT showed about 1/8 tank gone both times upon returning...


----------



## NCcarguy (Jun 8, 2010)

Flyer_PE said:


> ^A 454 powered car is perfectly capable of getting groceries.



Thanks Flyer!!! I actually have been to the grocery store in that car. In fact, I'll bet the trunk space on the Chevelle would rival the space in the PT cruiser.

My original point though, for about the same money there are many other cars that are much more fun to drive. I think that ultimately is the reason a car dies off.

In fact. My 07 Mustang GT with just about all the options you could get that year cost me out the door $26,500. That's only about 3-4k above the price of the "Turbo" PT cruiser......You can see why it would struggle with sales.


----------



## MGX (Jun 8, 2010)

I rented an HHR for a trip to Houston. We called it the *H*omo *H*ot *R*od.


----------



## Bean PE (Jun 8, 2010)

NCcarguy said:


> In fact. My 07 Mustang GT with just about all the options you could get that year cost me out the door $26,500. That's only about 3-4k above the price of the "Turbo" PT cruiser......You can see why it would struggle with sales.


A RWD V8 coupe and a FWD turbo-4 station wagon/minivan hybrid are in totally different market segments. I'm sure neither stole very many (if any) sales from the other.


----------



## Master slacker (Jun 8, 2010)

Knowing that a slow, yet turbo'd 4-banger with poor reviews is only $3000 cheaper than a V8 pony car that has good reviews leads me to believe that the 4-banger is an overpriced and underwhelming vehicle.


----------



## Bean PE (Jun 8, 2010)

Master slacker said:


> Knowing that a slow, yet turbo'd 4-banger with poor reviews is only $3000 cheaper than a V8 pony car that has good reviews leads me to believe that the 4-banger is an overpriced and underwhelming vehicle.


Well, it _is_ an american passenger car.


----------



## engineergurl (Jun 8, 2010)

NCcarguy said:


> Flyer_PE said:
> 
> 
> > ^A 454 powered car is perfectly capable of getting groceries.
> ...


Our grocery getter is fun to drive and we got it brand new for right around 20,000 this past october... if I had the choice between the Mazda 6 (our car) or a PT cruiser (turbo or not), I would still choose the Mazda. Every time I've been in a PT cruiser, I didn't feel like I had enough car around me to feel safe.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jun 8, 2010)

Bman said:


> a Grand Marquis (or similar) and the gas gauge wouldn't even register the trip, so it would look like I was returning the car with a full tank. The PT showed about 1/8 tank gone both times upon returning...


That probably had more to do with tank size than gas consumption.



engineergurl said:


> Our grocery getter is fun to drive and we got it brand new for right around 20,000 this past october... if I had the choice between the Mazda 6 (our car) or a PT cruiser (turbo or not), I would still choose the Mazda. Every time I've been in a PT cruiser, I didn't feel like I had enough car around me to feel safe.


That's not even a fair contest. I used to have a V6 Mazda 6. I loved that car...right up until I T-boned that truck.


----------



## engineergurl (Jun 8, 2010)

wilheldp_PE said:


> engineergurl said:
> 
> 
> > Our grocery getter is fun to drive and we got it brand new for right around 20,000 this past october... if I had the choice between the Mazda 6 (our car) or a PT cruiser (turbo or not), I would still choose the Mazda. Every time I've been in a PT cruiser, I didn't feel like I had enough car around me to feel safe.
> ...


My only issue with that car is that the steering column adjuster lever thing sticks out and I nearly always bang up my knee. It's actually the first "BRAND NEW CAR" the hubby and I purchased ever... of course he got rear ended before we even made the first payment, but he stopped on a dime and didn't hit the car in front of him! :mf_heads_or_tails:


----------



## Master slacker (Jun 9, 2010)

Bean said:


> Master slacker said:
> 
> 
> > Knowing that a slow, yet turbo'd 4-banger with poor reviews is only $3000 cheaper than a V8 pony car that has good reviews leads me to believe that the 4-banger is an overpriced and underwhelming vehicle.
> ...


:huh:

They're both American passenger cars.


----------



## OSUguy98 (Jun 10, 2010)

Bean said:


> Master slacker said:
> 
> 
> > Knowing that a slow, yet turbo'd 4-banger with poor reviews is only $3000 cheaper than a V8 pony car that has good reviews leads me to believe that the 4-banger is an overpriced and underwhelming vehicle.
> ...


I've never quite understood the anti-_____ (fill in the blank with whatever Make you wish) mentality, esp. nowadays where cars of just about every make/model are made just about anywhere/everywhere...


----------



## Chucktown PE (Jun 10, 2010)

Not related to a PT cruiser but I'm looking at buying an 07 GMC Sierra, Extended Cab, Z71 edition next week. ti's at an insurance salvage auction and I think I can get the truck for about $2000, spend $5000 fixing it up, and sell my 03 Honda Accord with 120k miles for $8000. So I'll break even on the deal and have a car with 50k miles instead of 120k. The only catch is it will have a salvage title, but I'll drive it till the wheels fall off so I don't really care. Anyone have any experience with that truck?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 10, 2010)

I would advise against the salvage car. Might want to check your insurance carrier, too. Some won't let you insure salvages.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Jun 10, 2010)

Capt Worley PE said:


> I would advise against the salvage car. Might want to check your insurance carrier, too. Some won't let you insure salvages.



I knew that was coming. I actually have a friend who has a car dealership that does this all the time and if you don't care about driving a car with a salvage title, which I don't, it works out pretty well if you plan on spending the money to fix it right. Outside of the salvage title issue, does anyone have any opinions on that truck?


----------



## Bean PE (Jun 10, 2010)

OSUguy98 said:


> I've never quite understood the anti-_____ (fill in the blank with whatever Make you wish) mentality, esp. nowadays where cars of just about every make/model are made just about anywhere/everywhere...


It's about the design and corporate mentality more than where it's built. German cars have electrical gremlins, Japanese cars run forever and get pretty good but not always spectacular mileage, and American econoboxes are fuel efficient but are junk in the grand scheme of things (though I have to admit the new Fiesta looks like a good vehicle) while American trucks and muscle cars are rad-ass.

And when I said "passenger car" I was considering the Mustang GT to be more of a sports car (without getting into the esoteric and largely irrelevant discussion of the exact definition of "sports car").


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 10, 2010)

Chucktown PE said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > I would advise against the salvage car. Might want to check your insurance carrier, too. Some won't let you insure salvages.
> ...


Oh, it is a good truck. What caused the total on it?


----------



## Master slacker (Jun 10, 2010)

Bean said:


> It's about the design and corporate mentality more than where it's built. German cars have electrical gremlins, Japanese cars run forever and get pretty good but not always spectacular mileage, and American econoboxes are fuel efficient but are junk in the grand scheme of things (though I have to admit the new Fiesta looks like a good vehicle) while American trucks and muscle cars are rad-ass.
> And when I said "passenger car" I was considering the Mustang GT to be more of a sports car (without getting into the esoteric and largely irrelevant discussion of the exact definition of "sports car").


I wouldn't call the Mustang a sports car period. A sports car to me, and to most other car enthusiasts, include cars such as Corvette, Miata, Boxster, etc... These cars are designed to perform well on race track conditions right out of the box. They're not made for a straight line, necessarily. Mustangs, Camaros, Challengers and the like are pony cars. There are distinct differences between the two categories.

In any case, the two originally discussed cars are American passenger cars. There are good and bad, but countries, in general, don't always have blanket issues (Germany - electrical, etc...). It's a shame that people still label American cars as junk. Sure, the 70's and 80's were broken ankles of American automobiles, but today they're surpassing expectations of both Asian and German counterparts. Sure Japanese cars run forever, but they're supposed to slow down when you take your foot off the gas.


----------



## MechGuy (Jun 10, 2010)

Master slacker said:


> I wouldn't call the Mustang a sports car period. A sports car to me, and to most other car enthusiasts, include cars such as Corvette, Miata, Boxster, etc...



Miata? Really? I wouldn't call that anything other than a girls car. Sports car surely not.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Jun 10, 2010)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Chucktown PE said:
> 
> 
> > Capt Worley PE said:
> ...


Front and rear end body damage. It looks like the drive train is okay. The air bag did deploy but I can get one off of ebay. I read that if the repair bill is more than 30% of the car's blue book value then it's considered totaled and the insurance company won't pay to fix it.



Master slacker said:


> I wouldn't call the Mustang a sports car period. A sports car to me, and to most other car enthusiasts, include cars such as Corvette, *Miata*, Boxster, etc... These cars are designed to perform well on race track conditions right out of the box. They're not made for a straight line, necessarily. Mustangs, Camaros, Challengers and the like are pony cars. There are distinct differences between the two categories.


:f_115m_e45d7af:


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 10, 2010)

Chucktown PE said:


> Front and rear end body damage. It looks like the drive train is okay. The air bag did deploy but I can get one off of ebay. I read that if the repair bill is more than 30% of the car's blue book value then it's considered totaled and the insurance company won't pay to fix it.


OK, here's the deal. I know you don't want to hear this, but I have to say it, then I'll let it go.

My Mom was an insurance adjuster, so she is pretty familiar with what it takes to total a car. the number is far higher than 30%, but that number does change with the age of the car as its value decreases. The value of the car goes down, repair cost never does.

But, she was adamant to never, never, ever by a totaled car, partly because our first car was a total. It was a simple repair, but we were still finding glass in it six years down the road. But that was in 1965. Stuff is a lot more complicated now, and it is easy to have unseem damage that causes big problems down the road.

I would bet there is some frame damage on that truck.

Anyway...just had to say it, so I wouldn't feel bad if something happened.

The 2007 was the first year of the new body style and its intro was fast tracked by six months. despite this, the trucks didn't have any major problems. You might want to check some GMT900 websites. gminsidenews might be a help, too. there are a lot of techs on that site.

Good luck. Those really are nice trucks.


----------



## Bean PE (Jun 10, 2010)

Master slacker said:


> I wouldn't call the Mustang a sports car period. A sports car to me, and to most other car enthusiasts, include cars such as Corvette, Miata, Boxster, etc... These cars are designed to perform well on race track conditions right out of the box. They're not made for a straight line, necessarily. Mustangs, Camaros, Challengers and the like are pony cars. There are distinct differences between the two categories.
> In any case, the two originally discussed cars are American passenger cars. There are good and bad, but countries, in general, don't always have blanket issues (Germany - electrical, etc...). It's a shame that people still label American cars as junk. Sure, the 70's and 80's were broken ankles of American automobiles, but today they're surpassing expectations of both Asian and German counterparts. Sure Japanese cars run forever, but they're supposed to slow down when you take your foot off the gas.


I was trying to avoid the nuances of specific "performance car" categories (sports car [which Miata is - it's as pure a sports car as is available on the market right now], muscle car, grand tourer, rally car, and on and on and on). I guess it's the VAG cars that have most of the electrical problems but the rest aren't immune, such is life when you start overengineering things. American cars are getting better but IMO aren't quite there (with a specific note that Ford is leaps and bounds ahead of GM - and that pains me to say as someone who lusted after a LS1 Camaro for years).


----------



## Chucktown PE (Jun 10, 2010)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Chucktown PE said:
> 
> 
> > Front and rear end body damage. It looks like the drive train is okay. The air bag did deploy but I can get one off of ebay. I read that if the repair bill is more than 30% of the car's blue book value then it's considered totaled and the insurance company won't pay to fix it.
> ...


Thanks Capt. The 30% number was what they used when my dad wrecked his car about 10 years ago and what they used on mine when I totalled it 2 years ago. But I guess it's case specific.

And your concern is noted. FWIW, I wouldn't even consider doing something like this on my own, but I have a good friend who owns a car dealership and he does this on the side. He has done this succesfully many times before and has a repair shop at his dealership that will handle all of the repairs/body work. I'm factoring in some frame damage into my cost estimate.


----------



## MA_PE (Jun 10, 2010)

Chucktown PE said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > Chucktown PE said:
> ...


Chuck: either your doing the repair work yourself or you're getting a heck of a deal to fix both front and rear damage for $5k. I just paid over $2k to fix my son's '09 Cobalt and it was essentially cosmetic damage to the right front needing a fender and headlight and some scrapes on the side requiring some buffing and paint blending. Also, I'd get the Honda sold first. Might just be me but I wouldn't jump at spending $8k for a car with 120k on the clock, regardless of nice it looks. A quick look shows your value is at "high trade-in" and about $2k below typical retail, but I still think it may take a while to move it. Just my 0.02. good luck.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Jun 10, 2010)

MA_PE said:


> Chucktown PE said:
> 
> 
> > Capt Worley PE said:
> ...



I'm getting a heck of a deal. I assume you're going to a dealership to get that done, you're also in MA, which is much more expensive since most of your mechanics are union guys.

I'm not worried about how long it takes to sell the Honda, and if I have to drop the price by $1000 it's not a big deal, I've got plenty of cash to do this, outside of the downpayment money for my house

With the options I have on the car (EX-L package) and since it's in good condition, KBB has it listed as about $8000 as a private party seller. Hondas hold their value extremely well.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Jun 10, 2010)

But back to the original question, does anyone else have any opinions on the truck. Just go ahead and assume that I'm buying a salvage car and there's nothing you can do to stop me.


----------



## MA_PE (Jun 10, 2010)

Personally, I'v enever had one, but I'v eheard really good things about the latest Checy trucks. As far asthe reliabilty of this particular one, I guess it's only as good as the repair and it's maintenence. 50k in three years it was certainly used and not necessarily babied.

good luck with whatever you decide.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 10, 2010)

Check for 4wd components binding because of the wreck. Even subtle alignment issues cause problems for these guys.

Since the airbags went off, check for damage under the dash.


----------



## Kephart P.E. (Jun 10, 2010)

Bman said:


> I've only driven the PT rental car as well and it was crap (i'd say the same for the mustang rental cars I've been stuck with too though...). I used to have to fly into New Orleans for a meeting every month. I would rent a car in the morning, drive to the job site, attend a meeting, and fly back out that afternoon. The PT Cruiser I rented twice and gave up; no power and it sucked down gas. For whatever reason I usually ended up with a Grand Marquis (or similar) and the gas gauge wouldn't even register the trip, so it would look like I was returning the car with a full tank. The PT showed about 1/8 tank gone both times upon returning...


This I think was really the issue, heavy vehicle that wasn't fun to drive and couldn't tow squat but still was reasonably thirsty and there was no option for AWD.

Not that I care, from the beginning the thing looked like something your Aunt Mildred drove.

And my 400 hp LS2 powered Trailblazer gets the groceries just fine. And it is AWD. And it can tow 6,000 lbs. Trailblazer SS mileage is 16/20.

PT Cruiser = 17/21 mpg and from what I hear that is pretty optimistic.


----------



## Bean PE (Jun 10, 2010)

Kephart P.E. said:


> PT Cruiser = 17/21 mpg and from what I hear that is pretty optimistic.


I never knew it was that bad. It always amazes me when small vehicles have terrible MPG ratings.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 10, 2010)

I always liked the Trailblazer SS, but it was too expensive (read, I am very cheap) for me. They are getting reasonably priced used, now. I'd love to have one.

The PT was heavy, had a fairly large engine, and not aerodynamic at all. Perfect recipe for poor mileage


----------



## Kephart P.E. (Jun 10, 2010)

I took advantage late in 2006, GM offered a bunch of cash back ($8,000) on new leftover 06 models. This was about the time gas had taken a huge jump in price. I then had the dealer find me a base model SS (no leather, no GPS, no moonroof, etc) with AWD. Took him a couple of weeks it was not easy to find but I bought the thing for $22,500.

I really like the vehicle, I had test drove a regular Trailblazer and it drove horribly compared to its competitors. The SS has upgraded suspension that should have been on every Trailblazer, but that is another story. The weak points of the vehicle are a cheap interior (classic GM shortcoming) and only a 4 speed tranny. Mine has 38,000 miles on it and I haven't had any problems. The 6 liter LS2 is a wonderful engine, really the pinnacle of V8's IMHO. My previous vehicle was the 2001 V8 Tundra which I liked but didn't have the grunt just off idle.

The fully loaded SS models were very overpriced IMHO. At least until you look at even a basic Grand Cherokee or a Pathfinder or a 4Runner.


----------



## Kephart P.E. (Jun 10, 2010)

Want to know another one? Subaru Forester. It is about the same, but at least it has tons of cargo room and is AWD.

I love the neo-Hippies up here in Portland who turn there nose up at my "gas guzzler" then I tell them their Subaru only gets about 1-3 mpg better and I only commute 13 miles per day so really they are the ones killing Mother Nature. But not to worry cause the Forrester is really "green". Or at least it is painted green.

No wonder some Christina's friends loath me.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 10, 2010)

Kephart P.E. said:


> I took advantage late in 2006, GM offered a bunch of cash back ($8,000) on new leftover 06 models. This was about the time gas had taken a huge jump in price. I then had the dealer find me a base model SS (no leather, no GPS, no moonroof, etc) with AWD. Took him a couple of weeks it was not easy to find but* I bought the thing for $22,500.*


Dang! I have never heard of them going for so little. They just got below $20K used here. Of course, I imagine location plays a role.

What are Christina's friends?


----------



## Bean PE (Jun 10, 2010)

Kephart P.E. said:


> Want to know another one? Subaru Forester. It is about the same, but at least it has tons of cargo room and is AWD.
> I love the neo-Hippies up here in Portland who turn there nose up at my "gas guzzler" then I tell them their Subaru only gets about 1-3 mpg better and I only commute 13 miles per day so really they are the ones killing Mother Nature. But not to worry cause the Forrester is really "green". Or at least it is painted green.
> 
> No wonder some Christina's friends loath me.


I've got a Subaru and get high-20s to 30. The "neo-Hippies" in Portland are probably biking to work. I don't even live in Portland and my car will sit for weeks on end during the summer.


----------



## Master slacker (Jun 10, 2010)

Bean said:


> ...with a specific note that Ford is leaps and bounds ahead of GM - and that pains me to say as someone who lusted after a LS1 Camaro for years.


I agree that Ford's muscle is higher tech than GM, but GM's engines are far more affordable, are easier to work on, and respond better to comparitive mods than the Ford counterparts. Pushrods FTW!

&lt;--- LT1 owner. :blush:


----------



## Kephart P.E. (Jun 10, 2010)

Bean said:


> Kephart P.E. said:
> 
> 
> > Want to know another one? Subaru Forester. It is about the same, but at least it has tons of cargo room and is AWD.
> ...


Ummm, you aren't getting 30 mpg with a Subaru forester. A AWD 2010 model get 22 mpg and that is the manf. rating. Typically most struggle to ever achieve this rate. I am guessing you must have one of their smaller models.

And I really don't have a problem with our neo-hippies here, I just tire of their ignorance. For example if you commute 40 miles each day even in a Prius you still aren't doing the environment any grand favors.

Or my personal favorite. Buying a 80's era diesel rabbit or Mercedes car and running Biodiesel in it even though these cars are horrible polluters.


----------



## Master slacker (Jun 10, 2010)

Kephart P.E. said:


> Or my personal favorite. Buying a 80's era diesel rabbit or Mercedes car and running Biodiesel in it even though these cars are horrible polluters.


If there were a market for it, I'd like to run a VW Rabbit on baby seals and spotted owls. It's too bad, though, that getting them in the tank is so messy.


----------



## Bean PE (Jun 10, 2010)

Kephart P.E. said:


> Ummm, you aren't getting 30 mpg with a Subaru forester. A AWD 2010 model get 22 mpg and that is the manf. rating. Typically most struggle to ever achieve this rate. I am guessing you must have one of their smaller models.
> And I really don't have a problem with our neo-hippies here, I just tire of their ignorance. For example if you commute 40 miles each day even in a Prius you still aren't doing the environment any grand favors.
> 
> Or my personal favorite. Buying a 80's era diesel rabbit or Mercedes car and running Biodiesel in it even though these cars are horrible polluters.


You're right, I'm getting 30mpg with a Legacy from a few years ago. The 2010MY Forester destroyed what the Forester was supposed to be - a car with good poor-weather handling, decent clearance, respectable fuel economy, and storage space. Now it's just like any other compact SUV.


----------



## MGX (Jun 10, 2010)

It's one of the most popular carmaker name ever, so naturally GM wants to kill it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/automobi...rss&amp;emc=rss


----------



## NCcarguy (Jun 10, 2010)

^^ I think this is what happens when the government runs a company.....they make a big deal out of something trivial, instead of fixing the light switch problem.


----------



## MA_PE (Jun 10, 2010)

He's coming!! (bell starts ringing) Wait! Wait! The new sherrif is is a Chev..DING...DING.

pretty sad when Chevy isn't politically correct anymore.


----------



## TouchDown (Jun 18, 2010)

I thought the PT Cruiser looked ok, up until this happened, then I had to turn my head away in shame when I saw one...


----------

