2007-2009 Chrysler PT Cruiser

I apologize for the lack of updates, this January has been particularly tiring and has only recently slowed down. Finally another review and this time of a Chrysler product.


Introduction: The Chrysler PT Cruiser was developed from the early Plymouth Pronto concept. Originally slated to be a Plymouth model, but with the merger with Mercedes-Benz the Plymouth line of cars would discontinue. As a result the PT Cruiser was given a Chrysler badge and was first released in late 1999 as a model year 2000 vehicle. Most PT Crusiers were 5-door hatchbacks however for 2005 Chrysler developed a 2-door convertible version of the PT Cruiser. The convertible PT Cruisers stopped production in late 2007 and the final vehicles being sold as 2008 models. 2009 was supposed to mark the final year for the PT Cruiser, however Chrysler has changed plans with 2010 now being the supposed final year for the PT Cruiser.

When the PT Cruiser came out, I couldn't believe how terrible looking the car was. I couldn't believe anybody would buy such a car. That was some time ago and boy was that a wrong assumption, particularly during the early 2000s there were loads of the things. Presented with the opportunity to drive one, I wanted to see for myself whether it was as bad as I believed it to be.


Performance: The standard PT Cruiser gets by with a 2.4L 4-cylinder engine that produces 150 hp and 162 lbs.ft of torque. This engine was developed during the days of the Neon while the standard Neons didn't use this engine, the SRT-4 Neons used a turbocharged version. What surprises me most is why Chrysler decided to use the GEMA engine when that engine is less powerful than the engine the PT uses. Due to the PT Cruiser's weight its acceleration numbers are not so good with a manual its 8.9 seconds but the automatics are 10.8 seconds to get from 0-100 km/h. That said, the engine makes an interesting whining noise when you gun the throttle. Overall though its not a quick car if you settle for an automatic.

My Score: 4/10 - The engine is old and today quite slow, but it does make an interesting noise and if the engine was placed in a lighter car or coupled with a proper transmission its quite competent.

Handling: I mentioned the PT Cruiser is a bit heavy the base PT Cruiser weighs about 3100-3200 lbs. The rear suspension for the PT is a twist beam design, essentially a torsion bar much like the Corolla. Things don't look good so far, they're not helped by the PT's truly poor turning radius. To turn a PT sharply at low speeds sometimes requires a three point turn. However when I drove it at regular speeds it wasn't nearly as bad as it seemed. I did manage to tripod a PT Cruiser meaning it can actually take some aggressive cornering. Steering feel is actually quite appropriate, far better than today's Chryslers. One does have to be mindful of the height where if you really went too far pushing a PT you'll roll it.

My Score: 7/10 - A surprising handler despite the less than ideal components and body, but the turning radius is poor.


Interior: Inside a PT Cruiser its how one would expect an interior from Chrysler. The plastics are not of very high quality and the switchgear is not in an ideal place clustered in the center console. Unlike other Chrysler products though it does have a bright interior instead of the usual darkness. The plastics are also better quality than those used on newer Chryslers too, the newer cars are rough. Due to the unusual shape the rear hatch space is very good, far better than the Caliber's. Another bonus over new Chryslers is the rear visibility, the rear wiper can clear most of the big rear windscreen and the C-pillars are rather small unlike again newer Chryslers. The build quality is actually not too bad, however watch out for factory defects where sometimes an entire batch have the same problem. The PT Cruisers for most markets are assembled in Toluca, Mexico.

My Score: 7/10 - Very practical, excellent visibility but silly switch gear location and not very good plastics.

Styling: This car was a very controversial one, I myself hated the way the car looked. Yet there are people who loved the way the PT looked. This was easily the most polarizing car of 2000, one where people really loved it or hated it. These days in terms of ugliness there are much uglier cars now than the PT. I still don't like the unusual shape nor the way the front looked. That said I'm willing to say Chrysler took a risk and it paid off.

My Score: 5/10 - Very polarizing, for that reason it was interesting and will always be a subject of discussion.

Value for money: A very big reason for buying a PT Cruiser in the early days was down to the way the car looked. It was a great buy in the early days if you wanted the styling and the practicality. Today the car is approaching 10 years old as a design and it hasn't changed almost at all since the early 1999 cars. Normally this would devalue the car instantly, yet among all the Chrysler cars you can buy...I have to say the PT is still the better car. Its design was easily more common sense compared to a newer Chrysler product like a Dodge Journey where ergonomics was thrown out in favour of stupid design. One has to keep in mind you are buying a 10 year old vehicle though and most other manufacturers have a competing product now. A Nissan Cube, a Scion xB or GM's Chevrolet HHR all newer designs. A PT is a reasonable Chrysler buy, just not a reasonable unique hatch buy. I will say the PT has an unusual charm to it, I wanted to hate it but I came out believing different after driving it. I know its not a good car, but its become very difficult to hate it now. I've encountered some former PT owners who miss their PT and likely will buy the final ones.

My Score: 6/10 - The car is outdated but for a Chrysler product its better value than the car intended to replace it, the Caliber. The car has a lot of charm which is difficult to do as well.

Overall: 29/50 - The PT Cruiser is an aging vehicle, sadly its actually still one of Chrysler's better vehicles. What a shame to see a once innovative company make inferior cars.

2009, 2010 Dodge Charger SE/Chrsyler 300 Touring

Another Chrysler product...I seriously have driven too many of these things.



Introduction: The Chrysler 300 and the Dodge Charger belong to the same LX platform as the Dodge Magnum does. The only difference is the Magnum was the only vehicle to stop being produced while the Charger and 300 continue to live on. Both 300 and Charger are practically the same the big difference being mostly down to badge and exterior styling. Both cars changed the full size car market in that they returned to using rear wheel drive which in turn spawned the short lived Pontiac G8 as competition. The use of rear wheel drive allowed Dodge to attempt to sell Chargers to police fleets many of which are very used to the out of production Ford Crown Victoria compared to General Motors using the front wheel drive Chevrolet Impala.

Most people who know me attempted to convince me that Chrysler hasn't totally screwed up their car lineup by using these two cars as an example. Given my first drive in the Magnum I set my expectations much lower than normal.



Performance: For this review due to the fact both cars use several engines I'll note the Charger as the 2.7L V6 and the 300 using the 3.5L V6. The scores will reflect the trim level given. Well the Charger SE uses the same 2.7L V6 I've mentioned was a huge problem for the Magnum and the Sebring...its no different this time. This is such a pathetic engine that its pretty embarrassing. Its the same 190 hp and 190 lb.ft of torque engine. The Magnum is about 100 lbs heavier, so the Charger likely does 0-100 km/h in 11 seconds, there are no real tested times...its probably too embarrassing. Keep in mind the engine sounds terrible so revving this thing is no joy. The 300 Touring has the 3.5L and this engine is far more adequate for the job but is still not great doing 0-100 km/h in roughly 9 seconds. That engine produces 250 hp and 250 lb.ft of torque. This engine is much smoother and felt a bit faster than the 9 seconds suggest. However its no Honda or Toyota so it will consume fuel at a higher rate. In cars this big and this heavy...the 2.7L is a stupid idea. Another note, I thought the brakes on both cars were pretty weak.

My Score(Charger SE): 1/10 - A horrible engine, far too slow and far too weak and sounds awful.

My Score(300 Touring): 5/10 - A nicer smoother engine, but still slow and also not that efficient.

Handling: This is where I hope the RWD comes into play alas it was not what I was expecting. Taking most RWD cars into a corner is where the fun from the layout comes out, taking the Charger or the 300 into the corners show how poorly engineered they are. Both vehicles are just too soft and the suspension is too slow to react during faster cornering. The 300 has a decent ride, the Charger doesn't seem to provide that softness. Much of the misery of the Magnum returns to my mind, they do corner better than the Magnum but that's mainly because they're both lighter. RWD seems to have prevented a poor handling car from being the worst handling car.

My Score(Charger SE): 2/10 - Very poor cornering ability, poor suspension setup

My Score(Chrysler 300): 3/10 - Same as the Charger but more comfortable



Interior: This area I was hoping for something better, as I believe it to be it seems the Ram stole all of Chrysler's interior budget so both cars suffer as a result. The Charger SE is the base vehicle and the interior is nothing but disgusting, cheap, black plastic. The 300 Touring is given leather which is actually comfortable but the major additions over the charger is the stupid analog clock. As a car supposed to be their top of the line...it uses a lot of material you expect to be too cheap for even the bottom of the line vehicle. A huge problem in these cars is the poor visibility, not only are the windows small...the C-pillar is a gigantic blind spot. The interior of both vehicles appear to be an afterthought as a result they get a very poor score. The build quality on these cars are mediocre, better than some US assembled Chryslers but not near US assembled Japanese vehicles. Both cars are built in Brampton, Ontario.

My Score(both): 2/10 - Same cheap Chrysler material found in their cheapest vehicles

Styling: Finally something good to talk about these disappointing vehicles. Both vehicles have been styled extremely well as far as the exterior is concerned. The 300 is very much like the sort of car you expect the mafia to drive, its very big and menacing but appears to have some sort of a status along with that. The Charger is more aggressive looking and looks like the sort of vehicle that is a hunter...pity its too slow to match its looks. It appears Chrysler spent some money somewhere so as a result the scores are good.

My Score(both): 9/10 - Both vehicles look very good and have no need for a restyle.

Value for money: Both these cars do have something that most full size cars in this age don't have...rear wheel drive. This does give these cars a mild advantage over the competition with the only car offering RWD is the Pontiac G8. The problem is the rest of the car leaves a lot to be desired, the V6 engines Chrysler offers don't move these cars all that quickly meaning if you want this car to be faster than say...a Mazda 3 you have to buy the Hemi V8. The interior is extremely low rent regardless of which trim level, something none of its competition suffers. If you want a car with good looks...and has RWD regardless of its awful suspension...these cars are for you then.

My Score(both): 4/10 - Neither are good value especially in lower trim form...yet high trim vehicles are expensive but still retain the cheapness of the lower trim cars. Having RWD however is a plus.

Overall(Charger SE): 18/50 - For a base vehicle at this price its terrible, high marks only for good looks.

Overall(300 Touring): 23/50 - Better than a base Charger...but not that much better

2008-2009 Chrysler Sebring Touring/Dodge Avenger SE

Since I'm off today I'll review...the worst car I've ever driven. The current Chrysler Sebring and the current Dodge Avenger, this is not really a twofer because these cars are almost exactly the same.



Introduction: The Chrysler Sebring originally started as a convertible back in 1995, the sedan version would come out in 2001 on the JR platform. The current Sebring began in 2007 using the JS platform, the Dodge Avenger would be released in 2008. Since the sale of Chrysler's assets to Fiat, the Sterling Heights Michigan plant was not part of the deal and thus the plant will close along with the production of the current Sebring and Avenger ending in 2010.

Yeah...this car is pretty uninspired...does nothing significant and has a pretty uninteresting history. I knew this car was going to be bad...I just didn't think it would blow my mind about how awful a car can really be.



Performance: The Dodge Avengers I drive have the weak 2.4L 4-cylinder GEMA engine shared with Hyundai and Mitsubishi. This engine produces 173 hp and 165 lb.ft of torque. The Sebring is a Touring version using the same 2.7L V6 mentioned in the Dodge Magnum review I did. It honestly didn't matter which engine you used in these cars, they're both horrible. The GEMA engine was noisier and the V6 as mentioned before not all that quiet either. The Sebring gets from 0-100km/h in 8.9 seconds...that's pretty bad, the Avenger does it on 9.5 seconds. What's most shocking is neither engine is particularly fuel efficient...so you get a weak, noisy and thirsty engine with no upsides. These cars have a 3.5L V6 option, a much better engine...but because the engine is old...its 0-100 time is 7.3 seconds...most cars in this segment are under 7 seconds.

My Score(both): 2/10 - Neither engine is good, neither engine is practical, flat out they're terrible.

Handling: Once again the Sebring and Avenger are no different here. You got a hard suspension in both cars, the trouble with hard suspensions are they're no fun driving on roads with potholes. Now generally the good things about hard suspensions are they offer great cornering ability...not the Sebring or the Avenger...you get massive body roll and rubbish cornering ability. Once again...you get two wrongs...there is no right here. The steering wheel on both cars is very dull and light and like the 2007 Hyundai Elantra review...the car had no feel whatsoever.

My Score(both): 1/10 - Poor cornering, no feel, uncomfortable suspension...this is terrible.



Interior: There are differences between the Sebring and the Avenger. The Chrysler is supposed to be more upscale with the Dodge is...er...well...cheap. As a result the Dodge has the more depressing interior full of the usual Chrysler stuff like depressing cheap black plastic, fake chrome, ugly tin-foil painted plastic, ugly dials, etc. The seats...while not very comfortable...I could sit in them without huge issues. The Sebring...its not as black as the Avenger but it still had all the horrid plastic, the fake chrome and so on but...the seats are absolutely unusable for a 5'4 guy. The ergonomics on these seats are so bad, I actually got back pain from these things. Every time I drive a Sebring...I have the adjust the seat so that its lying on the passenger floor, I might as well be sitting on a stone stool that would be more comfortable. The blind spots on both cars are pretty bad with the C-pillar being very large. As usual with bad interiors they're not build very well, these cars coming from the United States. I guess they're reasonably spacious considering the price of these cars...but other than that...absolutely horrible.

My Score(Avenger): 2/10 - Ugly, cheap and not built very well

My Score(Sebring): 0/10 - The same above except absolutely unusable seats

Styling: Once again there are differences...this time big differences. I actually like the way the Avenger looks, it actually does look handsome. The Sebring...just doesn't. The Sebring has the look of someone who always looks angry trying to smile...it looks wrong and unnatural. The Sebring borrowed the wrong bits from the Crossfire, keeping the profile of the Crossfire sedan but not having the serious but aggressive front styling. In the rear both cars are not that interesting but the Dodge's actually fits the car...the Sebring's rear doesn't match the front at all.

My Score(Avenger): 8/10 - Pretty decent styling all things considered

My Score(Sebring): 1/10 - Ugly and yet boring

Value for Money: Honestly...they're both terrible value. They're not quality products(they break all the time), they depreciate very badly and worst of all...they're not even the cheapest cars available. The Hyundai Sonata is not expensive and far surpasses these awful cars at every category. The only person who would buy this over anything is someone who looks at the 82% parts sourced for America...and this person would be an idiot for using this reason to buy these two. If your an American and want to be patriotic here...wouldn't it make sense to buy a good American car rather than support a bad one? The Fusion and Malibu are far better, if the Mexican made Fusion discourages you then get the Malibu, that car also far surpasses these horrid cars.

My Score: 0/10 - You either have to use a stupid reason or failed to test drive anything in order to buy these cars.

Overall(Avenger): 13/50 - This car survived being slaughtered in the scoring by having good looks.

Overall(Sebring): 4/50 - An absolute failure of a car. I hope nothing in the future surpasses this car in terms of how truly awful a car can really be.

The engineers who ok'd this car should be ashamed of themselves, this car is woefully inadequate in everything they attempted to do. The executives who thought this was good enough should be fired for not understanding a good car is not just a 4 wheeled vehicle, if its not good there's plenty of other cars to choose from. If this same vehicle came from Daewoo I would criticize this car a little less harshly because it would come from a company that had no idea what it was doing. This is Chrysler, one of the oldest names and clearly nobody cared enough about these cars leaving it under engineered, poorly conceived and lags far behind from even its domestic competitors and thus deserve a harsh review.