It seems that almost every PT Cruiser I encounter is a sloth driver.
They just do not keep up with traffic.
Could it be that PT’s are inherent sloth vehicles?
Maybe the name "Cruiser" causes them to unconsciously be slothful?
Even a PT Turbo car was a sloth.
–
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Hey, there’s a reason I try not to put myself in the lane behind a PT
Cruiser. Almost without fail, the other lane(s) will move at a greater
speed. But it’s not a phenomenon limited to the PTC. Other vehicles I
try to avoid following (other than the obvious larger transport
vehicles) include Honda minivans and CR-Vs (safety-first soccer mom
drivers), Buicks and Lincolns (retired old folks behind wheel), and 10+
year older vehicles whose drivers have little to lose if they change
lanes at the last minute to try to make their exit.
YMMV, of course.
In article <h5aes191e1oa63uhlbq5b0kshd0h14s…@4ax.com>, Scott en Aztlán <scottenazt…@yahooNOSPAM.com> writes:
> On 12 Jan 2006 01:35:12 GMT, Jim Yanik <jya…@abuse.gov> wrote:
>>It seems that almost every PT Cruiser I encounter is a sloth driver.
>>They just do not keep up with traffic.
>>Could it be that PT’s are inherent sloth vehicles?
>>Maybe the name "Cruiser" causes them to unconsciously be slothful?
>>Even a PT Turbo car was a sloth.
> Think about the type of person who would buy a PT Cruiser. Anyone
> nutty enough to find a PT Cruiser attractive is going to have all
> sorts of weird ideas, like driving 55 MPH on the 75 MPH freeway in
> order to save gas.
A few weeks ago on a business trip the car rental place gave me a PTC.
I hate the way they look but I was curious so, what the heck. It just
confirmed for me that I’d never buy one. They drive the way they look: like a
Volkswagon beetle with it’s ass shot full of collagen. HUGE blind spots too.
Ugh.
- Sharon
"Gravity… is a harsh mistress!"
Sharon, <f…@encompasserve.org> was motivated to say this in
rec.autos.driving on 13 Jan 2006 15:55:16 -0600:
> A few weeks ago on a business trip
> the car rental place gave me a PTC.
> I hate the way they look but I was
> curious so, what the heck. It just
> confirmed for me that I’d never buy one.
> They drive the way they look: like a
> Volkswagon beetle with it’s ass shot
> full of collagen. HUGE blind spots too.
> Ugh.
Double Ugh (and I’ve never driven one, just have the misfortune to have
to see alot of them where I live…
Stupid question, but exactly whose bright idea was the PT Cruiser
anyway?
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, necromancer wrote:
> Double Ugh (and I’ve never driven one, just have the misfortune to have
> to see alot of them where I live… Stupid question, but exactly whose
> bright idea was the PT Cruiser anyway?
Whoever it was got a promotion; they’ve been very good sellers for
DaimlerChrysler. Seems a great many people don’t share your "Double Ugh"
opinion of them.
In article <Pine.GSO.4.63.0601131857410.15…@alumni.engin.umich.edu>, Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, necromancer wrote:
>> Double Ugh (and I’ve never driven one, just have the misfortune to have
>> to see alot of them where I live… Stupid question, but exactly whose
>> bright idea was the PT Cruiser anyway?
> Whoever it was got a promotion; they’ve been very good sellers for
> DaimlerChrysler. Seems a great many people don’t share your "Double Ugh"
> opinion of them.
Whoever’s boss’s boss probably got the promotion. Whoever probably got
downsized and is now making ends meet working at home depot.
f…@encompasserve.org (Sharon) wrote in
news:WZvLK$$XEWkP@eisner.encompasserve.org:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> In article <h5aes191e1oa63uhlbq5b0kshd0h14s…@4ax.com>, Scott en
> Aztlán <scottenazt…@yahooNOSPAM.com> writes:
>> On 12 Jan 2006 01:35:12 GMT, Jim Yanik <jya…@abuse.gov> wrote:
>>>It seems that almost every PT Cruiser I encounter is a sloth driver.
>>>They just do not keep up with traffic.
>>>Could it be that PT’s are inherent sloth vehicles?
>>>Maybe the name "Cruiser" causes them to unconsciously be slothful?
>>>Even a PT Turbo car was a sloth.
>> Think about the type of person who would buy a PT Cruiser. Anyone
>> nutty enough to find a PT Cruiser attractive is going to have all
>> sorts of weird ideas, like driving 55 MPH on the 75 MPH freeway in
>> order to save gas.
> A few weeks ago on a business trip the car rental place gave me a
> PTC.
> I hate the way they look but I was curious so, what the heck. It just
> confirmed for me that I’d never buy one. They drive the way they
> look: like a Volkswagon beetle with it’s ass shot full of collagen.
> HUGE blind spots too. Ugh.
> - Sharon
> "Gravity… is a harsh mistress!"
They used to be classed as "light trucks".(to fly under CAFE rules)
When the cabrio PTC came out,that designation would not fly.
–
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
necromancer <necroman…@kretp.tmy> wrote in
news:MPG.1e3201fb531493529897c6@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Sharon, <f…@encompasserve.org> was motivated to say this in
> rec.autos.driving on 13 Jan 2006 15:55:16 -0600:
>> A few weeks ago on a business trip
>> the car rental place gave me a PTC.
>> I hate the way they look but I was
>> curious so, what the heck. It just
>> confirmed for me that I’d never buy one.
>> They drive the way they look: like a
>> Volkswagon beetle with it’s ass shot
>> full of collagen. HUGE blind spots too.
>> Ugh.
> Double Ugh (and I’ve never driven one, just have the misfortune to have
> to see alot of them where I live…
> Stupid question, but exactly whose bright idea was the PT Cruiser
> anyway?
Nothing really wrong with them,they were simply a Neon made into a "light
truck" with a retro look.(and added weight,thus the sluggishness.)
I gotta admit,Chrysler has been very innovative in styling,though.
–
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:58:19 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
> <dast…@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, necromancer wrote:
> >> Double Ugh (and I’ve never driven one, just have the misfortune to have
> >> to see alot of them where I live… Stupid question, but exactly whose
> >> bright idea was the PT Cruiser anyway?
> >Whoever it was got a promotion; they’ve been very good sellers for
> >DaimlerChrysler. Seems a great many people don’t share your "Double Ugh"
> >opinion of them.
> Or they buy them BECAUSE of the double-ugh reaction that the vehicle
> elicits. Kinda like the kids who walk around with their pants falling
> off and their underwear showing: they are trying very hard to shock
> people.
They are ? I just thought it was a case of being sloppy.
Graham
Around 1/13/2006 7:50 PM, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> Wanna know what’s uglier than a PT Cruiser? A PT Cruiser
> *convertible.*
With the top down, those PT ‘verts look to me like a bathtub on wheels…
–
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
(p…@v6stang.com for secure mail info) –H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
I don’t know about that. My wife as a Turbo PT with a stage 1 kit and
ios regularly at warp speed. Non Turbo PT owners though, tend to drive
as if they are in a Buick..
That was my first impression only. A motorized clawfoot tub.
pjhart…@gmail.com wrote:
> That was my first impression only. A motorized clawfoot tub.
Hey, I *LIKE* Hudsons, I wouldn’t mind having a nice Hornet.
nate
Speaking of this thread… I was behind a minivan with handicaped plates
who was behind a PT cruiser with handicap plates. Let me just say it was
the perfect storm of sloth. It took nearly the entire green cycle for just
the PT cruiser to make a right hand turn. (or maybe it just felt that
long…. but even the minivan driver was annoyed with the PT cruiser
driver)
Jim Yanik wrote:
> It seems that almost every PT Cruiser I encounter is a sloth driver.
> They just do not keep up with traffic.
Good observation.
Every few years the sloths all seem to adopt some sign that allows us
to spot them easily. After 9-11 it was big US flags on the antennas.
Before that it was SUVs, and before that it was "Baby on Board" signs.
Now it’s PT Cruisers.
Moral: Never let one get in front of you if you can possibly help it.
necromancer wrote:
> Stupid question, but exactly whose bright idea was the PT Cruiser
> anyway?
It seems to be another workaround for the stupid fuel-economy laws.
According to the feds, the PTC is a "truck". I have no idea what
hairs they split to receive that label.
John David Galt <j…@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in
news:dr6h6v$pau$7@blue.rahul.net:
> necromancer wrote:
>> Stupid question, but exactly whose bright idea was the PT Cruiser
>> anyway?
> It seems to be another workaround for the stupid fuel-economy laws.
> According to the feds, the PTC is a "truck". I have no idea what
> hairs they split to receive that label.
The seats can be removed.
Also,I think it’s just Chrysler DECLARING the vehicle to be a "light truck"
and submitting it for testing under that protocol.
I believe the PTC lost its "light truck" definition when they came out with
the convertible PTC.
–
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
I think there are two classes of people who drive the PT Cruiser.
First, there are the old folks (mostly in Florida) who like the high
seats (easier to get in and out of), and the hatch which holds their
wheel chair.
The Second class is the hot-rod retro type. They tend to go for the GT
model. I can assure you it is a rarity for anyone to pass me in my PT
GT.
The GT is hard to beat in terms of a small, functional and fast car.
7" shorter than a Nissan Sentra but passenger volume greater than a
Lincoln Towncar
http://www.automotive.com/reviews/12/2004/chrysler/pt-cruiser/interior/
Cargo capacity of 60.2 Cu. Ft. is about the same as a Chevy Blazer’s
60.6 CF (with seats folded down).
A good sized load of 8 foot lumber fits with out having to stack it on
the dashboard. You could probably fit a load of 50 8 foot long 2x4s
with the hatch closed.
Breathtaking acceleration, 0-60 in 6.7 seconds:
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2210a.shtml
Faster than a 1982 Ferrari GTB/SI Quattrovalvole 6.8 sec.
http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=52&i=9840
or a A V8 1967 Ford Mustang (390ci w/4spd) – 7.4 sec.
It may not beat a Corvette, but try fitting lumber in a ‘Vette.
As for looks, that is of course very subjective, but the bold forward
rake and clean beltline which forms a smooth parabola around the hood
line are all signs of a good aesthetic design. I am an architect, and
most my coworkers (designers) like the design of the PT Cruiser, except
for those who think traditional designs like Mercedes or Camry are the
only way to go. Some just hate the idea of a different design. As
with most unique designs, people love them or hate them.
robinjo…@yahoo.com wrote in
news:1138225084.662878.140200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> I think there are two classes of people who drive the PT Cruiser.
> First, there are the old folks (mostly in Florida) who like the high
> seats (easier to get in and out of), and the hatch which holds their
> wheel chair.
> The Second class is the hot-rod retro type. They tend to go for the GT
> model. I can assure you it is a rarity for anyone to pass me in my PT
> GT.
I suspect you are the exception rather than the common PTC driver,GT or
not.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> The GT is hard to beat in terms of a small, functional and fast car.
> 7" shorter than a Nissan Sentra but passenger volume greater than a
> Lincoln Towncar
> http://www.automotive.com/reviews/12/2004/chrysler/pt-cruiser/interior/
> Cargo capacity of 60.2 Cu. Ft. is about the same as a Chevy Blazer’s
> 60.6 CF (with seats folded down).
> A good sized load of 8 foot lumber fits with out having to stack it on
> the dashboard. You could probably fit a load of 50 8 foot long 2x4s
> with the hatch closed.
> Breathtaking acceleration, 0-60 in 6.7 seconds:
> http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2210a.shtml
I don’t believe any of the car magazines road-tests WRT acceleration.
C&D first listed the Integra GSR as 6.7sec to 60,then it grew to 7.5sec.
> Faster than a 1982 Ferrari GTB/SI Quattrovalvole 6.8 sec.
> http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=52&i=9840
> or a A V8 1967 Ford Mustang (390ci w/4spd) – 7.4 sec.
> It may not beat a Corvette, but try fitting lumber in a ‘Vette.
> As for looks, that is of course very subjective, but the bold forward
> rake and clean beltline which forms a smooth parabola around the hood
> line are all signs of a good aesthetic design. I am an architect, and
> most my coworkers (designers) like the design of the PT Cruiser, except
> for those who think traditional designs like Mercedes or Camry are the
> only way to go. Some just hate the idea of a different design. As
> with most unique designs, people love them or hate them.
I’ve encountered sloth PTC GT’s;
I have yet to see -any- PTC driven spiritedly.
I have nothing against the "looks" of the PTC.
What’s the curb weight of the PTC?
–
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Hi Scott,
No, I don’t speed up to prevent people from passing me. Why would you
assume that? I just simply drive fast. And I don’t drive in the left
lane unless I’m passing. I could be doing 80 MPH, but if the road is
clear, I’ll be in the right lane.
What was so funny about the "Breathtaking acceleration… " line?
Pickup trucks are great, but I don’t own one, and I’ve never felt the
need to buy one.
PT Cruiser weight is 3100 lb with 220 horsepower and 245 ft-lb of
torque @3600 RPM
1/4 mile in 15.7 seconds.
BTW, as of 2004, Consumer Reports rates the PT Cruiser reliability
better than Toyota Matrix, Subaru Impreza, Subaru Legacy/Outback
(4cyl.), Subaru Outback H6, Volvo XC70, Volkswagen Passat (V6,AWD), and
a host of other Wagon/Hatchbacks. The only car to beat it in that clss
was the Pontiac Vibe.
Pounds of smog per 15,000 miles: 7.9-11.8. Compare that to the similar
sized, but slower Subaru Forrester: 12.3-12.9.
The PT Cruiser’s weakness is it’s turning radius of 42 Ft, and EPA gas
mileage of 19/26 (which are accurate by my records).
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:48:09 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
<scottenazt…@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>3100 lbs / 220 HP = 14 lbs/HP, or about double what I would consider
>to be "breathtaking." But then, I’m kind of spolied.
Heheheh. My car is roughly 24 lbs/HP, yet sloths still piss me off.
It now disturbs me more the number of PT GT Sloths that can’t even
accelerate at the speed a 106 HP econobox can manage without stressing
it.
Dave Hogan
"It now disturbs me more the number of PT GT Sloths that can’t even
accelerate at the speed a 106 HP econobox can manage without stressing
it."
Dave, we can all agree with that!
I wanted to correct something I said before. The PT Cruiser has
passenger volume "comparable to" the Lincoln Town Car (not greater
than).
I suspect that the reason that people get annoyed by slow PTs and
notice it is that the PT Cruiser is a memorable car. If a Camry drives
slow in front of you, you get annoyed, but you don’t remember the Camry
because it’s such a common car and a common design.
With the PT Cruiser, you remember it because
a) like it or not, it’s a memorable design
b) that big Art Deco Chrysler logo is staring you right in the face.
Scott, what car are you driving that has a 7 lbs/HP weight to power
ratio?
I mean, a 2004 Porsche 911 TURBO has a Twin Turbo Water Cooled Flat 6.
It does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds, does 1/4 mile in 12.2s. It’s no "sloth".
But it weighs 3,396 lb and has 415 HP. That’s a 8.18 lbs/HP ratio.
http://www.theautobahn.com/forum/showcar.php?do=overview&car_model_id=40
What are you driving that has 7 lbs/HP? A Saleen?
Or are you thinking Kilograms/HP?
Anyways, the point I was making was to counter those who suggested that
the PT Cruiser is a piece of junk. As a whole package, it performs
pretty well.
Jim Yanik wrote:
> It seems that almost every PT Cruiser I encounter is a sloth driver.
> They just do not keep up with traffic.
You should see my uncle drive his.
Bat out of hell, all the time. Guess it’s not inherent after all.
E.P.