Successful Failure
 

Mixed feelings about my new car. Just got a 2001 PT Cruiser for $750. The price is sure nice, I'll easily make a few dollars on this car. But, after looking up the stats on the car, I'm feeling dissapointed. .39 coefficient of drag, 17 city, 22 highway, 20 combined EPA rating. Really? WTF! Must be honest, I really didn't think that a PT Cruiser with it's 2.4 DOHC 4 cylinder engine would do THAT bad. That's worse than the car it replaced, a 3L V6 '99 Olds Alero. Got an observed 30 mpg highway in that one. Well, the car was cheap enough so when it comes time to sell, should make a few bucks. Of all the cars my wife mentioned that she would like to have I figured this one would be the best choice. Wow, should of got a (puke) minivan! Oh well, I'll see what kind of numbers I can get with it. But really? Less than 30 mpg in such a small car (officially via Chrysler it's a truck) is horrid!
VT247

My inlaws have one and complain about it's mileage, she has a couple friends with HHR's and do much better.

I know what you mean!

I bought my Protege because it was cheaper than a Civic or a Corolla of the same year/mileage/condition.
Only after I bought it I realized it's rated at 22/28mpg (2.0L 130hp, 5 speed manual) compared to 28/36 for the Corolla (1.8L 130hp, 5M), 27/35 for the Civic (1.7L 115hp, 5M)... I was so disappointed!

At least I learned a valuable lesson: do A LOT of research BEFORE you buy!!

The PT Cruiser engine has peak torque RPM almost twice highway cruising RPM, so engine efficiency is bad. The automatic transmission is straight from the Neon, which is about 800 lbs lighter, and was apparently never calibrated for the PT Cruiser. The shift points are wrong for the engine torque curve. The torque converter is the epitome of "slushbox".

We had one. I got 24 MPG highway in it back when I was getting 27 MPG at the exact same speeds in my truck.

But it's a nice looking car, good seats, and a functional design in a compact package.

Hi,
we also have an 03 protege,ours is an ES model.My wife bought it new.I haven't accuratly checked the mileage,but it seems to do pretty well on my daily commute(30 miles each way,3 miles of rough gravel,steep hills,multiple stop signs/lights).I already hollowed out the second catylytic converter,switched from sport tires to a passenger tire,and am running full synthetic oil.Today my new 4 into header will arrive,I'll try to post the results.

My guess is that the MPG was so terrible that they had to make it a light truck to pass fleet MPG standards.

My parents drive a 2001 PT Cruiser with the stick and the gearing is so short that by the time you hit about 45 MPH, you're wishing you had a 6th gear. On the highway, my dad will often put in the clutch to up-shift but it's already in 5th.

Theirs has an overheating problem or else I'd suggest the common 'add a grill block' idea.

vacationtime247 -

At least you can buy rear wheel $kirts for it.

CarloSW2

I can easily beat the EPA mpg's, get into the 30's even maybe hit 40 on the backroads (45 mph), but I keep imagining how much higher mpg I could get with a Corolla or Civic...

The Protege is also geared too short, 3100 rpm at 65mph.:eek:
That's the reason why I endorse Drive 55!

I have a corolla... 4 speed auto with lockup, at 45mpg it does about 38 to 40ish mpg tank averages unmodded. ~1600 RPM at 45mph, 55 is right around 2k, and 70 is something like 2600. not as bad as the PT, but wish it was a bit higher (max torque is at 2800rpm, so it seems pretty efficient at low rpm. The smaller 1.6L might be a different story, but I suspect it is just a 1.8L with a smaller boar, intake, etc.

That's because Mazda builds "zoom zoom" cars and the Corolla and Civic have lost almost all sporting intent. People buy Mazdas to have fun! :thumbup:

The PT Koozah on the other hand was just like the New Beetle. It was made first as a fashion icon and second as a functional car. it looks great, but it wasn't thought all the way through. I imagine with an SRT4 drivetrain they could be pretty fun sleepers though!