Thread replies: 15
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
File: 06-08_Chrysler_PT_Cruiser.jpg (158KB, 1968x1184px) Image search:
[Google]
158KB, 1968x1184px
So I've been shopping around for a car and I've come across PT Cruisers as being cheap and with decent history reports. Can anyone explain to me why this is the case, especially for the earlier models? Is it because they are physically ugly and not high in demand for some? Or is it because these cars are unreliable? It seems as though people give this car a 1/5 or a 4-5/5 rating.
>>
>>14197786
They look and drive like shit
Otherwise if theyre cheap hceck it out
>>
They were "cool" cars and now the trend has died
They're bombproof reliable (except for cam position sensors, $70 and 10 minutes to replace), parts are absurdly cheap because it's on the Neon platform, just if it's not a turbo it will be slow.
>>
>>14197865
>trying to convince people the PT cruiser was reliable
>>
>>14197786
The PT Cruiser is essentially a tall Neon, fitted with the transmission from the '80s Chrysler LeBaron and engine from the '90s Sebring. They were cheap to fix and "reliable" because they were using common and relatively low-tech parts, but it was grossly outdated and "unrefined" even when new.
The PT Cruiser also has a shitty side-impact crash test rating. Chrysler defined the PT Cruiser as a "truck" to get around safety regulations, so it was also unsafe even when new.
>>
>>14197865
>PT Cruiser being cool ever
>>
>>14197976
This guy know what's up. I use the term unreliable with the PT Cruiser, but really it was build quality that was the true problem. They just fall to shit over time, no matter what you do with them
>>
>>14197982
it was the car of the year when it first came out, you would know this if you were older then 12
>>
>>14198129
>I'm 13 and have been posting here ALL summer
>>
Longpost Guy (ID: !!9TEWI1TbGdH)
2016-01-08 20:55:59
Post No.14198233
[Report] Image search: [Google]
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: 2002_dodge_razor_concept_l.jpg (109KB, 960x540px) Image search:
[Google]
109KB, 960x540px
>>14198129
Chrysler bet the farm on a very "fad" dependent design that aged very quickly.
I remember the thing being new. It won car of the year almost entirely on looks. It was critized for being on an 'elderly' platform when it was launched.
Auto journalists were taken in because supposed to usher in this new age of modern-retro Chrysler styling following the merger with Mercedes.
You still hadshit like the Dodge Razor concept hanging out in the mist then, people thought Dodge/Chrysler might actually make some cool shit
>>
>>14198233
>the guy dressed like a retard with the scooter
Every time
>>
>>14198233
>Audi TT
Can't unsee.
>>
File: hulajnoga-razor-pro-model.jpg (46KB, 800x800px) Image search:
[Google]
46KB, 800x800px
>>14198233
I have a theory about this
>>
>>14198431
what was it?
>>
>>14200351
razor was a brand of scooters many years ago
so it might explain what billy bad ass is doing near the car
Thread posts: 15
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3