2003 Chrysler PT Cruiser Reviews - Page 2 of 10

2003 Chrysler PT Cruiser Base 2.4L from North America

Model year2003
Year of manufacture2003
First year of ownership2007
Most recent year of ownership2010
Engine and transmission 2.4L Automatic
Performance marks 0 / 10
Reliability marks 0 / 10
Comfort marks 0 / 10
Dealer Service marks 0 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 1 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
0.2 / 10
Distance when acquired60000 kilometres
Most recent distance125000 kilometres
Previous carChrysler Sebring Sedan

Summary:

The definition of a LEMON

Faults:

- Front end required replacement at 90K. Ball joints, tie rods, LCA bushings.

- Air conditioning sprung a leak around 80K, no longer works.

- Transmission failure at 120K.

- Engine burns oil.

- Miscellaneous electrical problems, such as a radio that works half the time, door ajar light comes on along with the interior light for no reason while driving.

General Comments:

Ouch, what a lemon I have here. I should have known better than to get another Chrysler after the destruction of my Sebring with the infamous 2.7L motor. This car has been nothing but trouble in every sense. One would think a car with these problems would be in the 200K + kms mark, however this seems to be what the PT Cruiser was designed for, complete failure.

In addition to the problems I've listed above, there are still more things wrong with the car. Little things that really get on your nerves, for example if you pop the hood, the lever sticks inside the car, and it's hit or miss if the hood will go back down.

The blind spots in the car are ridiculous; aside from the poorly positioned side mirrors, you can barely see your blind blind spot by turning your head, because the back seat and headrests are in the way, along with the oversize interior pieces and ultra-tiny (and useless) rear side windows.

Interior room is not that much for a hatchback when you really take a good look. The switches for the power windows in the back are on the floor (yeah, what genius came up with that design). The seats are terribly uncomfortable for long trips.

Gas mileage is very poor. I've gone on an 900 km trip, all highway and averaged 26 MPG (US gallon). That's horrible for a 4-cylinder. Normal driving you get probably 20-22 MPG... nothing spectacular to say the least.

To sum it up, if you're thinking about getting this car, I strongly recommend you reconsider. Even the re-sale value of the PT is nothing... it's a nothing car with an unfortunate, and maybe in denial, following of people.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 13th June, 2010

7th Dec 2010, 13:56

You folks who gripe about 20-21 miles per gallon are from a different generation from me. I had a '64 Thunderbird back in high school in the '70's and got around 10mpg. 20 is great. I can't imagine any "real" car getting better than 25. I guess it just shows how people's expectations have really changed. Oh, for the days of cheap gas...

19th Aug 2011, 13:59

Sir, you are comparing apples and oranges. A 1964 Thunderbird is a world away from any 2003 model car. This is not a "real" car, which I assume a real car is a performance vehicle. The PT Cruiser is supposed to be competing with economical small sedans/compacts, and this fuel mileage is well below class average. I don't even think it has been getting 20 MPG over the last couple months.

I also came here to update the laundry list of problems with this vehicle. Yesterday at 143000kms, the engine overheated and seized on my way to work. I traded it at a Hyundai dealership for an Accent hatchback. I was able to get $100 for the car plus free tow from my house (30 minutes from dealership). I would imagine the car will be crushed as it requires more repairs than it is worth. Total write off. The PT is not recommended!

2003 Chrysler PT Cruiser Base 2.4 non turbo from North America

Model year2003
Year of manufacture2002
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2010
Engine and transmission 2.4 non turbo Automatic
Performance marks 6 / 10
Reliability marks 6 / 10
Comfort marks 5 / 10
Dealer Service marks 2 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
5.2 / 10
Distance when acquired13000 kilometres
Most recent distance183000 kilometres
Previous carSaturn SC

Summary:

Can't complain.

Faults:

Rear seatbelts.

Center seatbelt locked.. when the seat was folded.. dealer wanted $300.00 to change it.. cut it off.. now it's a 4 passenger.

Brakes.. poor factory pads.

Bumpers discoloured.. due to tape left on in transit. Ugly.. dealer wouldn't do anything about it.. not a safety issue.

General Comments:

Not a bad car...I've had worse.

I avoid the dealer at all costs.

Funky..functional..

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 19th February, 2010

Average review marks: 7.5 / 10, based on 29 reviews