WRX vs PT Turbo. (What a joke)
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23

This is a discussion on WRX vs PT Turbo. (What a joke) within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; Ok so today on my way home I came alongside a silver PT Cruiser with big ass wheels. I figured ...

  1. #1
    Moderator WilliamG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,215
    I Support ClubWRX

    WRX vs PT Turbo. (What a joke)

    Ok so today on my way home I came alongside a silver PT Cruiser with big ass wheels. I figured it was the PT Turbo, and it was! I'd never seen one before till now so I wondered it if was anywhere near the performance level of the SRT-4 since it shares the same engine. I pulled alongside and it was this 'middle' aged almost-granny-like figure in the car with what appeared to be her son. I looked over and smiled, and gave a little cheeky rev. AMAZINGLY, she revved back. It was on! I was actually VERY taken aback by this response.

    Anyway, I NEVER launch. Never ever. I like my transmission to much. I did a 'semi-launch' when the light turned green and by 60 mph I was CONSIDERABLY ahead. I wasn't even trying. I just pulled and pulled.

    I came home and checked the specs, and the car is pathetic in the 0-60 race. I quote Canadian Driver:

    "Acceleration tests for the 2001 awards show a 0-100 kilometre per hour time for the base PT Cruiser with 5-speed manual transmission of 10.6 seconds. Not very quick. In contrast, the PT Cruiser GT Turbo with automatic transmission tested this year accelerated to 100 km/h in 7.93 seconds. For a 1500-kilogram car with a four-cylinder engine, that is quick. And what you would expect from 215 hp and 245 lb-ft of torque.

    So how come it doesn't feel quick? In this case my seat of the pants sensors don't agree with the facts. Left to its own devices, the 4-speed automatic is a sleepy affair."

    So for all those stock WRX's who are afraid of the new engine Dodge have running around, fear not the PT Turbo. Get out and run for a real challenge. (You'd probably still win)

    So....blah. Meh. Pffft.

    2010 SSM STI

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Registered User chevyeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    long island NY
    Posts
    1,039
    Hehe. Funny kill. Are you shure granny knew how to drive?
    -Brian.

    Originally posted by Trainrex
    Everybody run!!! It's a spy!!! ***runs out of house screaming and flailing arms above head***

  4. #3
    Moderator WilliamG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,215
    I Support ClubWRX
    Oh yeah. I heard her engine 'purr' as she accelerated. Nowhere near the fantastic sound of the WRX, and much less eventful
    2010 SSM STI

  5. #4
    Registered User 2001S4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    845
    I have driven the PT turbo. While I don't like the look or feel of the car, there is NO denying it was quick. It had a pleasing sound, like a blow off. It was an auto, and it has a sport shift. While not as much fun as a WRX or S4 to drive, I would say it was right there with its power. So the woman just was not "really" driving it.

  6. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    50
    Sorry, but you're wrong. The PT Turbo is woefully slow, despite making a bit over 200 horse.
    0-60 times recorded by most rags are around 8 seconds, which next to a WRX at 60, puts it a good couple car lengths behind. It may feel fast, but it don't go fast.

    This is taken from C&D:
    Larry Lyons, V-P of small-vehicle engineering, says the stick-shift PT Turbo will reach 60 mph in about 7.5 seconds (a second quicker than its unblown sibling) and in about eight seconds in automatic-transmission form.
    And if those are the numbers coming from Chrysler, you can bet they're at least a bit on the optimistic side.
    Last edited by heffergm; 05-12-2003 at 05:45 PM.
    ******
    GMH

  7. #6
    Registered User John M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Milledgeville, GA
    Posts
    749
    Oh yeah, like the Neons that are going faster than Chrysler claimed, and that they put out more hp at the wheels than is claimed at the crank? I guess Chrysler is turning out "optimistic" numbers.
    John M
    2000 Lincoln Continental - slow DD with the DOHC 4.6 and a Superchips tune
    1992 Lexus SC400 - slow resto project
    2005 Legacy GT Limited - SOLD Feb 2011 - Forged internals, FP HTA Green @ 22 psi.

  8. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    50
    Well, you're welcome to believe whomever you choose. Having driven and seen some PT turbo's in action, I would never use the word "fast" to describe one.
    ******
    GMH

  9. #8
    Registered User drizze99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Bear, DE
    Posts
    753
    Nice Kill!

    The PT Turbo is a lot more sluggish than the SRT-4. The car has the potential to put out more power once you uncork it!! There are a lot of differences between the 2 cars.
    2006 Subaru Impreza 2.5i [Bone Stock]
    2003 Dodge SRT-4 [303 hp/323 tq] - SOLD

  10. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Eastern Sierras
    Posts
    1,245
    Eh, the PT Turbos are just like the original PT.... highly overrated. On a test drive, it felt like it had some get up and go.. but a newer Civic EX (possibly modded, but not much) proved otherwise from a stoplight... woefully slow about sums it up.
    STIwish
    -------------------
    03 Subaru WRX Sedan WR Blue -
    RIP

  11. #10
    Registered User 2001S4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    845
    Originally posted by heffergm
    Sorry, but you're wrong. The PT Turbo is woefully slow, despite making a bit over 200 horse.
    0-60 times recorded by most rags are around 8 seconds, which next to a WRX at 60, puts it a good couple car lengths behind. It may feel fast, but it don't go fast.

    This is taken from C&D:


    And if those are the numbers coming from Chrysler, you can bet they're at least a bit on the optimistic side.
    You are telling me I am wrong? I DROVE the car. YOU are quoting magazines. After you have driven the car and formed a useful opinion, let me know.

  12. #11
    Registered User drizze99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Bear, DE
    Posts
    753
    Originally posted by 2001S4
    You are telling me I am wrong? I DROVE the car. YOU are quoting magazines. After you have driven the car and formed a useful opinion, let me know.
    Gotta agree with you. A magazine race isn't going to compare to someone who has actually driven the car. My buddy has one with an AutoStick and I can feel the difference between mine and his. I can't compare to a REX, cause I've never driven one of those!
    2006 Subaru Impreza 2.5i [Bone Stock]
    2003 Dodge SRT-4 [303 hp/323 tq] - SOLD

  13. #12
    Registered User PKer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    at work
    Posts
    2,497
    Originally posted by John M
    Oh yeah, like the Neons that are going faster than Chrysler claimed, and that they put out more hp at the wheels than is claimed at the crank? I guess Chrysler is turning out "optimistic" numbers.
    Beat me to it but my post wasn't going to reek of sarcasm quite so much

  14. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    50
    I have driven it. I still think it's a slow, ugly POS. But that's just me...
    ******
    GMH

  15. #14
    Registered User 2001S4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    845
    Originally posted by heffergm
    I have driven it. I still think it's a slow, ugly POS. But that's just me...
    I think its ugly. I don't know how its quality is so I don't know if it is a POS. Slow it isn't. Perhaps you are not sure of how to get the power to the ground, cause when I drove it, it was pulling very hard.

  16. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    50
    I think we just have different takes on what's "fast" and what isn't. It's somewhat subjective, and stems from what cars you're used to driving.
    I don't think the WRX is blazingly fast either. What I love about it is that it's quick AND has awd.
    ******
    GMH

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself. We strongly suggest that you stay away from using aol, yahoo, msn, and hotmail accounts. Sometimes the mail server blocks the emails from our server. As a result you will not receive any notifications including the confirmation email.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •