WRX vs PT Turbo. (What a joke)

[WilliamG]

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.

[chevyeater]

Hehe. Funny kill. Are you shure granny knew how to drive?

[WilliamG]

Oh yeah. I heard her engine 'purr' as she accelerated. Nowhere near the fantastic sound of the WRX, and much less eventful

[2001S4]

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.

[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:

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.

[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.

[heffergm]

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.

[drizze99]

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.

[STIwish]

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.

[2001S4]

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.

[drizze99]

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!

[PKer]

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

[heffergm]

I have driven it. I still think it's a slow, ugly POS. But that's just me...

[2001S4]

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.

[heffergm]

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.