# pt cruiser - specs look HEAVY ?!



## DavidDymaxion (Dec 1, 2008)

The convertible is 3500 lbs!


dtbaker said:


> I have a line on a very clean pt cruiser, but the specs say the thing weighs 3000# ?! what makes these suckers so heavy? I am wondering if they have some very heavy engine or something that would be removed during conversion? maybe heavy seats? or all the electric windows and everything?
> 
> none in the Garage, so maybe this is why?


----------



## MJ Monterey (Aug 20, 2009)

The Cruiser is built on the Neon platform. Curb Weight on a Neon was listed at 2500 or so pounds. An additional 500 pounds would not surprise me considering the taller body, Improved side impact performance, additional airbags and more accessories.....


----------



## PatricioIN (Jun 13, 2008)

look at evalbum.com

http://evalbum.com/2946

http://evalbum.com/2496

http://evalbum.com/2243

http://evalbum.com/1780


----------



## dtbaker (Jan 5, 2008)

aha! I didn't look over in that Garage, just this one here.... so people are doing them, but obviously paying the price for the weight with a 9" motor and reduced range compared to a 500# lighter job... gotta have power steering for that weight too I bet.

The good news on them is tons of room for batteries! Probably safer in a crash than a little Metro too.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> ... so people are doing them, but obviously paying the price for the weight with a 9" motor and reduced range compared to a 500# lighter job... gotta have power steering for that weight too I bet.
> 
> The good news on them is tons of room for batteries! Probably safer in a crash than a little Metro too.


 All true. Just pay more for batteries and motor...a Hummer would be even more safe.


----------



## dtbaker (Jan 5, 2008)

....and if the average family of four lost about 400#, the range would go up!

reminds me that one of the most interesting stories I read recently was about how we (Americans) could reduce fuel use by 10% annually just by losing weight....


----------



## DavidDymaxion (Dec 1, 2008)

I have a PT, not sure exactly why it is so heavy, but here are my observations:


The GT adds a Turbo, bigger sway bar, rear disk brakes, bigger wheels, and side curtain air bags
The car is roomy. I'm over 1.9 m tall and I fit comfortably in the front and back seats, and still have alot of room above my head. Wearing a helmet is no problem in this car.
I thought Chrysler used this same chassis for the van also? (Not totally sure on that one).
My gas mileage is not great, around 20 to 27 mpg, most often 24 mpg. The car is heavy for a four cylinder and its aerodynamics are not great.
On a different note, I like the car. It has been 100% reliable, it always starts and runs well. It is hard to work on the motor since the sheet metal wraps around. The only surprise maintenance was needing new front bearings, but I think they went bad because my wife rides the brakes down our steep hills. Her cars tend to warp front disks, need front wheel bearings, and have rapid front brake wear due to bad driving habits, I don't think that was a PT weakness.

I would also highly recommend the GT. It totally transforms a PT from being a boring, rubbery marshmellow to a car that actually corners fairly well. I also think the rear disk brakes and side air bags the GT adds makes the car safer.


dtbaker said:


> ....and if the average family of four lost about 400#, the range would go up!
> 
> reminds me that one of the most interesting stories I read recently was about how we (Americans) could reduce fuel use by 10% annually just by losing weight....


----------



## tinrobot (Aug 26, 2009)

dtbaker said:


> reminds me that one of the most interesting stories I read recently was about how we (Americans) could reduce fuel use by 10% annually just by losing weight....


Unlikely. The average car weighs over 3000 pounds, the average driver rarely weighs more than 300. This means, on average, over 90% of the energy used to propel a car goes to moving the car itself and not the occupant. 

And this is assuming perfect efficiency. Internal combustion engines are rarely more than 30% efficient, which means less than 3% of the gasoline energy you put into the vehicle actually goes towards moving the person inside.


----------



## dtbaker (Jan 5, 2008)

tinrobot said:


> Unlikely. The average car weighs over 3000 pounds, the average driver rarely weighs more than 300. This means, on average, over 90% of the energy used to propel a car goes to moving the car itself and not the occupant.
> 
> And this is assuming perfect efficiency. Internal combustion engines are rarely more than 30% efficient, which means less than 3% of the gasoline energy you put into the vehicle actually goes towards moving the person inside.


while the exact figures are certainly up for discussion, I don't agree with the approach you are taking... I would take the approach that let's use Natl average obesity numbers and say that the 'average' person is 30 pounds overweight, so the average family (of four) could probably remove 100 to 150 pounds from the existing car just by losing weight. Or, in many cases by just not carrying around so much crap and leaving roof racks and storage boxes on all year. 

From Eco-modder experiments, I sorta remember that every 100# you lighten the car you gain about 1% range... right?

So, in absolute terms, yes the 10% I remembered is probably inflated, but even at 1% it would be significant.


----------



## tinrobot (Aug 26, 2009)

dtbaker said:


> while the exact figures are certainly up for discussion, I don't agree with the approach you are taking... I would take the approach that let's use Natl average obesity numbers and say that the 'average' person is 30 pounds overweight, so the average family (of four) could probably remove 100 to 150 pounds from the existing car just by losing weight. Or, in many cases by just not carrying around so much crap and leaving roof racks and storage boxes on all year.
> 
> From Eco-modder experiments, I sorta remember that every 100# you lighten the car you gain about 1% range... right?
> .


Taking your numbers at face value, and using the 100/1% figure, 150 pounds shed from four people gives you 1.5% improvement. 1000 pounds shed from the vehicle gives you 10%.

Not that I'm against people losing weight, but in terms of vehicle efficiency, our cars have gotten fatter at a faster rate than the people driving. The average weight of a vehicle in the US is about 4000 pounds. There's simply more room for weight reduction in the cars than the people.

One reason a Honda CRX could get 50mpg in 1992 was that it weighed 1800lbs. Current non-hybrid Civics weigh around 2900 pounds and get only 32mpg.

Add lightness.


----------



## dtbaker (Jan 5, 2008)

tinrobot said:


> Add lightness.


well.... besides removing airbags... what are the typical anchors that ecomodders go after?

are there nice light 'racing' seats that save significant weight and don't cost too much? Is it worth converting electric windows to cranks? Is it easy/legal to change side windows to plexiglass? Changing body panels to fiberglass seems hardly worth it, and very expensive. The majority of the weight gain from 70s to now just seems to be that current cars are just a lot bigger...


----------



## dimitri (May 16, 2008)

Dan,

I hope I won't upset anyone who likes PT Cruiser, but have you actually driven it? Make sure you enjoy driving it before you buy it. I rented one few years back and I hated how it handles and how heavy it feels. I would not convert one even if it was free.

Again, this is just my personal opinion, I know many people like this car and we all have our personal pet peeves


----------



## dtbaker (Jan 5, 2008)

dimitri said:


> ...have you actually driven it?


I did rent one while on a trip; pretty gutless and mushy, probably because of the weight... I think people like the LOOK. I was hoping somenoe would mention that they had a cast-iron engine block other some other built in anchor that could be removed during conversion. 

I am now keeping eyes open for a newer chevy aveo (which seems to be one of the lightest 'modern' subcompacts....), honda fit, or ford focus (which are heavier but a lot cheaper.


----------



## dimitri (May 16, 2008)

Honda Fit is too new, would be pretty expensive to gut it  , but an 8" motor would make it a rocket


----------



## dtbaker (Jan 5, 2008)

dimitri said:


> Honda Fit is too new, would be pretty expensive to gut it  , but an 8" motor would make it a rocket


maybe I can pay a jiffylube to 'forget' a drainplug..... or a disgruntled high school student to sugar a teacher's car.... no, no, bad thoughts!


----------



## dimitri (May 16, 2008)

dtbaker said:


> maybe I can pay a jiffylube to 'forget' a drainplug..... or a disgruntled high school student to sugar a teacher's car.... no, no, bad thoughts!


You don't need to pay Jiffylube to forget a drainplug, you need to pay them to remember it  , this actually happened to me once, glad I caught it before it was too late. On the bright side, after this incident I started to service my cars myself, which eventually lead to EV conversion, so there is a silverlining in everything


----------



## JohnMogs (Dec 2, 2009)

I've converted a PT Cruiser for one of my customers: http://www.evalbum.com/2496

I liked how we fit 9 batteries under the vehicle, could have fit 12 but the rear most box wasn't made large enough. Maybe that was a good thing so all the weight wasn't over the rear axle. 

I'm 6'2" so I noticed/liked the upright seating position for the driver, and has a lot of cargo space if you remove the rear seats. Bob gets about 20-30 miles/charge after he switched from SLA to Flooded Lead batteries. Not at highway speeds, but around town.

The rear seats weigh a lot, probably 200lbs, mostly because they can be removed and contain all the structure a seat requires. 

If you're considering, I'd contact Canadian EV, www.canev.com for their Neon adapter/ hub and their motor mount. Chrysler's manual transmission uses a flexplate and a flywheel and there is a cone that centers it on the crankshaft, which was an issue with the hub from another supplier. 

I'm interested in doing another PT, but want to use lithium and maybe the new AC50 motor from http://www.hiperformancegolfcars.com/ as you might as well use that extra vehicle weight for regen when stopping. I figure the lithium range is about 40-60 miles depending on how fast and aggressive you're driving.


----------

