Last Friday was the last day of production for Chrysler's one-time best seller, the PT Cruiser. The PT Cruiser debuted in the spring of 2000 as a 2001 model, and I remember seriously considering one as they were arriving on local dealer lots. What ultimately kept me from purchasing a PT was the dealer greed that had them charging between $3,000 and $10,000 over MSRP (for a vehicle that started at $16,000 and topped out around $22,000).
But this column isn't about my near-ownership experience with a PT Cruiser, it's about the rise and fall of one of Chrysler's most iconic and popular models in the company's 85-year history.
With over 1.3 million units sold, plus enough demand to charge thousands over MSRP during its debut and sufficient inspiration to launch multiple car clubs and Web sites dedicated to it, how could Chrysler let the PT Cruiser's grand beginnings end in a morass of decontented materials and rental car daily-rate specials? Was it a tragic (and all-too-common) case of brand equity mismanagement, or was it financial brilliance from a company eeking out profit where it could in an increasingly down market? Maybe both.
What always appealed to me about the PT Cruiser had less to do with its looks and more to do with the complete package it offered. For around $20,000 you got a car with relatively nimble handling (certainly by crossover standards of the day), plenty of passenger/cargo capacity and flexibility, plus decent fuel mileage. When the turbo was added in 2003 it removed the one issue I had with the original model -- a lack of power.
I never ended up buying a PT Cruiser, but I do remember when the Chevy HHR debuted in 2006. I felt it was inferior in every way. It didn't look as good in my mind, it didn't handle as well (track testing bore this out), and it didn't offer as much power. The interior was pretty cheap, too (even compared to the plasticky PT Cruiser's cabin). Plus it was comical to watch GM execute such a blatant rip-off of a successful Chrysler model, and then downplay the move when pressed during the car's launch (GM even hired the PT's designer to create the HHR).
But again, if the PT was able to inspire not only buyers and owners, but copycat competitors, why couldn't it inspire its own mother ship? The car received little attention (read: investment) from Chrysler over the course of a decade. In fact, in recent years Chrysler started yanking content, including the more powerful turbo engine and pricier interior materials. They basically set it up as rental fleet fodder before finally euthanizing the car last week.
This unwillingness to invest in the car might seem ludicrous to us, but in Chrysler's eyes the PT could be seen as the model of success -- at least from a financial standpoint. The company started with a modified Neon platform to create it, meaning even the initial design kept costs low. After that Chrysler added some drivetrain options and a convertible body style (possibly the most flexy convertible I've ever driven), along with some paint-and-graphics "special editions" every year or two.
And that's pretty much it. No redesigns, and not even what could generously be classified as a refresh. Just 10 years and 1.3 million sales on one basic R&D process. It doesn't get much more profitable than that!
Of course there's a flipside to this philosophy. While it maximizes profit it also creates, and subsequently destroys, brand equity. All the passion inspired by the PT Cruiser during the first-half of this decade largely evaporated over the second half. Some might even argue it's a net negative, as fans of the car feel betrayed by the company that let it come to such an inglorious end.
Contrast that with the philsoophy of the import brands. Models like the Accord, Camry, Civic, Corolla, Golf, Jetta and Maxima have been around for decades. I'm betting the cumulative profit on those nameplates is nothing to sneeze at, even with the parent companies investing in regular redesigns to keep them viable.
What's the longest-running continuous nameplate at Chrysler these days? Town & Country (1990), followed by Sebring (1995), so Chrysler doesn't have much of a history for honoring, well, history. Makes one wonder where the Challenger, one of the company's current darlings (like the PT Cruiser in 2003), will eventually end up...
Certainly two different approaches to vehicle development -- create a successful product and keep it viable with regular investments, or create a successful product and squeeze as many sales (including rental fleet deals) out of it as possible, while investing as little as possible.
Did I just hear someone say "Taurus" out there? But Mr. Mulally and Ford are doing their best to reverse that brand equity misfire.
It's a classic case of long-term product planning versus short-term profit. Which philosophy do you favor?
By pat1usmc
on July 13, 2010
05:48 AM
Excellent article. Its sad to see it go, but all points, from what I've seen, are shared by many in the PT community, (yes, there still is one). Ten years and instead of building on the success, they break it down and the car becomes something of a joke. Chrysler missed an amazing opportunity to build on the loyalty and enthusiasm of early PT owners. It really was a great community back in 2000-2003 and if there was on ounce of long-term planning, Chrysler would still be making money on the car today.
Just a few things I wish Chrysler had done:
-Better, more fuel-efficient engines
-An ACTUAL refresh
-Hard-top coupe, with high-output turbo and suspension upgrades for a more performance oriented ride. Something tells me this car would have sold better than the SRT-4 Caliber.
-Lightened the car. I'm pretty sure the back seats way 2 tons.
Why I can't sell mine:
-Religiously followed it throughout the late 90's during the prototype days. I ordered it in 2000, w/o a test drive because I loved the look so much. COMPLETELY different than anything on the road at that time. Waited 9 months for it to be built and picked up my first new car in Oct, 2000. She's now worth way less in actual $$ than in sentimental value to me.
-No real problems in 10 yrs of ownership, just normal maintenance. No creaks, no sqeaks...nothing. And all that with a Whipple supercharger installed and a lowered suspension for many, many miles. I also learned to drive stick on the car and I wasn't a quick learner! She's still running fine on the original clutch though.
-Cargo room, with back seats removed is amazing. My wife and I still tell the story of moving from FL to WA. The movers picked up our stuff and we were left with what we thought we needed in the car for the drive. The pile filled up the entire living room. We looked at the pile, then at the car. We were in trouble. Somehow, that entire pile of stuff moved from the living room into the PT. Plus a dog. And a cat. Still amazed to this day.
-The community and aftermarket following. Yes, there are way too many PT's out there now with every stick-on chromed piece available and woody stickers, but there was a time when modifying a PT was fun, and somewhat easy and cheap. I have about 30 issues of PT Cruiser Quarterly as evidence. Rear-wheel-drive-Viper-Powered-PT? Sure, why not. (that wasn't cheap)
Sad to see production end, but even as a satisfied owner, I understand it 100%. I'll be driving mine until it dies. Then its time to find that Viper engine...
By pushrod
on July 13, 2010
06:24 AM
Given that the car companies that actually do long-term brand management had fewer problems during the most recent downturn, I would vote for that approach. But, I'm more of a buy-and-hold investor, not a short-term, algo-driven hedge fund-type that won't hold positions longer than a few minutes at a time. I don't look at the last quarter, but the last few years. However, most N. American analysts don't do that: they care about what just happened, and what will happen today or tomorrow. Trying to take a long-term approach while running a public company in N. America means you can get beat up by analysts, which reduces share prices, which causes the more vocal shareholders to squawk (and on occasion sue), thus putting pressure on management to "do something now". The motto on the floor is "buy on mystery, sell on history". Companies that want to see short-term share price increases end up governing themselves accordingly.
Being public isn't the only time this happens: being owned by some private equity firms (those like Cerberus that only care about what they can get from the asset now, not a month or year from now) brings the same sort of pressure.
If you are a public company and your biggest shareholder is someone like Berkshire Hathaway, then the focus can be different again (since Buffett and co. tend to take a long-term approach to their companies). Those, however, tend to be the exception and not the rule.
It takes a degree of courage and tenacity to ignore the noise from unhappy shareholders and grump analysts, and build out a product or plan over the long-haul. A lot of executives don't really have that courage, and the products can suffer as a result.
By editor_karl
on July 13, 2010
10:57 AM
Spot-on analysis pushrod. And for the record, I like the long-term approach too, and find the lack of courage by many of today's business leaders frustrating (though I can't deny the forces behind it).
By scott65
on July 13, 2010
11:37 AM
Excellent article Karl.
It is funny that the 2 longest Chrysler nameplates now (T+C, Sebring) are also the butt of jokes and have been for many years. Of all the names to cling too...why those two?
By rsholland
on July 13, 2010
11:40 AM
Yeah, I agree. Long-term is the way to go. I've never been fans of trendy, one-night-stand models.
I'm convinced that a good reason that certain vehicles are successful, is that they've been around for decades. Suburban, Corvette, Accord, Civic, etc. are all examples of that way of thinking. Yeah, they had to be good out of the starting gate, otherwise they would never have succeeded.
I just don't think that retro-inspired cars (like the PT Cruiser) have the legs to go the distance. I mean, what would a PT Cruiser, VW Beetle, Mini, etc., be like in say 20 or 30 years? I can't imagine any of those vehicles still being here. To me they're nothing but a quick fling, but with little if any staying power.
By rabbitgti
on July 13, 2010
12:43 PM
Expanding on pushrod's comments a bit, I think part of the issue with Chrysler throwing away the goodwill the car had built up lies in the fact that the company changed hands so many times during the car's product cycle. If I recall, the car was conceived when Chrysler was still a stand-alone company, then initially came to production under DaimlerChrysler, then was allowed to hang without a refresh or major modifications even after Chrysler's sale to Cerberus, and now it has been killed under Fiat. It's too bad, because even with modest modifications and refreshes it probably could have kept going even now when unique, small wagon types of cars have become at least somewhat favorable (Scion Xb & Xd, Kia Soul, Nissan Cube). And imagine how many PTs could have been sold as small cargo/delivery wagons had Chrysler considered slightly re-engineering the car perhaps with sliding rear doors or reverse-hinged rear access doors?
Bottom line is that it's tough to keep a product as a going concern when the company itself is having issues with remaining a going concern, and the PT wound up being a victim when it probably could've been even bigger than it was with the right handling from its producers.
By carlisimo
on July 13, 2010
12:54 PM
Chrysler has been pretty amazing in the last 10 years… has anyone ever let so much potential go to waste?
I wasn’t personally a fan of the Neon (too bathtub-like for shorter people) but it was a good car when it first came out. Handled well, too. But by the early ‘00s it was a rental car known for poor crash test ratings… and while the looks had been refined, they hadn’t really advanced. Then they killed it and replaced it with something completely different. Why? A lot of people just wanted a better Neon.
It all happened much more quickly with the 300. Huge hit, great boost for the brand, new buyers for life, all Chrysler had to do was start working on the next one so that the new 300 owners would have a next generation to buy. What happened? Why didn’t they tell the 300’s design team to get started on the next one? Why did they give us lousy Calibers, Sebrings, and minivans shortly after?
Look at the Fusion for contrast. It’s hard to sell a new nameplate, but the 2nd generation is now being taken seriously. The nameplate could last decades.
By blackadder5639
on July 13, 2010
01:53 PM
I prefer long-term product planning!
The short-term option would have been a good idea if the car had enough character to make it a cult item after it was gone (eg, Honda S2000), but as good as the PT Cruiser was, it wasn't good enough to be a one-of-a-kind cult vehicle.
By savetheland
on July 13, 2010
06:02 PM
It is the nature of things in America. Successful countries like Japan and Germany perfect thing over time creating masterpieces that may last centuries. In America people are concerned about next big thing tomorrow. In Europe and Asia people live all their life in one town and perfect it. In America as houses get older people move to new neighborhoods and older ones gradually turns into slums.
After next big happens it gets milked until no more quick profits can be made and then relegated to other nations to develop and perfect further. In many cases American companies are not even able even make profits on the next big thing they invented, for variety of reasons. Take e.g. Kodak. Kodak invented digital photography, 4/3 format (with Olympus), OLED displays and many other things. But Japanese companies took them over, perfected, readied for mass production and now make huge profits. Kodak makes best sensors in the world used in high end cameras like Leica M9, S2 and etc. Olympus uses 4/3 sensors made by Kodak, but why Kodak does not make 4/3 or expensive cameras based on its own sensors? Kodak cameras initially came up with innovative features like HD video. But designs get stale, cameras decontented, prices reduced accordingly and now Kodak is only known for cheapest ps cameras and lags further behind every Japanese optical company. And it is just one example.
America as a country is run the same way. Unlike Britain, France or Germany our government and congress do not care what will happen tomorrow. They just incessantly milk successful people and go deeper into debt to satisfy poor or lazy people, bring more of them into country illegally to get elected for the next term. But one day this house of card will collapse as it happened with Chrysler and GM and American people will have nobody to blame except of themselves.
By dmasonfl
on July 14, 2010
07:46 AM
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=beg+the+question
By slickersdrip
on July 14, 2010
09:06 PM
Great article-- great comments.
Personally I prefer the long term commitment in product planning... one of the reasons that when I bought my RX-8 I bought it with the idea that it was part of a contribution towards Mazda maintaining the idea of a rotary engine. It's just a commitment to the buyer and community most appreciated.
It seemed for a while that the PT Cruiser was supported (I remember they even had factory mopar upgrades) which was really nice. Unfortunately the stagnation of the PT Cruiser was a slap in the face.
I rented a 2007 PT Cruiser and found it to be a most delightful vehicle. Of course I rented it while my Neon was being repaired so it wasn't an enormous difference...
By bepperb
on July 21, 2010
09:52 AM
Don't forget that alongside the four-year-cycle Accords there are one-and-done DelSol's and S2000's. Maybe the Rav4 get's it's refreshes every 3 years but I'd bet the FJ cruiser is a profit cow as it swirls the drain. If successful companies do the same thing as well, it must be either a reasonable strategy or perhaps just an indicator of an evaporating market. Those models with regular refreshes are all in eternal markets, every mainstream manufacturer needs a midsize sedan so of course the decision to refresh them isn't difficult.
Anyway, my opinion would be that the world didn't want another PT Cruiser, any money spent on a refresh wasted. It was a novelty of sorts, and that sort of thing has a limited shelf life.