Welcome again to another rant about the ever-evolving world of cars. Today's is about some very interesting vehicles that although were on the market for a number of years, weren't really successes. I'm speaking of the Chevy SSR, the Chrysler Crossfire and the PT Cruiser convertible. (I know, I`m missing a certain vintage-themed convertible from F*rd, but as I`ve said in previous blogs, I`ll elaborate later why I hate them).
Let`s start with the oldest of the bunch, the PT Cruiser. The PT in itself was a major success right off. Chrysler has a good track record of putting out vehicles that look like big risks, (ie: 300C; Charger and any other Hemi-engined car in today`s gas prices` world). The PT was probably the first of the intentioned retro-themed vehicles to hit the market. With it`s homage to 1930`s milk trucks, it was cute, different, well-priced but not much of a driver`s car. With the unconventional theme continued inside with body-colored matching interior plastic hues, it was different enough to be noticed without being too chintzy. Even the window control switches were located in the upper-dash. It had a fairly decent cargo area and as time wore on, a folding picnic table feature was added along with removable seats and then a cargo version. This was the beginning of the PT`s success. But one thing really hurt it and that was that it wasn`t particularly sporty to drive. It had a small-displacement 2-liter engine that produced only a mere 140hp. Now, that`s not bad perse in this vehicle`s segment but it needed more. Although there were multiple themed vehicles, the Sun Cruise, the Dream Cruiser and the Woody Cruiser, it just looked better than it could drive.
Then came the Turbo model. A 2.4 liter Turbo, now producing 180hp or 230hp depending on the model chosen. This did wonders for the car. Then Chrysler heard that a few enthusiasts in California were having their PTs "chopped", that is, they were being modified into convertibles. The name of the company doing these mods escapes me, (at the time of this writing), however I do know that Chrysler took a keen interest in the modifications. Turning this 4-door mini-cargo van into a two-door roll bar-intensive convertible wasn't easy. Chrysler contracted this company to mass-produce the convertibles for them when test-studies showed that a convertible would be welcomed by customers. Now what made it a non-success outside of California is essentially what made it a success in California: the conversion from four-door to two and that huge roll bar. (Can you hang upside down from it? I wouldn't try it.) You see, the bar needed to be there just in case you should find yourself parking the car on it's roof. Like GM's old Cutlass Supreme convertible, it had to have this huge steel bar running across the top to offering protection in case of a rollover. I should think that that bar wouldn't make me feel any safer should I be thinking of what the car would look like with it's wheels pointing to heaven. One has to ask, why did they install that thing? It wasn't for the structural reinforcement after taking the roof off. What? Oh, I forgot to mention: all PT Convertibles start their lives as traditional four-door trucklettes and are shipped West to get worked-over. The roof is chopped off, the body completely stripped and reworked, the under-floor reinforced, the trunk lid raised. But why the big meat-hook when BMW and Mercedes-Benz have long had the technology to conceal the safety bar either within the head-rests, (BMW), or a snap-up roll bar (M-B) that flips up into position should you go two-wheeling on one side beyond 20 degrees port or starboard?!
Although not a bad vehicle, the rest of North America didn't quite welcome the convertible too enthusiastically. So much so, that after Chrysler's recent restructuring, it's been axed. Although the PT continues, the convertible is dead. So, one wonders: are all those convertibles out there going to gain in value or just become another oddball in automotive history?
And on to the Chrysler Crossfire. Now there's a car that's earned a serious love-it-or-hate-it reaction. The first Chrysler that was really more Mercedes-Benz than a Chrysler, on paper and in person, it seemed a winner. Based on the older-SL chassis from M-B, it was retro-themed, although not specifically based on any one car from history, it looked "vintage" and new. From the ripples in the hood, to the 'boat-tailed' rear window, it looked great. And immediately, Chrysler made a strong point of showing its performance aspects; the hydraulic rear-spoiler that could be deployed either manually or when over speeds above 60mph, to the classic front-engined, short-wheelbase and the cockpit over the rear wheels, the Crossfire was later joined an SRT model (Street Racing Team), and a convertible. And anyone who bought loved them. But not everyone could. Because of the tapered v-shaped rear window, the cockpit was very tight. Depending on your seating position and your height, you either fit in it or not at all. And since it was more Mercedes than Chrysler, it had a Mercedes price tag of around $60,000 for a starting price. As good looking as it was, most potential buyers were put off by the price. Why would you put down 60K when for a few bucks more (not so few, really), you could get a Mercedes-Benz convertible?! More people were willing to accept the German price tag for a German car rather than pay into Chrysler's coffers. So, other than the oddly shaped cockpit, the Crossfire had very few shortcomings as a car. But people weren't ready for that price for a Chrysler. And so too goes the Crossfire into the annals of automotive history.
And now, on to the probably oddest of all: the Chevy SSR. On paper, this "truck" had all the right ingredients: the Corvette's engine,(de-tuned); a pickup truck's bed; a folding hard-top roof; the awesome retro-styling. It was all right! But it wasn't, not really. But the final product disappointed. Why? Well, some obvious reasons and some not-so-obvious. One: an $80,000 price tag! Two: the engine! De-tuned alright! Calling it a Corvette engine was about as close as it got to being a Corvette`s engine! Don`t get me wrong, I`m not a fan of the `Vette, but even I can acknowledge that a 340+hp, 5.7, small-block V8 should be a tarmac-shredding engine and it just wasn`t. Acceleration times were abysmal! It accelerated about as fast as the government is at issuing refund cheques at tax time! And the cargo bed was barely accessible. Although it was well over 6 feet long, the hard tonneau cover would barely open to accommodate anything bought from Ikea. So, although it was fabulous to look at, that`s the best it was good for. At least the two-piece folding hard-top worked. But the two major faults were the price and the lack-luster performance. You don`t make a car that looks fast and just isn`t. It`s the equal to making an empty promise.
So there we have, three of the most "promising" cars that didn't work commercially. They looked good; the drove well; they were different and quirky and unique. In today's used car market, they could be found for a fraction of the price they were when new... IF you can find them.
I'm quite sure, though, that those people who DID buy them, love them!! And if I had bought one of them... I probably would too.
The next posting will be on those cars that were successes and really shouldn't have been.
No comments:
Post a Comment