One of the qualities that distinguished the 2001-to-2010 Chrysler PT Cruiser from most other retro designs was that it wasn’t an homage to a specific car. That presumably gave designers more flexibility to improvise. However, the downside was that the PT Cruiser didn’t have an obvious next step design-wise because there was no legacy to build upon like, say, with the Volkswagen Beetle.
In a very real sense, the PT Cruiser was a disposable design exercise. It had a postmodern quality in that it evoked 1930s cars while being so generic that it could have been built by pretty much any automaker. No one would look at a PT Cruiser for the first time and say “that’s a Chrysler” unless they saw the brand’s logo.
This is not to suggest that those of us with some background in automotive history couldn’t squint real hard and see hints of the 1937 Chrysler Airflow’s rounded grille and bullet taillights (see below).
However, that’s pretty obscure — quite the opposite of the 2002-to-2005 retro-styled Ford Thunderbiird, with its widely recognized styling cues such as the C-pillar portholes that evoked those on the original two-seaters.
PT Cruiser was a creative fusion of retro and modern
Part of what made the PT Cruiser interesting was that it took liberties with design conventions. For example, Chrysler didn’t try to recreate the classic proportions of a 1930s car, but rather adapted them to a subcompact tall wagon.
The PT Cruiser was based on the Dodge Neon’s platform (Patton, 2009). The snout was stubby rather than long, and the beltline and greenhouse had a wedge shape. That gave the car an almost cartoonish look — but it worked. More than 1 million PT Cruisers were sold in the United States (Wikipedia, 2025a).
How did designer Bryan Nesbitt create such a successful design, both aesthetically as well as commercially? At least to my eyes, the lovely rounded contours gave the PT Cruiser a clean and fairly understated look. The styling didn’t shout for attention like so many of today’s sport-utility vehicles, with their exaggerated surfacing, angry grilles and lots of plastic cladding.
The PT Cruiser also had some lovely design details, such as the door handles and the original taillights (see below).
Chrysler tried to do a convertible on the cheap
The five-door hatchback strikes me as a stellar design, so it was unfortunate that Chrysler would undercut it by coming out with a convertible, which was produced from 2005 until 2008.
In theory, this variant could have had a decent design, but the bean counters apparently insisted on doing it on the cheap.
The back end was too short and upright. Imagine if Chrysler had instead tried to evoke a 1930s convertible with a lower greenhouse and a longer teardrop deck. You can get a vague sense of what I mean from the 1937 Ford convertible below.
Clotaire Rapaille, a consultant who reportedly helped to conceptualize the PT Cruiser, criticized this body style. “The convertible was terrible. They just cut the top off, that is not design,” he told The New York Times (Patton, 2009).
I am also curious as to why the front end didn’t display a more obvious link to Chrysler’s past, such as with a chromed waterfall grille. Was this primarily a cost decision or were they specifically going for the “anycar” look because most people wouldn’t care?
Chevrolet HHR lacked the PT Cruiser’s design finesse
Note that in the background of the above photo you can see a Chevrolet HHR. This was the closest that any other automaker came to trying to tap into the retro-tall wagon market that the PT Cruiser pioneered.
In a road test of both cars, Motor Trend stated that they were similar in size but the HHR had slightly sportier handling while the PT Cruiser had “the nicest cockpit” (Dushane, 2005).
The HHR, which was built from 2005 to 2011, was arguably a much less successful design. Its outboard fenders and bumpers were too bulky, and the overall shape wasn’t stylish enough to justify the loss of interior room that came with retro design. Not surprisingly, sales were much weaker than the PT Cruiser’s (Wikipedia, 2025b).
Ironically, the HHR has been credited to the same designer who oversaw the PT Cruiser. Nesbitt was recruited from Chrysler by General Motors, where for a while he was the chief designer for the Chevrolet brand (Wikipedia, 2025b).
The HHR illustrates the danger of trying to play follow the leader. Even with the same design talent, GM couldn’t recreate what made the PT Cruiser so successful.
Rapaille hoped for another success like the PT Cruiser
The PT Cruiser outlasted the Dodge Neon but fell victim to cuts that resulted from the company’s reorganization in 2009. When interviewed about the car’s forthcoming demise, Rapaille sounded bitter. “They didn’t do anything to improve it” (Patton, 2009).
Chrysler gave the car only one facelift over its nine-year production run. In 2006 the front and rear received mild revisions such as more integrated, body-colored bumpers. The PT Cruiser never got an all-wheel-drive option, which might have been particularly helpful to sales as the design aged.
Rapaille went on to offer a broader critique of U.S. automakers. The “problem with Detroit, he argued, is that they never really wanted to create a car that people want to drive. It may sound strange to say that, but the truth is they created cars that engineers want to build. But we don’t care about these engineers. Now in Detroit, they know they have to reconnect. I would like very much to be at the beginning of another success story like the PT Cruiser” (Patton, 2009).
Indie Auto has discussed Rapaille before. His specialty is cars that have “primal appeal” to the “reptilian” brain (Patton, 2009). He is most infamous for advocating that trucks and SUVs look aggressive (go here). This leads me to wonder whether he has ever advocated for another car as “beta” as the PT Cruiser.
Even when I put aside Rapaille’s reptilian design approach, I have trouble visualizing what a second-generation PT Cruiser could have looked like. It was a clever idea for its time, but it was also gimmicky. Once the 1930s look got old, where do you go from there?
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Dushane, Mike; 2005. “2006 Chevrolet HHR vs. 2006 Chrysler PT Cruiser.” Motor Trend. Posted September 12.
- Patton, Phil; 2009. “PT Cruiser: From Hero to Zero.” The New York Times. Posted February 27.
- Wikipedia; 2025a. “Chrysler PT Cruiser.” Page last edited April 28.
- ——-; 2025b. “Chevrolet HHR.” Page last edited February 3.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Ford (1937)
PHOTOGRAPHY:
- Chrysler PT Cruiser convertible: Photo by Rudolf Stricker via Wikipedia GNU license. Photo edited to lighten tone.
- 2006-8 PT Cruiser hatchback: Photo by IFCAR via Wikipedia public domain. Photo edited to lighten tone.
The PT Cruiser was a practical car in a whimsical enough body; it came in fun colors. I didn’t look up the MSRP but it was an affordable car, which contributed to its success. I especially like the plum color on the PT Cruiser as well as on the Plymouth Prowler. Made me think also of the Chevy SSR convertible pick up truck. (I thought of that with the Thunderbird article.). The PT Cruiser not drawing upon a previous generation made it hard to design a successor, but it did have a nine year run. Mini keeps tweaking its styling- I think of the Clubman or maybe the larger Fiat 500 as being boxy little retro 5 door cars that are not tall like CUVs. Maybe instead of the short lived “Fiata” (Miata based Fiat 128 convertible), it should have been an Alfa Romeo Spider Veloce? I am trying to picture what a modern iteration of that car would look like.
Would you also say that the Prowler was generically a hot rod without paying homage to a particular model?
I would not be able to afford it, but a Porsche 911 with retro touches (like the 50th anniversary model with Fuchs-like rims and Pepita houndstooth inserts on the seats) would really catch my eye. Maybe BMW can ditch the Bucky Beaver kidneys and flame surfacing and make a tasteful 2002 remake? With a stick?
Perhaps the retro that appeals to you is a generational thing? You’re only buying the Retro Bird if you’re nostalgic for a T bird? That’s a limited audience. I think the combination of price, practicality, and retro presence gave the PT Cruiser broader appeal.
Evolving more “contemporary” looking and tech with each successive model would have been one tactic, if some major reputation or appeal point let it stand on its own merit, like muscle car performance. However the PT didn’t have any selling point to evolve to, other than its retro style.
The PT Cruiser demonstrates that a workable compromise between decent aerodynamics and “partially separate” fenders and running boards is possible, with the benefit that even a tall body does not look very tall because the body is split into different volumes (the fenders, the pointy hood,…).
A modern take on the two door club coupe on the guise of the 1937 Lincoln Zephyr or the 1940 Buick Super (in those body styles) would look outstandingly good and preserve ease of entry and exit that the aging population requires, at least for the front seats.
That’s an interesting point. No one has tried the retro-club coupe look. Is there a big enough market for two-door models anymore?
While it is indeed rather doubtful, at least here in Europe SUVs with a sloping roofline (think BMW X4 and X6 or Mercedes GLE Coupè) do sell really really well, and those cars have rather ardimentous (aka hard to carry out) access to the rear seats and limited headroom.
From this I can derive that space in the back at least in some market segments is not a must have.
Two door club coupes would do away with the pretense pf roomy rear seats altogether and, in return, gain a larger trunk/boot with perhaps a lower loading sill too.
In the rare occasions I see a second generation Scion XB, I think it works better as a second generation PT Cruiser. If the PT is late 1930s aero, the Scion is more early 30s. The roofline and wheel arches have that unintentioned vibe.
I have a 2002 dream edition PT cruiser in the cranberry Pearl and I love my car it’s automatic and it’s my dream car and it’s the best car I’ve ever had.
Oh, I absolutely loved the PT Cruiser!! I had a, what was it called? Lava-red? 2002, manual transmission one, and then ab also manual 2004 dark plum pearl turbo Cruiser. I adored both, but the turbo was extra-special. In terms of performance like night and day to the non-turbo 2.4. At the time I was a bit into the tuner scene, and so I modified my PT GT a bit. Nothing extreme, but it looked great lowered by a couple of inches, with nice wheels rather than the standard chrome ones of the GT, and then the Mopar Stage 1 tune that consisted of a replacement ECU. And a blow-off valve for turbo “hissing” at shifts. I always had the rear seats out, which made for cavernous cargo capacity. I also loved taking the PT to Sacramento Raceway where the “Purple People Eater”, as the car became known, surprised many on the drag strip by doing mid-14s in the 1/4 mile with just the Stage 1 ECU (which also had a full-throttle shifting feature). Not all was perfect, though. The car knocked from the start, which even the Daimler engineers couldn’t fix. The steering wheel was misaligned right off the showroom. The front wheel bearings could not handle the turbo motor’s power. And electrical gremlins stranded the car several times. And the ever delightful California smog folks harassed me at every inspection. Still, I wish I had kept my PTs forever.
This article understates the pretty wild reaction when the PT was introduced; it was a PHENOMENON!. I had an early one and peole would point and shout “PT” when driving. I recall a popular rapper did a video with his Countach, a Ferrari.. and a PT Cruiser. IMHO it worked by making a practical, economical car something cool and desireable. I doubt the general public either would recognise or care about any styling ties to a 1930’s model. BTW, the PT was based on the Stratus/Sebring platform, not the Neon; that is an old chestnut. Unfortunately Daimler (the Chrysler is silent) didnt invest in much for Norht America so PT was left to die on the vine, much like it’s parent company. Sad.
Mark’s right. When they first came out dealers were charging 2 or 3 thousand over MSRP
I used a journalistic tone in describing the PT Cruiser’s design as “successful” by listing its fairly high production total . . . with the idea that readers will share their enthusiasm for the car (even in caps!) if they are so inclined.
It may also be helpful to note that when a story is labeled a “Gallery” feature that the focus is on the photos of cars in the wild. As I repost stories and expand them I will generally deepen the historical analysis, sometimes to the point where the story is relabeled as a “History” piece.
In general, I think that strengthening brand DNA has not been given adequate emphasis by U.S. automakers. For example, Mercedes-Benz has been consistent enough over the decades in the design of its grilles that almost anyone who pays even passing attention to cars would immediately recognize a Mercedes. I would argue that Chrysler should have aspired to that level of brand recognition . . . and I say that with the recognition that this may be a minority opinion within the U.S. automotive media.
I re read the article and I forgot to mention there was auto press discussion about an AWD version and the consensus was it would be difficult to do with the platform and rear suspension set up.