In this week’s Ask Nathan:
- Stellantis needs a spiritual return of the Chrysler PT Cruiser?
- We need to follow the K.I.S.S. formula – (Keep it Simple Stupid)?
This week’s first question comes from YouTube comment, suggesting that we need a new version of the Chrysler PT Cruiser.
Q: RE: We need a new Chrysler PT Cruiser.
You guys think we need a new Chrysler PT Cruiser? Remember how well it did for Chrysler? They need something just like it now. You can make fun of it all you want, it was a big hit. I think it saved them and it can do it again.
— ASH809011
A: That’s a good point.
You’re absolutely correct, the Chrysler PT Cruiser was a major hit for the Brand. They sold over 1.4-million units in about a decade. It was one of the first cars I reviewed as a “professional” automotive journalist too! The 2000 PT Cruiser was a collaboration with Robert (Bob) Lutz, who was an executive at Chrysler at the time, Dr. Clotaire Rapaille, and Bryan Nesbitt. Nesbitt later went on to design the Chevrolet HHR. It hit during a sweet-spot in our market when retro, boxy-shaped, affordable vehicles were the cat’s pajamas. Around that time, vehicles like the New Beetle, Honda Element, Nissan Cube, Chevrolet HHR, Scion xB and Kia Soul were climbing, or just entering the market.
The Chrysler PT Cruiser was groundbreaking, at the time. It was unique inside and out, while providing family-friendly utility for the economy-minded. Even my mom wanted one back in the day, but the ridiculous dealer markups made her look, and buy, a New Beetle. I’m not sure if she traded up or not on that one. The PT Cruiser shared many of its components with the Dodge Neon, but the platform was unique to the PT Cruiser as it had a unique rear suspension. Several variants of the PT Cruiser were built, including a Turbo and a convertible. Dynamically, the PT was a mixed bag. It had the worst turning radius of any vehicle in its class, overall performance was mediocre and some of its cool-looking interior design was irritating to use. Quality and reliability were mediocre as well. Still, it was funky and unique, and many people drove them until the wheels fell off (sometimes, literally).
Why build a new Chrysler PT Cruiser?
I think Stellantis and Chrysler need a hit, and they need it soon. You can go back over the past few years and see how many fans have suggestions and questions about the struggling automaker. If I were running the company, I would pivot into three directions: update the Pacifica, bring back the 300C (base it on the new Charger) and bring back a spiritual successor to the Chrysler PT Cruiser. I would avoid bringing back the name, as it has become the brunt of too many jokes.
There’s a useable platform out there that is having a hard time substantiating its existence. I’m referring to the two SCCS-platform vehicles Stellantis is having a hard time moving: the Dodge Hornet and Alfa Romeo Tonale. Better still, use the 1.6-liter Stellantis Prince engine EP6CDTX turbo four-cylinder Hybrid setup used in the all-new 2026 Jeep Cherokee. It’s a hybrid that’s providing good power and the potential for excellent economy. Slap on a slick looking, retro-ish body and sell it for a reasonable price – you’re off to the races. It doesn’t need a rear motor, keep it FWD and keep with the design ethos of the original. That’s especially true if you can manage to pack it with value and make it competitive against Genesis, for interior design. Oooh, that would be something!
One can only hope.
— N
The last question comes from social media and it’s all about keeping interior tech simple.
Q: (Via: NathanAdlen@X/Twitter) Keep it Simple – Stupid!
I’m so sick of these screens and terrible buttons or lack of buttons on the same surface! They are dangerous! Make you take your eye off the road. All for what? Saving a few bucks per car? Keep it simple stupid! KISS!
— Anonymous
A: My old man used that term (K.I.S.S) often.
More often that not, he was correct. Simplicity prevents stupid mistakes. Manufacturers argue that moving to touchscreens saves cost, reduces clutter, and allows for software updates that can add features over time. They also say most drivers will rely on voice commands. But voice assistants aren’t always accurate, especially in noisy cabins.
Why No-Button Cars Can Be Dangerous
- Distraction – Buttons and knobs give you tactile feedback, so you can adjust climate, audio, or drive modes without looking away from the road. With touchscreens, you often have to glance down, hunt through menus, and confirm the change—pulling your eyes and attention away.
- Glove & Weather Issues – Capacitive touch controls don’t work well with gloves (big deal in cold climates) or if your fingers are wet/sweaty. Buttons, by contrast, almost always work.
- Lack of Muscle Memory – With buttons, you can build habits – like always reaching for the volume knob or climate dial. Screens require precision tapping, which makes it harder to operate instinctively.
- Glare & Responsiveness – Touchscreens can wash out in bright sunlight, lag in response, or glitch. None of these issues exist with a simple button. If the screen dies, you’re screwed.
- Emergency Situations – If something critical happens, like needing to defrost the windshield quickly, physical controls are usually much faster and more intuitive.
I’m sure many of you have a few points that you want included. Keeping things simple helps prevent stupid mistakes. Those are words to live by.
— N
About the Author
