As his parents drove up my driveway, my nephew yelled out, “Uncle Chris! You have the greatest car in the whole world!” Which was followed by his older sister countering with, “You have the ugliest car in the whole world!” Their mother echoed the daughter’s sentiment, while my brother – their father – kept his mouth shut. He works for Ford.

Now I’ll admit the “Woodie” option – a Medium Oak decal surrounded by a Light Ash frame – doesn’t look its best on a black car, though it looks very nice on one painted Light Almond Pearl Metallic. And there are things about the design of the PT Cruiser that aren’t quite right. For example, the car can’t seem to decide if it’s male or female. The headlights and the lack of sharply defined features give it a feminine feel, which is totally at odds with the forward sloping wedge and ’37 Ford panel van stance. The chunky bumpers aren’t integrated into the overall shape, and suffer from fussy detailing. Even the taillights are confused in that they try to be all flowing and modern on one hand, but also try to ape the round shape of period lights on the other. The same is true in the interior, where a jarringly modern shift quadrant/console surrounds the automatic transmission’s shift lever. The overhead console holding the compass/temperature display also could use a touch of retro design.

Where the PT (for “Personal Transport,” not “Patrol Torpedo”) Cruiser really shines is in its flexibility. Spanning just short of 169-in. on a 103-in. wheelbase and sitting 63-in. tall, the PT has an EPA interior volume index of 102.2 ft³, which makes it one of the most space-efficient transport modules on the planet. It seats five – if the rear passengers are children or really close friends; though four adults seems to be a more reasonable number. Tumbling the rear seats forward creates a large rear load area, which can be increased by removing the rear seats altogether. (This little trick lets Chrysler sneak the PT past the EPA as a truck, which helps its light truck CAFÉ enormously.) For long items that aren’t exceptionally thick, the rear and front passenger seats can be folded flat, securing enough room to stow an 8-ft. ladder without leaving the hatch or windows open.

The leather with “Preferred Suede” trim on our test car gave the interior a very rich feel, and didn’t overpower the rest of the interior. Somehow the design team was able to specify plastic door panels with different but complimentarily textured plastics, and an instrument panel upper and lower and steering wheel that look rich rather than cheap. They also did a good job of hiding mold part lines, normally a common problem in small car interiors. Add the painted gauge and passenger airbag bezels, and the interior looks unlike any other in the industry. Plus, it has the nicest column stalks of any Chrysler out there.

Unfortunately, the aforementioned consoles hit a discordant note, as does the center cap on the steering wheel. Embossed with a version of Chrysler’s winged badge, the very center is cloisonné. The rest is the same color as the rest of the wheel, and nothing more than a stamped depression that mimics the badge’s wings. It looks cheap, and should be either a stamped logo, or a medallion, but not both. Also, the center dash panel vents – clever designs that use a gimbaled plunger to direct airflow – are impossible to direct completely away from either the driver or front seat passenger. Thankfully, their effect can be reduced by twisting the knob that controls the amount of air they emit.

Seating is another area in need of review. Not because the seats aren’t comfortable – they are – but because they lack the lower cushion stiffness necessary to resist body roll and keep the driver on an even keel. It’s not uncommon to quickly traverse a corner and find the seat bottom compressing under the leg farthest from the center of the turn. The upper body support is of little help as it doesn’t have the depth or – again – the stiffness to resist centrifugal force. Undoubtedly, the flat back seat is worse. One bright spot, however, is seat height. The PT Cruiser’s passengers get a bird’s-eye view of the road, without feeling like they’re sitting in a truck or minivan. Combined with the Cruiser’s short overall length, this facility makes this vehicle perfect for nipping in and out of traffic in a crowded urban landscape.

The biggest disappointment came in terms of the car’s so-so fuel economy. Given its size and four-cylinder engine, you’d expect the PT Cruiser to return more than 22 mpg, a number smack in the middle of its EPA rating of 19 city/25 highway with the optional automatic transmission. The 150-hp engine is strong enough once underway (it could use more torque to get going), but it has to drag around 3,182 lb. Thankfully, the Cd is an acceptable 0.379, which helps highway fuel economy.

I hope Chrysler sticks with the PT Cruiser, but addresses the vehicle’s minor shortcomings. The Turbo model should address any performance shortfall. The Convertible will appeal to those in search of a truly unique top-down experience. And adding a two-door – a vehicle I’ve seen on the road, in the flesh, but have no clue whether it will ever reach production – would expand the franchise to folks in search of something unique without the station wagon overtones, and also pave the way for a panel van version. Lame muted flame decals don’t cut the mustard, and “Woodie” graphics speak to a generation much older than the one most car makers currently covet. Where is the full-length sunroof, ear-bleeder stereo package, performance and dress-up option list, custom bike rack, and clip-in fitted luggage pack? This vehicle isn’t transportation, it’s an icon, and it should be outfitted and sold accordingly. In looks and capabilities it’s the perfect “getaway” car – an image I’m surprised Chrysler overlooked, despite the non-PC overtones – and should appeal to more than older folks looking for roomy, efficient transportation.