2004 Chrysler PT Cruiser vs. 2012 Saab 05-Sep
To start off, 2012 Saab 05-Sep is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Chrysler PT Cruiser. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Chrysler PT Cruiser would be higher. At 2,800 cc (6 cylinders), 2012 Saab 05-Sep is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Saab 05-Sep (300 HP @ 5500 RPM) has 80 more horse power than 2004 Chrysler PT Cruiser. (220 HP @ 6400 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Saab 05-Sep should accelerate faster than 2004 Chrysler PT Cruiser.
Because 2012 Saab 05-Sep is all wheel drive (AWD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2004 Chrysler PT Cruiser. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2012 Saab 05-Sep will offer significantly more control. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2012 Saab 05-Sep (400 Nm) has 61 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Chrysler PT Cruiser. (339 Nm). This means 2012 Saab 05-Sep will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Chrysler PT Cruiser.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Chrysler PT Cruiser | 2012 Saab 05-Sep | |
| Make | Chrysler | Saab |
| Model | PT Cruiser | 05-Sep |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2012 |
| Body Type | Hatchback | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2425 cc | 2800 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 220 HP | 300 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Torque | 339 Nm | 400 Nm |
| Drive Type | Front | AWD |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4290 mm | 5009 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1862 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1610 mm | 1468 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2750 mm | 2837 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 8.7 L/100km | 8.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 11.2 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 57 L | 70 L |
