2009 Chrysler PT Dream Cruiser vs. 2005 GMC Safari
To start off, 2009 Chrysler PT Dream Cruiser is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 GMC Safari. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 GMC Safari would be higher. At 4,294 cc (6 cylinders), 2005 GMC Safari is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 GMC Safari (190 HP) has 12 more horse power than 2009 Chrysler PT Dream Cruiser. (178 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2005 GMC Safari should accelerate faster than 2009 Chrysler PT Dream Cruiser.
Because 2005 GMC Safari is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2005 GMC Safari. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Chrysler PT Dream Cruiser, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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, 2005 GMC Safari (339 Nm) has 129 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Chrysler PT Dream Cruiser. (210 Nm). This means 2005 GMC Safari will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Chrysler PT Dream Cruiser.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Chrysler PT Dream Cruiser | 2005 GMC Safari | |
| Make | Chrysler | GMC |
| Model | PT Dream Cruiser | Safari |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2005 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2397 cc | 4294 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 178 HP | 190 HP |
| Torque | 210 Nm | 339 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 87.5 mm | 102.1 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 101 mm | 88 mm |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 8 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 3 doors |
| Vehicle Width | 2000 mm | 1980 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 9.8 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.1 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
