2009 Chrysler PT Dream Cruiser vs. 2005 GMC Sierra
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 Sierra. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 GMC Sierra would be higher. At 5,359 cc (8 cylinders), 2005 GMC Sierra is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 GMC Sierra (295 HP) has 117 more horse power than 2009 Chrysler PT Dream Cruiser. (178 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2005 GMC Sierra should accelerate faster than 2009 Chrysler PT Dream Cruiser.
Because 2005 GMC Sierra 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 Sierra. 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 Sierra (454 Nm) has 244 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Chrysler PT Dream Cruiser. (210 Nm). This means 2005 GMC Sierra 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 Sierra | |
| Make | Chrysler | GMC |
| Model | PT Dream Cruiser | Sierra |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2005 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2397 cc | 5359 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 178 HP | 295 HP |
| Torque | 210 Nm | 454 Nm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline / Electric Hybrid |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Width | 2000 mm | 2000 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 9.8 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.1 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
