2009 Chrysler PT Dream Cruiser vs. 2010 Dodge Charger
To start off, 2010 Dodge Charger is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2009 Chrysler PT Dream Cruiser. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2009 Chrysler PT Dream Cruiser would be higher. At 5,700 cc (8 cylinders), 2010 Dodge Charger is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Dodge Charger (368 HP) has 190 more horse power than 2009 Chrysler PT Dream Cruiser. (178 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Dodge Charger should accelerate faster than 2009 Chrysler PT Dream Cruiser.
Because 2010 Dodge Charger 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 2010 Dodge Charger. 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, 2010 Dodge Charger (535 Nm) has 325 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Chrysler PT Dream Cruiser. (210 Nm). This means 2010 Dodge Charger 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 | 2010 Dodge Charger | |
Make | Chrysler | Dodge |
Model | PT Dream Cruiser | Charger |
Year Released | 2009 | 2010 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2397 cc | 5700 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 178 HP | 368 HP |
Torque | 210 Nm | 535 Nm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Width | 2000 mm | 1892 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.8 L/100km | 9.4 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 13.1 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |