2009 Chrysler PT Dream Cruiser vs. 2010 Ford F-150
To start off, 2010 Ford F-150 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 4,600 cc (8 cylinders), 2010 Ford F-150 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Ford F-150 (292 HP) has 114 more horse power than 2009 Chrysler PT Dream Cruiser. (178 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Ford F-150 should accelerate faster than 2009 Chrysler PT Dream Cruiser.
Because 2010 Ford F-150 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 Ford F-150. 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 Ford F-150 (433 Nm) has 223 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Chrysler PT Dream Cruiser. (210 Nm). This means 2010 Ford F-150 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 Ford F-150 | |
Make | Chrysler | Ford |
Model | PT Dream Cruiser | F-150 |
Year Released | 2009 | 2010 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2397 cc | 4600 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 3 valves |
Horse Power | 178 HP | 292 HP |
Torque | 210 Nm | 433 Nm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Vehicle Width | 2000 mm | 2004 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 9.8 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 13.1 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |