1949 Alfa Romeo 6C vs. 2003 Chevrolet Tracker
To start off, 2003 Chevrolet Tracker is newer by 54 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1949 Alfa Romeo 6C. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1949 Alfa Romeo 6C would be higher. At 2,443 cc (6 cylinders), 1949 Alfa Romeo 6C is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Chevrolet Tracker (97 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 8 more horse power than 1949 Alfa Romeo 6C. (89 HP @ 4600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Chevrolet Tracker should accelerate faster than 1949 Alfa Romeo 6C.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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.
Compare all specifications:
1949 Alfa Romeo 6C | 2003 Chevrolet Tracker | |
Make | Alfa Romeo | Chevrolet |
Model | 6C | Tracker |
Year Released | 1949 | 2003 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2443 cc | 1590 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 89 HP | 97 HP |
Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 5200 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Vehicle Length | 4930 mm | 3860 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1960 mm | 1720 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1610 mm | 1700 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3010 mm | 2210 mm |