1952 Austin-Healey Tickford vs. 2003 Chevrolet Tracker
To start off, 2003 Chevrolet Tracker is newer by 51 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford would be higher. At 2,441 cc (4 cylinders), 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford (105 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 8 more horse power than 2003 Chevrolet Tracker. (97 HP @ 5200 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford should accelerate faster than 2003 Chevrolet Tracker.
Let's talk about torque, 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford (184 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 45 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Chevrolet Tracker. (139 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Chevrolet Tracker.
Compare all specifications:
| 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford | 2003 Chevrolet Tracker | |
| Make | Austin-Healey | Chevrolet |
| Model | Tickford | Tracker |
| Year Released | 1952 | 2003 |
| Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2441 cc | 1590 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 105 HP | 97 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5200 RPM |
| Torque | 184 Nm | 139 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 3860 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1720 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1700 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2210 mm |
