1966 AC Cobra vs. 2000 Chevrolet Tracker
To start off, 2000 Chevrolet Tracker is newer by 34 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 AC Cobra. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 AC Cobra would be higher. At 6,997 cc (8 cylinders), 1966 AC Cobra is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1966 AC Cobra (410 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 313 more horse power than 2000 Chevrolet Tracker. (97 HP @ 5200 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1966 AC Cobra should accelerate faster than 2000 Chevrolet Tracker.
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. Let's talk about torque, 1966 AC Cobra (651 Nm @ 3700 RPM) has 512 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Chevrolet Tracker. (139 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 1966 AC Cobra will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Chevrolet Tracker.
Compare all specifications:
1966 AC Cobra | 2000 Chevrolet Tracker | |
Make | AC | Chevrolet |
Model | Cobra | Tracker |
Year Released | 1966 | 2000 |
Body Type | Roadster | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 6997 cc | 1590 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 410 HP | 97 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5200 RPM |
Torque | 651 Nm | 139 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3700 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 3970 mm | 4140 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1730 mm | 1720 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1250 mm | 1690 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2290 mm | 2210 mm |