1966 Audi Variant vs. 1999 Chevrolet Tracker
To start off, 1999 Chevrolet Tracker is newer by 33 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Audi Variant. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Audi Variant would be higher. At 1,696 cc (4 cylinders), 1966 Audi Variant is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1999 Chevrolet Tracker (97 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 26 more horse power than 1966 Audi Variant. (71 HP @ 5000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1999 Chevrolet Tracker should accelerate faster than 1966 Audi Variant.
Because 1999 Chevrolet Tracker 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 1999 Chevrolet Tracker. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1966 Audi Variant, 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, 1999 Chevrolet Tracker (139 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 11 more torque (in Nm) than 1966 Audi Variant. (128 Nm @ 2800 RPM). This means 1999 Chevrolet Tracker will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1966 Audi Variant.
Compare all specifications:
1966 Audi Variant | 1999 Chevrolet Tracker | |
Make | Audi | Chevrolet |
Model | Variant | Tracker |
Year Released | 1966 | 1999 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1696 cc | 1590 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 71 HP | 97 HP |
Engine RPM | 5000 RPM | 5200 RPM |
Torque | 128 Nm | 139 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2800 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Vehicle Length | 4390 mm | 4140 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1630 mm | 1720 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1690 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2500 mm | 2210 mm |