1966 BMW 1600 vs. 2003 Chevrolet Tracker
To start off, 2003 Chevrolet Tracker is newer by 37 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 BMW 1600. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 BMW 1600 would be higher. At 1,590 cc (4 cylinders), 2003 Chevrolet Tracker is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Chevrolet Tracker (97 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 12 more horse power than 1966 BMW 1600. (85 HP @ 5800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Chevrolet Tracker should accelerate faster than 1966 BMW 1600.
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, 2003 Chevrolet Tracker (139 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 15 more torque (in Nm) than 1966 BMW 1600. (124 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2003 Chevrolet Tracker will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1966 BMW 1600.
Compare all specifications:
| 1966 BMW 1600 | 2003 Chevrolet Tracker | |
| Make | BMW | Chevrolet |
| Model | 1600 | Tracker |
| Year Released | 1966 | 2003 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1574 cc | 1590 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 85 HP | 97 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5800 RPM | 5200 RPM |
| Torque | 124 Nm | 139 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 4240 mm | 3860 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1590 mm | 1720 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1700 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2510 mm | 2210 mm |
