1982 Alpine A 310 vs. 1999 Chevrolet Tracker
To start off, 1999 Chevrolet Tracker is newer by 17 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1982 Alpine A 310. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Alpine A 310 would be higher. At 2,664 cc (6 cylinders), 1982 Alpine A 310 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1982 Alpine A 310 (148 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 51 more horse power than 1999 Chevrolet Tracker. (97 HP @ 5200 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1982 Alpine A 310 should accelerate faster than 1999 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, 1982 Alpine A 310 (208 Nm @ 3500 RPM) has 69 more torque (in Nm) than 1999 Chevrolet Tracker. (139 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 1982 Alpine A 310 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1999 Chevrolet Tracker.
Compare all specifications:
1982 Alpine A 310 | 1999 Chevrolet Tracker | |
Make | Alpine | Chevrolet |
Model | A 310 | Tracker |
Year Released | 1982 | 1999 |
Body Type | Coupe | SUV |
Engine Position | Rear | Front |
Engine Size | 2664 cc | 1590 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 148 HP | 97 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5200 RPM |
Torque | 208 Nm | 139 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3500 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4190 mm | 4140 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1650 mm | 1720 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1160 mm | 1690 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2280 mm | 2210 mm |