1996 Audi A3 vs. 2002 Chevrolet Tracker
To start off, 2002 Chevrolet Tracker is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Audi A3. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Audi A3 would be higher. At 1,595 cc (4 cylinders), 1996 Audi A3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 Audi A3 (100 HP) has 3 more horse power than 2002 Chevrolet Tracker. (97 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1996 Audi A3 should accelerate faster than 2002 Chevrolet Tracker.
Because 2002 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 2002 Chevrolet Tracker. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1996 Audi A3, 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, 2002 Chevrolet Tracker (139 Nm) has 3 more torque (in Nm) than 1996 Audi A3. (136 Nm). This means 2002 Chevrolet Tracker will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1996 Audi A3.
Compare all specifications:
1996 Audi A3 | 2002 Chevrolet Tracker | |
Make | Audi | Chevrolet |
Model | A3 | Tracker |
Year Released | 1996 | 2002 |
Body Type | Hatchback | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1595 cc | 1590 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 100 HP | 97 HP |
Torque | 136 Nm | 139 Nm |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4160 mm | 3860 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1720 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1700 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2520 mm | 2210 mm |