1996 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 1940 Alfa Romeo 6C
To start off, 1996 Chevrolet Tracker is newer by 56 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1940 Alfa Romeo 6C. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1940 Alfa Romeo 6C would be higher. At 2,442 cc (6 cylinders), 1940 Alfa Romeo 6C is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 Chevrolet Tracker (96 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 7 more horse power than 1940 Alfa Romeo 6C. (89 HP @ 4600 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1996 Chevrolet Tracker should accelerate faster than 1940 Alfa Romeo 6C. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1940 Alfa Romeo 6C weights approximately 270 kg more than 1996 Chevrolet Tracker.
Because 1996 Chevrolet Tracker is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1940 Alfa Romeo 6C. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1996 Chevrolet Tracker will offer significantly more control. 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.
Compare all specifications:
1996 Chevrolet Tracker | 1940 Alfa Romeo 6C | |
Make | Chevrolet | Alfa Romeo |
Model | Tracker | 6C |
Year Released | 1996 | 1940 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1589 cc | 2442 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 96 HP | 89 HP |
Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 4600 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Vehicle Weight | 1230 kg | 1500 kg |
Vehicle Length | 3860 mm | 4880 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1840 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1700 mm | 1510 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 3010 mm |