1996 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 2004 Ford Ecosport
To start off, 2004 Ford Ecosport is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Chevrolet Tracker. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Chevrolet Tracker would be higher. At 2,000 cc (4 cylinders), 2004 Ford Ecosport is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Ford Ecosport (143 HP) has 47 more horse power than 1996 Chevrolet Tracker. (96 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Ford Ecosport should accelerate faster than 1996 Chevrolet Tracker.
Both vehicles are four wheel drive (4WD) - it offers better handling, traction, and control in all driving conditions compared with front wheel drive or rear 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. 2004 Ford Ecosport has automatic transmission and 1996 Chevrolet Tracker has manual transmission. 1996 Chevrolet Tracker will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2004 Ford Ecosport will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
1996 Chevrolet Tracker | 2004 Ford Ecosport | |
Make | Chevrolet | Ford |
Model | Tracker | Ecosport |
Year Released | 1996 | 2004 |
Body Type | SUV | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1589 cc | 2000 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 96 HP | 143 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | 4WD | 4WD |
Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
Vehicle Length | 3860 mm | 4228 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1980 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1700 mm | 1679 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 2490 mm |