2000 BMW 316 vs. 2004 Chevrolet Tracker
To start off, 2004 Chevrolet Tracker is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 BMW 316. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 BMW 316 would be higher. At 2,491 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Chevrolet Tracker is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Chevrolet Tracker (165 HP @ 5600 RPM) has 52 more horse power than 2000 BMW 316. (113 HP @ 5500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Chevrolet Tracker should accelerate faster than 2000 BMW 316. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 BMW 316 weights approximately 98 kg more than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker.
Let's talk about torque, 2004 Chevrolet Tracker (221 Nm) has 46 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 BMW 316. (175 Nm). This means 2004 Chevrolet Tracker will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 BMW 316.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 BMW 316 | 2004 Chevrolet Tracker | |
| Make | BMW | Chevrolet |
| Model | 316 | Tracker |
| Year Released | 2000 | 2004 |
| Body Type | Hatchback | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1796 cc | 2491 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 113 HP | 165 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5500 RPM | 5600 RPM |
| Torque | 175 Nm | 221 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 84 mm | 84 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 81 mm | 75 mm |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 3 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1398 kg | 1300 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4270 mm | 4140 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1720 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1410 mm | 1670 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2730 mm | 2490 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 6 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 10.4 L/100km | 12.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 7.6 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 63 L | 61 L |
