2000 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 1955 Triumph TR3
To start off, 2000 Chevrolet Tracker is newer by 45 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1955 Triumph TR3. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1955 Triumph TR3 would be higher. At 1,991 cc (4 cylinders), 1955 Triumph TR3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Chevrolet Tracker (97 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 3 more horse power than 1955 Triumph TR3. (94 HP @ 5000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Chevrolet Tracker should accelerate faster than 1955 Triumph TR3.
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, 1955 Triumph TR3 (160 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 21 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Chevrolet Tracker. (139 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 1955 Triumph TR3 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Chevrolet Tracker.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Chevrolet Tracker | 1955 Triumph TR3 | |
Make | Chevrolet | Triumph |
Model | Tracker | TR3 |
Year Released | 2000 | 1955 |
Body Type | SUV | Roadster |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1590 cc | 1991 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 97 HP | 94 HP |
Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 5000 RPM |
Torque | 139 Nm | 160 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4140 mm | 3840 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1420 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1690 mm | 1280 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 2240 mm |