2000 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 1976 Chrysler 1609
To start off, 2000 Chevrolet Tracker is newer by 24 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1976 Chrysler 1609. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1976 Chrysler 1609 would be higher. At 1,918 cc (4 cylinders), 1976 Chrysler 1609 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Chevrolet Tracker (97 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 38 more horse power than 1976 Chrysler 1609. (59 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Chevrolet Tracker should accelerate faster than 1976 Chrysler 1609.
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, 2000 Chevrolet Tracker (139 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 13 more torque (in Nm) than 1976 Chrysler 1609. (126 Nm @ 2100 RPM). This means 2000 Chevrolet Tracker will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1976 Chrysler 1609.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Chevrolet Tracker | 1976 Chrysler 1609 | |
Make | Chevrolet | Chrysler |
Model | Tracker | 1609 |
Year Released | 2000 | 1976 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1590 cc | 1918 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 97 HP | 59 HP |
Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Torque | 139 Nm | 126 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 2100 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4140 mm | 4530 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1740 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1690 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 2670 mm |