2000 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 1980 Mercury Cougar
To start off, 2000 Chevrolet Tracker is newer by 20 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1980 Mercury Cougar. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1980 Mercury Cougar would be higher. At 4,184 cc (8 cylinders), 1980 Mercury Cougar is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1980 Mercury Cougar (116 HP @ 3400 RPM) has 19 more horse power than 2000 Chevrolet Tracker. (97 HP @ 5200 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1980 Mercury Cougar should accelerate faster than 2000 Chevrolet Tracker.
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, 1980 Mercury Cougar (264 Nm @ 2200 RPM) has 125 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Chevrolet Tracker. (139 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 1980 Mercury Cougar will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Chevrolet Tracker.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Chevrolet Tracker | 1980 Mercury Cougar | |
Make | Chevrolet | Mercury |
Model | Tracker | Cougar |
Year Released | 2000 | 1980 |
Body Type | SUV | Coupe |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1590 cc | 4184 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 97 HP | 116 HP |
Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 3400 RPM |
Torque | 139 Nm | 264 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 2200 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Length | 4140 mm | 4960 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1810 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1690 mm | 1370 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 2690 mm |