2000 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 1998 MCC Smart & Pulse City Coupe
To start off, 2000 Chevrolet Tracker is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1998 MCC Smart & Pulse City Coupe. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1998 MCC Smart & Pulse City Coupe would be higher. At 1,590 cc (4 cylinders), 2000 Chevrolet Tracker is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Chevrolet Tracker (97 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 44 more horse power than 1998 MCC Smart & Pulse City Coupe. (53 HP @ 5250 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Chevrolet Tracker should accelerate faster than 1998 MCC Smart & Pulse City Coupe.
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 59 more torque (in Nm) than 1998 MCC Smart & Pulse City Coupe. (80 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 2000 Chevrolet Tracker will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1998 MCC Smart & Pulse City Coupe.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Chevrolet Tracker | 1998 MCC Smart & Pulse City Coupe | |
Make | Chevrolet | MCC |
Model | Tracker | Smart & Pulse City Coupe |
Year Released | 2000 | 1998 |
Engine Position | Front | Rear |
Engine Size | 1590 cc | 599 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 97 HP | 53 HP |
Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 5250 RPM |
Torque | 139 Nm | 80 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 2000 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4140 mm | 2510 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1520 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1690 mm | 1560 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 1820 mm |