2000 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 2004 Ford Mustang
To start off, 2004 Ford Mustang is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Chevrolet Tracker. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Chevrolet Tracker would be higher. At 4,606 cc (8 cylinders), 2004 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Ford Mustang (296 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 199 more horse power than 2000 Chevrolet Tracker. (97 HP @ 5200 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Ford Mustang 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, 2004 Ford Mustang (427 Nm @ 4500 RPM) has 288 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Chevrolet Tracker. (139 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2004 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Chevrolet Tracker.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Chevrolet Tracker | 2004 Ford Mustang | |
Make | Chevrolet | Ford |
Model | Tracker | Mustang |
Year Released | 2000 | 2004 |
Body Type | SUV | Coupe |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1590 cc | 4606 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 3 valves |
Horse Power | 97 HP | 296 HP |
Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 139 Nm | 427 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 4500 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4140 mm | 4770 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1880 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1690 mm | 1390 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 2620 mm |