2000 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 2005 Ford Econovan
To start off, 2005 Ford Econovan is newer by 5 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 1,788 cc (4 cylinders), 2005 Ford Econovan is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Chevrolet Tracker (97 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 7 more horse power than 2005 Ford Econovan. (90 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Chevrolet Tracker should accelerate faster than 2005 Ford Econovan.
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 1 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Ford Econovan. (138 Nm @ 2500 RPM). This means 2000 Chevrolet Tracker will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Ford Econovan.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Chevrolet Tracker | 2005 Ford Econovan | |
Make | Chevrolet | Ford |
Model | Tracker | Econovan |
Year Released | 2000 | 2005 |
Body Type | SUV | Van |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1590 cc | 1788 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 97 HP | 90 HP |
Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 5500 RPM |
Torque | 139 Nm | 138 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 2500 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4140 mm | 4290 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1640 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1690 mm | 1870 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 2210 mm |