2000 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 2006 Ford Ranger
To start off, 2006 Ford Ranger is newer by 6 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 2,499 cc (4 cylinders), 2006 Ford Ranger is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Chevrolet Tracker (97 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 11 more horse power than 2006 Ford Ranger. (86 HP @ 4200 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Chevrolet Tracker should accelerate faster than 2006 Ford Ranger.
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, 2006 Ford Ranger (174 Nm @ 2000 RPM) has 35 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Chevrolet Tracker. (139 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2006 Ford Ranger will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Chevrolet Tracker.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Chevrolet Tracker | 2006 Ford Ranger | |
Make | Chevrolet | Ford |
Model | Tracker | Ranger |
Year Released | 2000 | 2006 |
Body Type | SUV | Pickup |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1590 cc | 2499 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 3 valves |
Horse Power | 97 HP | 86 HP |
Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 4200 RPM |
Torque | 139 Nm | 174 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 2000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4140 mm | 4670 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1690 mm | 2120 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 2990 mm |