2000 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 2006 Mazda B2300
To start off, 2006 Mazda B2300 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 2,260 cc, 2006 Mazda B2300 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Mazda B2300 (143 HP @ 5250 RPM) has 46 more horse power than 2000 Chevrolet Tracker. (97 HP @ 5200 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Mazda B2300 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, 2006 Mazda B2300 (209 Nm @ 3750 RPM) has 70 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Chevrolet Tracker. (139 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2006 Mazda B2300 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Chevrolet Tracker.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Chevrolet Tracker | 2006 Mazda B2300 | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Mazda |
| Model | Tracker | B2300 |
| Year Released | 2000 | 2006 |
| Body Type | SUV | Pickup |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1590 cc | 2260 cc |
| Horse Power | 97 HP | 143 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 5250 RPM |
| Torque | 139 Nm | 209 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 3750 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 3 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 4140 mm | 4770 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1770 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1690 mm | 1650 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 2840 mm |
