2000 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 2009 Ford Ecosport
To start off, 2009 Ford Ecosport is newer by 9 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 1,600 cc (4 cylinders), 2009 Ford Ecosport is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Ford Ecosport (109 HP) has 12 more horse power than 2000 Chevrolet Tracker. (97 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Ford Ecosport should accelerate faster than 2000 Chevrolet Tracker.
Because 2000 Chevrolet Tracker is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2000 Chevrolet Tracker. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Ford Ecosport, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Chevrolet Tracker | 2009 Ford Ecosport | |
Make | Chevrolet | Ford |
Model | Tracker | Ecosport |
Year Released | 2000 | 2009 |
Body Type | SUV | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1590 cc | 1600 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 97 HP | 109 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4140 mm | 4228 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1980 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1690 mm | 1679 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 2490 mm |