2000 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 2009 Mazda 3
To start off, 2009 Mazda 3 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 1,998 cc, 2009 Mazda 3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Mazda 3 (145 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 48 more horse power than 2000 Chevrolet Tracker. (97 HP @ 5200 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda 3 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 Mazda 3, 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. Let's talk about torque, 2009 Mazda 3 (181 Nm @ 4500 RPM) has 42 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Chevrolet Tracker. (139 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2009 Mazda 3 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Chevrolet Tracker.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Chevrolet Tracker | 2009 Mazda 3 | |
Make | Chevrolet | Mazda |
Model | Tracker | 3 |
Year Released | 2000 | 2009 |
Body Type | SUV | Hatchback |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1590 cc | 1998 cc |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 97 HP | 145 HP |
Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 6500 RPM |
Torque | 139 Nm | 181 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 4500 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4140 mm | 4500 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1760 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1690 mm | 1470 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 2650 mm |