2002 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 1986 Opel Omega
To start off, 2002 Chevrolet Tracker is newer by 16 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1986 Opel Omega. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1986 Opel Omega would be higher. At 1,795 cc (4 cylinders), 1986 Opel Omega is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1986 Opel Omega (115 HP @ 5600 RPM) has 18 more horse power than 2002 Chevrolet Tracker. (97 HP @ 5200 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1986 Opel Omega should accelerate faster than 2002 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, 1986 Opel Omega (160 Nm @ 4500 RPM) has 21 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 Chevrolet Tracker. (139 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 1986 Opel Omega will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 Chevrolet Tracker.
Compare all specifications:
2002 Chevrolet Tracker | 1986 Opel Omega | |
Make | Chevrolet | Opel |
Model | Tracker | Omega |
Year Released | 2002 | 1986 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1590 cc | 1795 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 97 HP | 115 HP |
Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 5600 RPM |
Torque | 139 Nm | 160 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 4500 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 3860 mm | 4690 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1780 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1700 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 2740 mm |