2002 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 2010 Mazda BT-50
To start off, 2010 Mazda BT-50 is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2002 Chevrolet Tracker. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2002 Chevrolet Tracker would be higher. At 2,500 cc (4 cylinders), 2010 Mazda BT-50 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Mazda BT-50 (141 HP @ 3500 RPM) has 44 more horse power than 2002 Chevrolet Tracker. (97 HP @ 5200 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Mazda BT-50 should accelerate faster than 2002 Chevrolet Tracker.
Because 2010 Mazda BT-50 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2002 Chevrolet Tracker. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Mazda BT-50 will offer significantly more control. 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, 2010 Mazda BT-50 (330 Nm @ 1800 RPM) has 191 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 Chevrolet Tracker. (139 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2010 Mazda BT-50 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 Chevrolet Tracker.
Compare all specifications:
2002 Chevrolet Tracker | 2010 Mazda BT-50 | |
Make | Chevrolet | Mazda |
Model | Tracker | BT-50 |
Year Released | 2002 | 2010 |
Body Type | SUV | Pickup |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1590 cc | 2500 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 97 HP | 141 HP |
Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 3500 RPM |
Torque | 139 Nm | 330 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 1800 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 3860 mm | 5080 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1810 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1700 mm | 1750 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 3010 mm |