2003 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 1963 Holden EJ
To start off, 2003 Chevrolet Tracker is newer by 40 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 Holden EJ. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 Holden EJ would be higher. At 2,262 cc (6 cylinders), 1963 Holden EJ is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Chevrolet Tracker (97 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 33 more horse power than 1963 Holden EJ. (64 HP @ 4200 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Chevrolet Tracker should accelerate faster than 1963 Holden EJ.
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, 1963 Holden EJ (163 Nm @ 1400 RPM) has 24 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Chevrolet Tracker. (139 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 1963 Holden EJ will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Chevrolet Tracker.
Compare all specifications:
2003 Chevrolet Tracker | 1963 Holden EJ | |
Make | Chevrolet | Holden |
Model | Tracker | EJ |
Year Released | 2003 | 1963 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1590 cc | 2262 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 97 HP | 64 HP |
Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 4200 RPM |
Torque | 139 Nm | 163 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 1400 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Length | 3860 mm | 4500 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1740 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1700 mm | 1480 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 2680 mm |