2003 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 1965 Ford Zodiac
To start off, 2003 Chevrolet Tracker is newer by 38 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1965 Ford Zodiac. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1965 Ford Zodiac would be higher. At 2,553 cc (6 cylinders), 1965 Ford Zodiac is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1965 Ford Zodiac (108 HP @ 4750 RPM) has 11 more horse power than 2003 Chevrolet Tracker. (97 HP @ 5200 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1965 Ford Zodiac should accelerate faster than 2003 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, 1965 Ford Zodiac (190 Nm @ 2900 RPM) has 51 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Chevrolet Tracker. (139 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 1965 Ford Zodiac will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Chevrolet Tracker.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 Chevrolet Tracker | 1965 Ford Zodiac | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Ford |
| Model | Tracker | Zodiac |
| Year Released | 2003 | 1965 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1590 cc | 2553 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 97 HP | 108 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 4750 RPM |
| Torque | 139 Nm | 190 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 2900 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 3860 mm | 4650 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1770 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1700 mm | 1450 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 2780 mm |
