2003 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 1976 Mazda Cosmo
To start off, 2003 Chevrolet Tracker is newer by 27 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1976 Mazda Cosmo. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1976 Mazda Cosmo would be higher. At 1,769 cc (4 cylinders), 1976 Mazda Cosmo is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Chevrolet Tracker (97 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 4 more horse power than 1976 Mazda Cosmo. (93 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Chevrolet Tracker should accelerate faster than 1976 Mazda Cosmo.
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, 1976 Mazda Cosmo (150 Nm @ 3300 RPM) has 11 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Chevrolet Tracker. (139 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 1976 Mazda Cosmo will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Chevrolet Tracker.
Compare all specifications:
2003 Chevrolet Tracker | 1976 Mazda Cosmo | |
Make | Chevrolet | Mazda |
Model | Tracker | Cosmo |
Year Released | 2003 | 1976 |
Body Type | SUV | Coupe |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1590 cc | 1769 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 97 HP | 93 HP |
Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 5500 RPM |
Torque | 139 Nm | 150 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 3300 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
Vehicle Length | 3860 mm | 4480 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1690 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1700 mm | 1340 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 2520 mm |