2003 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 1982 Zastava 132
To start off, 2003 Chevrolet Tracker is newer by 21 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1982 Zastava 132. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Zastava 132 would be higher. At 1,756 cc (4 cylinders), 1982 Zastava 132 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1982 Zastava 132 (106 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 9 more horse power than 2003 Chevrolet Tracker. (97 HP @ 5200 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1982 Zastava 132 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, 1982 Zastava 132 (142 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 3 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Chevrolet Tracker. (139 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 1982 Zastava 132 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Chevrolet Tracker.
Compare all specifications:
2003 Chevrolet Tracker | 1982 Zastava 132 | |
Make | Chevrolet | Zastava |
Model | Tracker | 132 |
Year Released | 2003 | 1982 |
Engine Size | 1590 cc | 1756 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 97 HP | 106 HP |
Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 139 Nm | 142 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Vehicle Length | 3860 mm | 4410 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1650 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1700 mm | 1430 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 2560 mm |