2003 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 1986 Volvo 242
To start off, 2003 Chevrolet Tracker is newer by 17 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1986 Volvo 242. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1986 Volvo 242 would be higher. At 1,986 cc (4 cylinders), 1986 Volvo 242 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, both vehicles can yield 97 horse power. So under normal driving conditions, the acceleration of both vehicles should be relatively similar.
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, 1986 Volvo 242 (157 Nm @ 3200 RPM) has 18 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Chevrolet Tracker. (139 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 1986 Volvo 242 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Chevrolet Tracker.
Compare all specifications:
2003 Chevrolet Tracker | 1986 Volvo 242 | |
Make | Chevrolet | Volvo |
Model | Tracker | 242 |
Year Released | 2003 | 1986 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1590 cc | 1986 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 97 HP | 97 HP |
Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 5400 RPM |
Torque | 139 Nm | 157 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 3200 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Vehicle Length | 3860 mm | 4790 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1730 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1700 mm | 1440 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 2660 mm |