2003 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 1996 Ford Ranger
To start off, 2003 Chevrolet Tracker is newer by 7 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Ford Ranger. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Ford Ranger would be higher. At 2,507 cc (4 cylinders), 1996 Ford Ranger is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 Ford Ranger (118 HP @ 5000 RPM) has 21 more horse power than 2003 Chevrolet Tracker. (97 HP @ 5200 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1996 Ford Ranger 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, 1996 Ford Ranger (198 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 59 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Chevrolet Tracker. (139 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 1996 Ford Ranger will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Chevrolet Tracker.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 Chevrolet Tracker | 1996 Ford Ranger | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Ford |
| Model | Tracker | Ranger |
| Year Released | 2003 | 1996 |
| Body Type | SUV | Pickup |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1590 cc | 2507 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 97 HP | 118 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 5000 RPM |
| Torque | 139 Nm | 198 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 3000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 3860 mm | 4770 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1770 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1700 mm | 1650 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 2840 mm |
