2003 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 2011 Volvo C30
To start off, 2011 Volvo C30 is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 Chevrolet Tracker. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 Chevrolet Tracker would be higher.
Because 2003 Chevrolet Tracker is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2003 Chevrolet Tracker. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2011 Volvo C30, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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, 2011 Volvo C30 (350 Nm) has 211 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Chevrolet Tracker. (139 Nm). This means 2011 Volvo C30 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Chevrolet Tracker.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 Chevrolet Tracker | 2011 Volvo C30 | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Volvo |
| Model | Tracker | C30 |
| Year Released | 2003 | 2011 |
| Body Type | SUV | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 97 HP | 0 HP |
| Torque | 139 Nm | 350 Nm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | 6-speed manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 3860 mm | 4252 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1783 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1700 mm | 1448 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 2639 mm |
