2004 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 2000 Land Rover Range Rover
To start off, 2004 Chevrolet Tracker is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Land Rover Range Rover. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Land Rover Range Rover would be higher. At 3,946 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 Land Rover Range Rover is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Land Rover Range Rover (187 HP @ 4750 RPM) has 22 more horse power than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker. (165 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2000 Land Rover Range Rover should accelerate faster than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Land Rover Range Rover weights approximately 790 kg more than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2000 Land Rover Range Rover (321 Nm) has 100 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker. (221 Nm). This means 2000 Land Rover Range Rover will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Chevrolet Tracker | 2000 Land Rover Range Rover | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Land Rover |
| Model | Tracker | Range Rover |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2000 |
| Body Type | SUV | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2491 cc | 3946 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 165 HP | 187 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 4750 RPM |
| Torque | 221 Nm | 321 Nm |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1300 kg | 2090 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4140 mm | 4720 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1900 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1670 mm | 1820 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2490 mm | 2750 mm |
