2004 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 2000 Mercedes-Benz E
To start off, 2004 Chevrolet Tracker is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Mercedes-Benz E. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Mercedes-Benz E would be higher. At 2,491 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Chevrolet Tracker is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Chevrolet Tracker (165 HP @ 5600 RPM) has 4 more horse power than 2000 Mercedes-Benz E. (161 HP @ 5300 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2004 Chevrolet Tracker should accelerate faster than 2000 Mercedes-Benz E. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Mercedes-Benz E weights approximately 300 kg more than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker.
Let's talk about torque, 2000 Mercedes-Benz E (230 Nm) has 9 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker. (221 Nm). This means 2000 Mercedes-Benz E will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Chevrolet Tracker | 2000 Mercedes-Benz E | |
Make | Chevrolet | Mercedes-Benz |
Model | Tracker | E |
Year Released | 2004 | 2000 |
Body Type | SUV | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2491 cc | 1998 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 165 HP | 161 HP |
Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 5300 RPM |
Torque | 221 Nm | 230 Nm |
Engine Bore Size | 84 mm | 89.9 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 75 mm | 78.7 mm |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1300 kg | 1600 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4140 mm | 4820 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1810 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1670 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2490 mm | 2970 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.7 L/100km | 6.9 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 12.4 L/100km | 12.4 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 8.9 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 61 L | 70 L |