2004 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 2006 Mazda 3
To start off, 2006 Mazda 3 is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Chevrolet Tracker. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Chevrolet Tracker 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 57 more horse power than 2006 Mazda 3. (108 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2004 Chevrolet Tracker should accelerate faster than 2006 Mazda 3. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Chevrolet Tracker weights approximately 40 kg more than 2006 Mazda 3. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2006 Mazda 3 (240 Nm) has 19 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker. (221 Nm). This means 2006 Mazda 3 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Chevrolet Tracker | 2006 Mazda 3 | |
Make | Chevrolet | Mazda |
Model | Tracker | 3 |
Year Released | 2004 | 2006 |
Body Type | SUV | Hatchback |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2491 cc | 1558 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 165 HP | 108 HP |
Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Torque | 221 Nm | 240 Nm |
Engine Bore Size | 84 mm | 75 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 75 mm | 88.3 mm |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1300 kg | 1260 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4140 mm | 4430 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1760 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1670 mm | 1470 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2490 mm | 2650 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 5 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 61 L | 55 L |