2004 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 2008 Jeep Wrangler
To start off, 2008 Jeep Wrangler is newer by 4 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 3,960 cc (6 cylinders), 2008 Jeep Wrangler is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2008 Jeep Wrangler weights approximately 270 kg more than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker.
Let's talk about torque, 2008 Jeep Wrangler (297 Nm) has 76 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker. (221 Nm). This means 2008 Jeep Wrangler will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Chevrolet Tracker | 2008 Jeep Wrangler | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Jeep |
| Model | Tracker | Wrangler |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2008 |
| Body Type | SUV | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2491 cc | 3960 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 165 HP | 0 HP |
| Torque | 221 Nm | 297 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 84 mm | 98.5 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 75 mm | 86.7 mm |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1300 kg | 1570 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4140 mm | 4500 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1670 mm | 1790 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2490 mm | 2380 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 61 L | 72 L |
