2004 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 2008 Mazda 6
To start off, 2008 Mazda 6 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 2,968 cc (6 cylinders), 2008 Mazda 6 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2008 Mazda 6 (212 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 47 more horse power than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker. (165 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2008 Mazda 6 should accelerate faster than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Chevrolet Tracker weights approximately 120 kg more than 2008 Mazda 6.
Let's talk about torque, 2008 Mazda 6 (267 Nm) has 46 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker. (221 Nm). This means 2008 Mazda 6 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Chevrolet Tracker | 2008 Mazda 6 | |
Make | Chevrolet | Mazda |
Model | Tracker | 6 |
Year Released | 2004 | 2008 |
Body Type | SUV | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2491 cc | 2968 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 165 HP | 212 HP |
Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 221 Nm | 267 Nm |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1300 kg | 1180 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4140 mm | 4750 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1790 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1670 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2490 mm | 2680 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.7 L/100km | 9.4 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 12.4 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 61 L | 68 L |