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 2,491 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Chevrolet Tracker is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Chevrolet Tracker weights approximately 79 kg more than 2008 Mazda 6.
Because 2004 Chevrolet Tracker is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2008 Mazda 6. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Chevrolet Tracker will offer significantly more control. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2004 Chevrolet Tracker (221 Nm) has 37 more torque (in Nm) than 2008 Mazda 6. (184 Nm). This means 2004 Chevrolet Tracker will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2008 Mazda 6.
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 | 1999 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 165 HP | 0 HP |
Torque | 221 Nm | 184 Nm |
Engine Bore Size | 84 mm | 87.5 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 75 mm | 83.1 mm |
Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1373 kg | 1294 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4140 mm | 4500 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1690 mm | 1760 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2660 mm | 2680 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 7.8 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 61 L | 64 L |