2004 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 2009 Mazda 5
To start off, 2009 Mazda 5 is newer by 5 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 11 more horse power than 2009 Mazda 5. (154 HP @ 6500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2004 Chevrolet Tracker should accelerate faster than 2009 Mazda 5.
Let's talk about torque, 2004 Chevrolet Tracker (221 Nm) has 20 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda 5. (201 Nm). This means 2004 Chevrolet Tracker will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda 5.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Chevrolet Tracker | 2009 Mazda 5 | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Mazda |
| Model | Tracker | 5 |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2009 |
| Body Type | SUV | Minivan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2491 cc | 2260 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 165 HP | 154 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 6500 RPM |
| Torque | 221 Nm | 201 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 84 mm | 87.5 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 75 mm | 94 mm |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 6 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4140 mm | 4620 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1760 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1670 mm | 1640 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2490 mm | 2760 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.7 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 12.4 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 9.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 61 L | 60 L |
