2004 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 2012 Ford Falcon
To start off, 2012 Ford Falcon is newer by 8 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 3,983 cc (6 cylinders), 2012 Ford Falcon is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Ford Falcon (261 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 96 more horse power than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker. (165 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Ford Falcon should accelerate faster than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2012 Ford Falcon weights approximately 404 kg more than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2012 Ford Falcon (391 Nm) has 170 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker. (221 Nm). This means 2012 Ford Falcon will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Chevrolet Tracker | 2012 Ford Falcon | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Ford |
| Model | Tracker | Falcon |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2012 |
| Body Type | SUV | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2491 cc | 3983 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 165 HP | 261 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 221 Nm | 391 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 84 mm | 92.3 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 75 mm | 99.3 mm |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1300 kg | 1704 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4140 mm | 4955 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1868 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1670 mm | 1453 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2490 mm | 2838 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.7 L/100km | 7.6 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 12.4 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 9.9 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 61 L | 68 L |
