2005 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 2004 Land Rover Range Rover
To start off, 2005 Chevrolet Tracker is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Land Rover Range Rover. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Land Rover Range Rover would be higher. At 4,392 cc (8 cylinders), 2004 Land Rover Range Rover is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Land Rover Range Rover (282 HP) has 184 more horse power than 2005 Chevrolet Tracker. (98 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Land Rover Range Rover should accelerate faster than 2005 Chevrolet Tracker.
Because 2004 Land Rover Range Rover is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2005 Chevrolet Tracker. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Land Rover Range Rover 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 Land Rover Range Rover (441 Nm) has 302 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Chevrolet Tracker. (139 Nm). This means 2004 Land Rover Range Rover will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Chevrolet Tracker.
Compare all specifications:
2005 Chevrolet Tracker | 2004 Land Rover Range Rover | |
Make | Chevrolet | Land Rover |
Model | Tracker | Range Rover |
Year Released | 2005 | 2004 |
Body Type | SUV | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1590 cc | 4392 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 98 HP | 282 HP |
Torque | 139 Nm | 441 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 3860 mm | 4960 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1930 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1700 mm | 1870 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 2890 mm |