2004 Chevrolet Tracker vs 2011 Mazda Tribute
📊 Key Differences
- Fuel economy: 18 MPG vs 32 MPG combined — Mazda Tribute is more efficient
- Annual fuel cost: $3300 vs $1850 — Mazda Tribute saves $ per year
- Fuel type: Regular Gasoline vs Regular Gasoline
| Specification | 2004 Chevrolet Tracker | 2011 Mazda Tribute |
|---|---|---|
| Year | 2004 | 2011 |
| Class | Sport Utility Vehicle - 2WD | Sport Utility Vehicle - 2WD |
| Fuel Type | Regular Gasoline | Regular Gasoline |
| Drive | Rear-Wheel Drive | Front-Wheel Drive |
| Transmission | Automatic 4-spd | Automatic (variable gear ratios) |
| Cylinders | 6 | 4 |
| Displacement (L) | 2.5 | 2.5 |
| City MPG | 17 | 34 |
| Highway MPG | 20 | 30 |
| Combined MPG | 18 | 32 |
| Annual Fuel Cost | $3300 | $1850 |
| CO₂ (g/mile) | 493.72222222222223 | 277.71875 |
🚗 2004 Chevrolet Tracker
Sport Utility Vehicle - 2WD with 18 MPG combined fuel economy. Runs on Regular Gasoline. Rear-Wheel Drive drivetrain.
Full Chevrolet Tracker Profile →🚗 2011 Mazda Tribute
Sport Utility Vehicle - 2WD with 32 MPG combined fuel economy. Runs on Regular Gasoline. Front-Wheel Drive drivetrain.
Full Mazda Tribute Profile →