Any chariot is all things considered relatively clumsy. But some were more cumbersome than others, depending on the design. For example the light Late Bronze Age Egyptian war-chariot (and comparable designs) was designed as a platform for an archer, and duly needed to be able to execute relatively tight turns to maintain distance from the enemy. This was achieved by having the axle at the very rear of the cab.

The contemporary heavy Hittite three-man design was conversely designed much more as a shock weapon, and needed to support greater weight but had less need for agility; hence the axle was placed right under the cab, which otherwise worked well enough but left the machine with a rather wide turning radius and a rather high risk of overturning in tight high-speed turns.

The somewhat later Assyrian four-horse four-man design was even bigger and heavier, and by what I know of it little more than an archery platform combined with a linear-attack terror weapon - not all that much different from a tank conceptually, really.

Similarly the later Persian and Diadochi scythed chariots were deigned for frontal assault rather than maneuvering. But the Celts, who made war in regions rife with rather "close" and rugged terrain, had an entirely different approach (which had possibly also became the norm among the Mycenean Greeks just before they collapsed before the Doric onslaught), using the vehicle as an agile platform for an elite warrior to hurl javelins from and to carry him around the battlefield - a "battle taxi" or "jeep" if you will, albeit one whose size and noise also allowed it to be used as an effective shock weapon to break a wavering enemy formation.