1962 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk II vs. 2003 Ford Ecosport
To start off, 2003 Ford Ecosport is newer by 41 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk II. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk II would be higher. At 2,912 cc (6 cylinders), 1962 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk II is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Ford Ecosport (143 HP) has 14 more horse power than 1962 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk II. (129 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Ford Ecosport should accelerate faster than 1962 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk II.
Because 2003 Ford Ecosport is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1962 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk II. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 Ford Ecosport 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. 2003 Ford Ecosport has automatic transmission and 1962 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk II has manual transmission. 1962 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk II will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2003 Ford Ecosport will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
1962 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk II | 2003 Ford Ecosport | |
Make | Austin-Healey | Ford |
Model | 3000 Mk II | Ecosport |
Year Released | 1962 | 2003 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2912 cc | 2000 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 129 HP | 143 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4010 mm | 4228 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1540 mm | 1980 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1380 mm | 1679 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2340 mm | 2490 mm |