1962 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk II vs. 2010 Holden Barina
To start off, 2010 Holden Barina is newer by 48 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.
Because 1962 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk II is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 1962 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk II. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Holden Barina, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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, 2010 Holden Barina (197 Nm @ 3600 RPM) has 30 more torque (in Nm) than 1962 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk II. (167 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2010 Holden Barina will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1962 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk II.
Compare all specifications:
1962 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk II | 2010 Holden Barina | |
Make | Austin-Healey | Holden |
Model | 3000 Mk II | Barina |
Year Released | 1962 | 2010 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2912 cc | 1598 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 129 HP | 0 HP |
Torque | 167 Nm | 197 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 3600 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 9.0:1 | 9.5:1 |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Vehicle Width | 1540 mm | 1650 mm |