1963 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III vs. 1960 Toyota Master RR
To start off, 1963 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1960 Toyota Master RR. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1960 Toyota Master RR would be higher. At 2,912 cc (6 cylinders), 1963 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1963 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III (146 HP) has 106 more horse power than 1960 Toyota Master RR. (40 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1963 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III should accelerate faster than 1960 Toyota Master RR. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1960 Toyota Master RR weights approximately 30 kg more than 1963 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 1963 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III | 1960 Toyota Master RR | |
| Make | Austin-Healey | Toyota |
| Model | 3000 Mk III | Master RR |
| Year Released | 1963 | 1960 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2912 cc | 1453 cc |
| Horse Power | 146 HP | 40 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1180 kg | 1210 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4010 mm | 4280 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1540 mm | 1680 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1250 mm | 1560 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2340 mm | 2540 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 54 L | 75 L |
