1964 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III vs. 1965 Cadillac Sixty
To start off, 1965 Cadillac Sixty is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1964 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1964 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III would be higher. At 7,029 cc (8 cylinders), 1965 Cadillac Sixty is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1965 Cadillac Sixty (208 HP @ 4600 RPM) has 60 more horse power than 1964 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III. (148 HP @ 5250 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1965 Cadillac Sixty should accelerate faster than 1964 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1965 Cadillac Sixty weights approximately 935 kg more than 1964 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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:
1964 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III | 1965 Cadillac Sixty | |
Make | Austin-Healey | Cadillac |
Model | 3000 Mk III | Sixty |
Year Released | 1964 | 1965 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2912 cc | 7029 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 148 HP | 208 HP |
Engine RPM | 5250 RPM | 4600 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1180 kg | 2115 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4010 mm | 5790 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1540 mm | 1990 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1240 mm | 1370 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2340 mm | 3390 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 54 L | 95 L |