1965 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III vs. 2000 Chevrolet Camaro
To start off, 2000 Chevrolet Camaro is newer by 35 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1965 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1965 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III would be higher. At 5,670 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 Chevrolet Camaro is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Chevrolet Camaro weights approximately 360 kg more than 1965 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. Let's talk about torque, 2000 Chevrolet Camaro (468 Nm) has 302 more torque (in Nm) than 1965 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III. (166 Nm). This means 2000 Chevrolet Camaro will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1965 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III.
Compare all specifications:
| 1965 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III | 2000 Chevrolet Camaro | |
| Make | Austin-Healey | Chevrolet |
| Model | 3000 Mk III | Camaro |
| Year Released | 1965 | 2000 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2912 cc | 5670 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 146 HP | 0 HP |
| Torque | 166 Nm | 468 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1180 kg | 1540 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4010 mm | 4910 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1540 mm | 1890 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1250 mm | 1330 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2340 mm | 2570 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 54 L | 57 L |
