1965 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III vs. 2006 Mazda 3
To start off, 2006 Mazda 3 is newer by 41 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 2,912 cc (6 cylinders), 1965 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2006 Mazda 3 weights approximately 60 kg more than 1965 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III.
Because 1965 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III 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 1965 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Mazda 3, 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 1965 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III | 2006 Mazda 3 | |
| Make | Austin-Healey | Mazda |
| Model | 3000 Mk III | 3 |
| Year Released | 1965 | 2006 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2912 cc | 1598 cc |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 146 HP | 0 HP |
| Engine Bore Size | 83.4 mm | 78 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 88.9 mm | 83.6 mm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1180 kg | 1240 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4010 mm | 4500 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1540 mm | 1760 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1250 mm | 1470 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2340 mm | 2650 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 54 L | 55 L |
