1966 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III vs. 1972 Mitsubishi Colt

To start off, 1972 Mitsubishi Colt is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III would be higher. At 2,912 cc (6 cylinders), 1966 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1966 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III (146 HP @ 5250 RPM) has 74 more horse power than 1972 Mitsubishi Colt. (72 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1966 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III should accelerate faster than 1972 Mitsubishi Colt. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1966 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III weights approximately 270 kg more than 1972 Mitsubishi Colt. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.

Because 1966 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 1966 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1972 Mitsubishi Colt, 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, 1966 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III (165 Nm @ 3500 RPM) has 45 more torque (in Nm) than 1972 Mitsubishi Colt. (120 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 1966 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1972 Mitsubishi Colt.

Compare all specifications: