1966 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III vs. 1983 Chevrolet Camaro
To start off, 1983 Chevrolet Camaro is newer by 17 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 57 more horse power than 1983 Chevrolet Camaro. (89 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1966 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III should accelerate faster than 1983 Chevrolet Camaro.
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, 1983 Chevrolet Camaro (179 Nm @ 2800 RPM) has 14 more torque (in Nm) than 1966 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III. (165 Nm @ 3500 RPM). This means 1983 Chevrolet Camaro will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1966 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III.
Compare all specifications:
1966 Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III | 1983 Chevrolet Camaro | |
Make | Austin-Healey | Chevrolet |
Model | 3000 Mk III | Camaro |
Year Released | 1966 | 1983 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2912 cc | 2473 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 146 HP | 89 HP |
Engine RPM | 5250 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Torque | 165 Nm | 179 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3500 RPM | 2800 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4010 mm | 4880 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1540 mm | 1860 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2340 mm | 2580 mm |