1967 Austin 3-Litre vs. 1986 Caterham 1700
To start off, 1986 Caterham 1700 is newer by 19 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1967 Austin 3-Litre. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1967 Austin 3-Litre would be higher. At 2,910 cc (6 cylinders), 1967 Austin 3-Litre is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1986 Caterham 1700 (168 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 48 more horse power than 1967 Austin 3-Litre. (120 HP @ 4750 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1986 Caterham 1700 should accelerate faster than 1967 Austin 3-Litre.
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:
| 1967 Austin 3-Litre | 1986 Caterham 1700 | |
| Make | Austin | Caterham |
| Model | 3-Litre | 1700 |
| Year Released | 1967 | 1986 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2910 cc | 1692 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 120 HP | 168 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4750 RPM | 6500 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 8.2:1 | 11.0:1 |
| Top Speed | 161 km/hour | 188 km/hour |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 4720 mm | 3390 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1700 mm | 1590 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1050 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2940 mm | 2260 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 65 L | 36 L |
