1967 Austin 3-Litre vs. 2006 Mazda CX-7

To start off, 2006 Mazda CX-7 is newer by 39 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, 2006 Mazda CX-7 (244 HP @ 5000 RPM) has 124 more horse power than 1967 Austin 3-Litre. (120 HP @ 4750 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Mazda CX-7 should accelerate faster than 1967 Austin 3-Litre.

Because 1967 Austin 3-Litre 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 1967 Austin 3-Litre. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Mazda CX-7, 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, 2006 Mazda CX-7 (350 Nm @ 2500 RPM) has 129 more torque (in Nm) than 1967 Austin 3-Litre. (221 Nm @ 2700 RPM). This means 2006 Mazda CX-7 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1967 Austin 3-Litre. 2006 Mazda CX-7 has automatic transmission and 1967 Austin 3-Litre has manual transmission. 1967 Austin 3-Litre will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2006 Mazda CX-7 will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.

Compare all specifications: