1968 Austin 3-Litre vs. 2010 Ford Ecosport
To start off, 2010 Ford Ecosport is newer by 42 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1968 Austin 3-Litre. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1968 Austin 3-Litre would be higher. At 2,912 cc (6 cylinders), 1968 Austin 3-Litre is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1968 Austin 3-Litre (124 HP) has 57 more horse power than 2010 Ford Ecosport. (67 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1968 Austin 3-Litre should accelerate faster than 2010 Ford Ecosport.
Because 1968 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 1968 Austin 3-Litre. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Ford Ecosport, 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:
| 1968 Austin 3-Litre | 2010 Ford Ecosport | |
| Make | Austin | Ford |
| Model | 3-Litre | Ecosport |
| Year Released | 1968 | 2010 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2912 cc | 1400 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 124 HP | 67 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4720 mm | 4228 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1700 mm | 1980 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1679 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2940 mm | 2490 mm |
