Article in HMN: '66 Conv 300HP vs. '66 Austin-Healey 3000

[Mark E.]

The current edition of Hemmings Motor News has an interesting article comparing two 50 year-old convertible sports cars. According to the article, the Vette and Austin-Healy 3000 had roughly the same original price ($3,500-$4,000) and have roughly the same market value today.

The Mosport Green Corvette is a nice example: An unrestored, 80k mile Arizona car sporting its never-rebuilt, original engine and original interior. It's owned by Dave Ochser (is he an NCRS member?). It looks super in the photo spread, even with its orange Fram air filter and green Interstate battery.

The Healey owner also owns a '67 Corvette, and restored both cars himself.

[Michael J.]

Re: Article in HMN: '66 Conv 300HP vs. '66 Austin-Healey 3000

I'll have to read that, I have always wanted an Austin Healy 3000 MarkIII, but prefer the '67 which is a 2+2. But I have always thought the lack of HP and torque in the little engines would be disappointing compared to a Vette.

[Mark E.]

Re: Article in HMN: '66 Conv 300HP vs. '66 Austin-Healey 3000

The '66 A-H is a 2+2 with jumper seats. It's apparently a car for smaller folks- the article says for normal sized adults, legs are squeezed between the seat, steering wheel and window crank. Plus, the driver's line of sight is over the top of the windshield so he "can see bugs coming at me" (quote from article).

According to the article-

A-H: 9.8 sec 0-60; 17.4 sec @ 82 MPH quarter (R&T Feb. '65)
Vette: 6.2 sec 0-60; 14.2 sec @ 97 MPH quarter (extrapolated from C&D April '63 using a 4-speed 300 HP coupe)

[Michael J.]

Re: Article in HMN: '66 Conv 300HP vs. '66 Austin-Healey 3000

OK, thought the '67 was the only one. But, the differences in performance are not as big as I would have thought, but they are big. They driving "comfort", however, looks like a deal killer, I'll stick with C2 and C3s.

[Gary B.]

Re: Article in HMN: '66 Conv 300HP vs. '66 Austin-Healey 3000

I owned a '65 AH 3000 when I was in high school. It had roll-up windows, 2+2 seating, and toggle switch overdrive. Sold it for $1,300 around 1970. One of the most fun cars I've ever owned. Wish I still had it.

Gary

[Patrick H.]

Re: Article in HMN: '66 Conv 300HP vs. '66 Austin-Healey 3000

The '66 A-H is a 2+2 with jumper seats. It's apparently a car for smaller folks- the article says for normal sized adults, legs are squeezed between the seat, steering wheel and window crank. Plus, the driver's line of sight is over the top of the windshield so he "can see bugs coming at me" (quote from article).

I bought a 1959 100-6 BN4 (i.e. 2+2) on November 1st. While I haven't put many miles on it, I have no problem at 6 foot getting in and out or sitting in it. I find it easier than a C1 Corvette, that's for sure. No issues with the windshield, either.

I suspect that some creative writing is occurring in that article.

Patrick

[Michael J.]

Re: Article in HMN: '66 Conv 300HP vs. '66 Austin-Healey 3000

Maybe I should try sitting in one and see for myself. I know a C1 is impossible, like the Baby Birds.

[Duke W.]

Re: Article in HMN: '66 Conv 300HP vs. '66 Austin-Healey 3000

... had a friend who bought a used 3000 when we were in grad school at Wisconsin, circa 1970. The 3.0 liter pushrod six was real torquey, but didn't rev much beyond 4500. It was an ancient undersquare design that I think only had a four-bearing crankshaft. But then the short stroke undersquare 327/300 is wheezing at 5000.

First gear that I recall was non-synchronized was a real stump puller with a huge gap to second. Then the ratio spacing was pretty good. One thing I recall is that the exhaust system was easy to damage because it hung so low and there was only marginal ground clearance. The pipe(s) actually went under the rear axle rather than over.

It was fun to drive, and the overall design is very pleasant.

One of my Air Force ROTC classmates at Washington, bought a new '67 before graduating and heading off to pilot training. I think that was the last model year they were available in the US as the design could not be modified economically to meet the new FMVSS and federal emission standards that went into effect on January 1. 1968, which is also why the Shelby Cobra went out of production.

Maybe some of you guys recall better, but I recall that the early 3-liters had 3 SUs, but like Jaguar the the later ones reverted to two. Dealing with 3 SUs is probably about as bad as dealing with three Holleys.

Duke

[Duke W.]

Re: Article in HMN: '66 Conv 300HP vs. '66 Austin-Healey 3000

The '66 A-H is a 2+2 with jumper seats. It's apparently a car for smaller folks- the article says for normal sized adults, legs are squeezed between the seat, steering wheel and window crank. Plus, the driver's line of sight is over the top of the windshield so he "can see bugs coming at me" (quote from article).

According to the article-

A-H: 9.8 sec 0-60; 17.4 sec @ 82 MPH quarter (R&T Feb. '65)
Vette: 6.2 sec 0-60; 14.2 sec @ 97 MPH quarter (extrapolated from C&D April '63 using a 4-speed 300 HP coupe)

Those are FI times. A 300 HP four-speed is about 8 seconds to 60 with a 16.5 quarter-mile at about 85 MPH. Back in the day Car and Driver published times that were significantly better than the other mags. I think they published 12.8 for a L-78. There's no way it could have run that fast on the OE tires.

Back in the seventies I asked Joe Ruiz of R & T why C and D times were so much faster. Joe said that C and D beat the sh...t out of the cars, but even then their times were about as optimistic as Detroit gross horsepower ratings of the era.

Duke

[Gary C.]

Re: Article in HMN: '66 Conv 300HP vs. '66 Austin-Healey 3000

Having owned a 3000 back in the day, oil is fed to the rocker arm via a banjo fitting on the top of the rocker arm assembly. The bolt that holds the banjo fitting to the rocker arm assembly is somewhat prone to strip and when it does, all oil pressure to the rocker arm assembly is lost. It's not pretty when that happens.

Gary
....

[Paul D.]

Re: Article in HMN: '66 Conv 300HP vs. '66 Austin-Healey 3000

Thanks for pointing out the similarities between the two (original price and current values) as I was not getting it based on the "stats". I'm sure it is a fun little car to drive, but would probably require a little different "mind set" to consider it comparable to almost any Corvette. Chip.

[Michael G.]

Re: Article in HMN: '66 Conv 300HP vs. '66 Austin-Healey 3000

Back in 1968 or so, there was a Healy 3000 running around the Detroit area with a 327 L84 engine and a Jag rear end. When you opened the tiny Healy hood, all you could see was the Rochester plenum...

Man, was it fast, I had a 66 Chevelle SS 396 that was fairly fast; it got annihilated on Woodward by that Healy, the Austin just walked away, like the Chevelle was turned off, beaten sooooooo bad...

[Mark E.]

Re: Article in HMN: '66 Conv 300HP vs. '66 Austin-Healey 3000

Those are FI times. A 300 HP four-speed is about 8 seconds to 60 with a 16.5 quarter-mile at about 85 MPH.
Duke

I thought those 300 HP performance numbers looked a bit optimistic. I don't know if even my stock LS-5 could run low 14s.