• Hey Guest!
    British Car Forum has been supporting enthusiasts for over 25 years by providing a great place to share our love for British cars. You can support our efforts by upgrading your membership for less than the dues of most car clubs. There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Upgraded members don't see this banner, nor will you see the Google ads that appear on the site.)
Tips
Tips

TR2/3/3A Driving Comparison between TR3 and AH3000

Share this page

When I was in the domestic car repair business, I attracted all the LBC car owners in the neighborhood (NW lower peninsula, Michigan ((Route 22, for those of you that know)) because I was known for my restored TR6 and love of British cars. We had a beautifully restored BJ8 Healey in the shop because the doors would open going over bumps and RR tracks. After extensive research on the problem, I came across a frame rebuilder in Canada who told me the Healey sub frame was never designed to handle the weight of the 3000 engine and od trans and healeys were sagging before they left the factory. I think Healeys are beautiful, and fun to drive especially because of the almost standard OD trans, but for raw, trouble free, exhilarating excitement, you can't beat a TR3. Sure, the MGA panels and door gaps are perfect, but that 3 main bearing engine is worthless. IMO, all that BMC stuff looked great, but could not hold up the rigors of spirited driving. AS John said, " how many La Mans ? " AND someone else, "out of Hades, but not girley'
 
I have both (1959 Austin-Healey 3000 and 1960 TR3A).
Both are unmodified except for the internal engines. Both are roadsters, true sports cars (no wind-up windows, which I don’t care for).

It would not be fair to compare a TR3 with a sports convertible Healey (BJ7 and BJ8). If you want a sports convertible, get a NA Miata. They look as good, if not better, than either the Healey or TR3. They ride better, have air conditioning, get better gas milage, are more reliable, and cost one third as much.

In my opinion, the TR3 handles better than my Healey 3000, even though the TR3 does not have a front sway bar or a rear pan hard rod.

My Healey, because of what I did during the engine rebuild, has slightly more power than my TR3.
The TR3 gets better gas mileage.

Both are great to drive. The TR3 has more wind hitting the driver (I don’t use those sissy wind wing things.)
The TR3 is easier to work on due to the ease of accessing components in the engine compartment, as well as other areas.
The TR3 frame is stronger than the Healey’s frame.

Oh, the TR3 has one of those fancy glove boxes.

If I had to get rid of one of them, I’d keep my1959 Austin-Healey 3000 for a number of reasons, with probably the overriding reason being, I will have owned it for 46 years in September 2017.
 
doc50 said:
I've had 5 TR3s, and a couple Healeys. One doesn't so much drive a TR3 as aim it!

Thom
1959 TR3
#TS34909L(O)
Click to expand...

True, but only because most have bent vertical links and worn out steering boxes. Straighten the links and set up the box right and it drives as good as any non-power sreering car.
 
Geo Hahn said:
Well, here's one difference. On a recent (unpaved) desert/mountain drive we discovered that the Healey has less ground clearance than the TR:

AH3000%20amp%20TR3_zpsncfhg62b.jpg
Click to expand...

Reminds me of that old T-shirt ... "I'd rather push a Healey than drive a Triumph."
 
Oh my - the owner of the Healey on the flat-bed is also a BCF member. He was the only other one besides me in our travelling group who dared to drive the rugged mountain road that was on offer. He caught an unlucky rock in the very low Healey oil pan. No serious damage but I felt bad following the trail of oil back to the paved road being fairly sure whose trail I was following.
 
RonR said:
I have both (1959 Austin-Healey 3000 and 1960 TR3A).
Both are unmodified except for the internal engines. Both are roadsters, true sports cars (no wind-up windows, which I don’t care for).

It would not be fair to compare a TR3 with a sports convertible Healey (BJ7 and BJ8). If you want a sports convertible, get a NA Miata. They look as good, if not better, than either the Healey or TR3. They ride better, have air conditioning, get better gas milage, are more reliable, and cost one third as much."

I have heard that sentiment expressed before, and have owned and driven plenty of old roadsters (removable top, side curtains) and convertibles (fold down top, roll down windows).

With the top down the experience is the same, you are out in the wind open to the elements. About the only difference is aesthetically you have the fussy fold down top on the rear valence, on some cars this is neat and tidy, think late 60s convertible Spridget (which I personally prefer for both looks and practicality, it has a slightly larger cut out area behind the seats, over the early concertible square arch cars) on some a little fussy (Healey 3000).

If you ever drive with the top up, no comparison, side curtains have to be packed and unpacked, installed, the make noise and leak air and wind.

That said,most of us potter around on sunny weekends in our cars these days, and I have never seen side curtain v. windows that big a distinction for a weekend car. Certainly see more similarity in owning and driving a side curtain MGA and an MGB than I do a roll up window MGB and Miata


"If I had to get rid of one of them, I’d keep my1959 Austin-Healey 3000 for a number of reasons, with probably the overriding reason being, I will have owned it for 46 years in September 2017."

Differing opinions on which car is better and why, but most say they would keep the Healey. Not exactly the comparison requested, but if I had to pick my old Healey 100 warts and all, vs. my fully restored, slightly modified, everything works TR250, in a not easy decision I would still take the Healey.
Click to expand...
 
I've owned and restored both cars . I'm sure that if I were in the business of restoring rotten Austin Healeys I could sell the idea that they were all bad and poorly constructed and therefore needed a replacement chassis as a matter of course. In fact when I worked on them for a living in Southern California I never saw one with a sagging frame or pinched door fitment . To make such a generalization is hogwash.
 
Brinkerhoff said:
I've owned and restored both cars . I'm sure that if I were in the business of restoring rotten Austin Healeys I could sell the idea that they were all bad and poorly constructed and therefore needed a replacement chassis as a matter of course. In fact when I worked on them for a living in Southern California I never saw one with a sagging frame or pinched door fitment . To make such a generalization is hogwash.
Click to expand...


But Kevin, it's around 60 years later now. TR3 frames, unless completely rotted out or crashed, are still holding up. On the other hand, there's a hand full of Healeys in the TC area that are causing a lot of "restorers" a lot of headaches over sagging frames and pinched door fitment. There's a reason you haven't scooped them up at bargain prices. Anyway, I should stop in and see you sometime, just to catch up.
 
Hey Barry ! No doubt a lot of Healeys have been tortured , probably best to stay away from THAT car if you are going to restore it! Yes I've seen those cars of which you speak - sagging from internal corrosion of the main box members which has nothing to do with the original design or gauge of metal but from non existent anti corrosion protection and driving on salty roads. And yes it is bound to compound over time as the rust continues unseen , its a rotten , bloody end for a Healey ! Good news is its completely avoidable , just buy one that has been sitting in a one car garage in the southern California desert and when you restore it , fill the main frame rails with paraffin rust proofing , then drain it out. Thats what I did and now with 85,000 miles on it she still looks pretty good. I do not buy into the theory that all Healey chassis are bad. There are plenty of great Healeys out there still running on the original chassis frame as unsafe as that may sound to some. Stop by and we'll go through my TR3 used parts ! Heck , I'll even give you a free genuine TR3 con rod of your choice as a parting gift! Or how bout if I just say its the shorter white box trailer out back and its not locked , help yourself! Did you get your TR3 back on the road yet ? Kevin
 
I did indeed post the exact same question on the AH Forum. I wanted honest opinions from both sides of the fence. Bottom line to me seems to be there is no wrong choice here. Both cars are magnificent and all you who own them are fortunate indeed. Thank you all for sharing your opinions. BTW, I own 2 first generation Miatas so I've got the wind up window, convertible top, air-conditioning cruise control thing down. I truly enjoy the character and driving experience these cars (TR3 and AH) exhibit.
 
Quote Originally Posted by doc50 "I've had 5 TR3s, and a couple Healeys. One doesn't so much drive a TR3 as aim it!"

Thom
1959 TR3
#TS34909L(O)

"True, but only because most have bent vertical links and worn out steering boxes. Straighten the links and set up the box right and it drives as good as any non-power sreering car."

Completely disagree, CJD. My TR3s have all steered the same and my present one is brand new up front, including alignment.
Maybe it's just me and my 5 TR3s...but I aim them.
 
doc50 said:
Quote Originally Posted by doc50 "I've had 5 TR3s, and a couple Healeys. One doesn't so much drive a TR3 as aim it!"

Thom
1959 TR3
#TS34909L(O)

"True, but only because most have bent vertical links and worn out steering boxes. Straighten the links and set up the box right and it drives as good as any non-power sreering car."

Completely disagree, CJD. My TR3s have all steered the same and my present one is brand new up front, including alignment.
Maybe it's just me and my 5 TR3s...but I aim them.
Click to expand...

If they steer like crap, I bet money your vertical links are bent. I have had the pleasure of going through a stack of 13 vertical links, and every one was bent. Not one or two...EVERY ONE!! I have come to the conclusion that over the decades alignment shops have bent them all trying to correct camber settings.

As soon as the steering rate goes up because of the bent links, the gear wears out in short order trying to overcome the trunnions bind. Then you have a loose, binding steering arrangement that does, indeed, need to be "aimed".

As soon as I get this TR2 back on the road come and see what they should feel like.
 
Thanks, John, I'll do that when we get to TX again. Meanwhile, I'll look into the 'bent vertical links' posit.
Thom
1959 TR3
#TS34909L(O)
 
mastaphixa said:
Well as far comparing the steering goes, the TR3 I have been lucky enough to work on and drive has the rack unit mod done to it so it is VERY precise. Maybe even more so than my Miatas. I've heard the original steering on the TR3 left something to be desired.
Click to expand...

I've heard a properly adjusted (and repaired if necessary) original steering box is fine. Most aren't. I owned a TR-3 years ago, and the steering had a huge dead spot. The Spitfire I now own has incredible steering.
 
Like that Thom. My first ride in a sports car was a hair raiser in an AH. I still bought and love the 3A!

Tinkerman
 
The TR3 steering box is a crude, imprecise device. Mine was no good from the start, right out of the showroom. Unless you're a masochist or trying to garner show points, do yourself a favor and put in rack and pinion like the TR6. My TR6 steers like a new car. My recollection of the early Healey I drove was that its steering wasn't too much better than the TR3. I bought a Twin-Cam MG instead - a much tighter car with great steering, a bit heavy due to the added weight of the engine - but that's another story.
 
Regularly driving both a TR3 and a TR4 I get the difference between cam & peg vs rack & pinion. The TR4 steering is totally different and probably better by most measures - but, to me, the TR3 drives great and the steering is very much in keeping with the character of the car.

Clearly this is an 'eye of the beholder' (or perhaps it is the 'butt of the beholder'?) issue as a stock TR3 is (in many ways) not for everyone.
 
Thought I'd give my recollections of the TR3's steering, even though it's been 48 years since I sold mine. It was a 6 year old '61 I bought used with 36,000 miles. I owned it three years putting 26,000 miles on it. I remember its steering to be quite precise (on bias ply tires) but compared to a friend's like new TR4A on Michelins, the effort was higher (but not objectionably so) and it didn't so automatically return to center after a 90° turn. Then, if I compare it to the family's no feel but super quick '63 Plymouth's power steering, or the '64 Buick Skylark's slower but still without road feel power steering, the TR3's steering was clearly superior in just about every way. Must admit though that when I replaced the TR3 with a low mileage (26,000) TR4A, I really enjoyed the difference.
As far as AH3000's, no one in my group had the $$$'s, so no driving comparisons....Back then you'd obediently wait till the E-type or 3000 driver waved or flashed their lights to you before you responded in kind.

 
Back
Top