FR-S/BRZ VS Prelude

[Dr Speed]

I don't think this is a legit question or comparison. Just go drive one of each if your are curious. I was out recently in a 2002 Prelude. I thought it was going to fall apart.

This is like comparing a smart phone vs a flip phone

[JCE17]

I have owned a 1991 Prelude and a 1997 Prelude. Loved both of those cars (the 97 over the 91) but neither compare to the FR-S. My only regret is selling my 97 and not keeping it as a daily while having my FR-S.

[Jond63]

The Place Beyond the Pines has an awesome Prelude in it. fyi

[Celica00]

Not comparable. Toyota Celica vs Honda Prelude would be a much better comparison. Once it becomes RWD vs FWD, there are too many variables that can't be quantified.

[Pish]

As much as I love driving my car now , I felt faster when driving my 92 prelude !

Although I enjoy carving the mountains up more with the FRS !


But yes , many many factors to take into account ; difficult to compare .

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by Jond63

The Place Beyond the Pines has an awesome Prelude in it. fyi

Really? I don't remember seeing one. What part of the movie was it?

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Celica00

Not comparable. Toyota Celica vs Honda Prelude would be a much better comparison. Once it becomes RWD vs FWD, there are too many variables that can't be quantified.

Once it becomes rwd vs fwd there is only one more variable that you just quantified.

[Celica00]

Originally Posted by fatoni

Once it becomes rwd vs fwd there is only one more variable that you just quantified.

Just one more variable? False. Changes the dynamic of all aspects of driving which equal many variables.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Celica00

Just one more variable? False. Changes the dynamic of all aspects of driving which equal many variables.

haha okay well go ahead and dont compare anything ever because things like weight, power, suspension structure, weight distribution, engine layout, materials, etc. also change dynamics. im not naive enough to think the drivetrain layout is isolated like that but im also not naive enough to think that any other aspect of a car is an isolated component of the experience.

[DeeezNuuuts83]

There are plenty of legitimate comparisons involving different drivetrains. Pretty much every publication does a "Best compact car under $30,000," and they don't always necessarily include cars that all have the same wheels doing the driving.


That being said, obviously the twins are likely going to be considered "better" than the Prelude, if you compared the two today. The engine output is really close to the point where they're within single digits of each other, but the twins accelerate (slightly) faster and even get (slightly) better gas mileage on top of that. And then there's the dynamics of RWD and being lighter.


But taking things back a step, the Prelude's engine was more of a standout, in my opinion. It wasn't necessarily a technological marvel (at least not any more than any engine south of the B18C5 Type-R), but for people willing to shoehorn it into their car, it was a lot more potent in stock form than the others, especially if you wanted to steer clear of more significant mods like forced induction. I remember Civic hatchbacks cracking into the high-13s just from the swap. I wanted to drop one into my 1995 Accord that I had in high school and college back in the day.


From what I remember, the Prelude did handle pretty well for being FWD (and as heavy as it was), plus its lower end pull was entertaining, especially compared to what was out at the time. It looked sporty, but I never felt it was among the best looking, which kind of hurt it, considering it was asking for about the same money as an ITR. The twins are generally considered great looking.

[Celica00]

Originally Posted by fatoni

haha okay well go ahead and dont compare anything ever because things like weight, power, suspension structure, weight distribution, engine layout, materials, etc. also change dynamics. im not naive enough to think the drivetrain layout is isolated like that but im also not naive enough to think that any other aspect of a car is an isolated component of the experience.

Yes, lets blow the statement out of context. -_- Its like talking to a child. My statement was for the purpose of comparing two entry level sports cars that are FWD e.g. Prelude vs. Celica rather than a car that I believe is miles ahead in just about every way (FRS). I must've struck a nerve w/ you.


I'm done w/ you now. Reply as you will, I've learned over the years you have nothing better to do.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Celica00

Yes, lets blow the statement out of context. -_- Its like talking to a child. My statement was for the purpose of comparing two entry level sports cars that are FWD e.g. Prelude vs. Celica rather than a car that I believe is miles ahead in just about every way (FRS). I must've struck a nerve w/ you.


I'm done w/ you now. Reply as you will, I've learned over the years you have nothing better to do.

Explain to me what context "not comparable" was written in because from what I gather, they can and are being compared.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by Celica00

Yes, lets blow the statement out of context. -_- Its like talking to a child. My statement was for the purpose of comparing two entry level sports cars that are FWD e.g. Prelude vs. Celica rather than a car that I believe is miles ahead in just about every way (FRS). I must've struck a nerve w/ you.


I'm done w/ you now. Reply as you will, I've learned over the years you have nothing better to do.

It's one thing to say "The differences between FWD and RWD are too great for me to compare them" just like many people will never compare a sedan to a truck, that makes sense, especially as an opinion.

Calling all comparisons between RWD and FWD impossible is asinine, especially when we are talking about cars that can seriously make sense for the given application (sporty DD-able coupes).

I'm not even going to touch the statement that the FRS is miles ahead of the Prelude, except in overall cost, dependability (enough blown FA20's to give pause to hard drivers), aftermarket, community knowledge, and parts cost. And dat four-wheel-steering.

And you don't need to quantify every 'variable' on a spreadsheet to do an accurate comparison, not many people analyze suspension geometry before purchasing a car.

[jaorocks1]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

It's one thing to say "The differences between FWD and RWD are too great for me to compare them" just like many people will never compare a sedan to a truck, that makes sense, especially as an opinion.

Calling all comparisons between RWD and FWD impossible is asinine, especially when we are talking about cars that can seriously make sense for the given application (sporty DD-able coupes).

I'm not even going to touch the statement that the FRS is miles ahead of the Prelude, except in overall cost, dependability (enough blown FA20's to give pause to hard drivers), aftermarket, community knowledge, and parts cost. And dat four-wheel-steering.

And you don't need to quantify every 'variable' on a spreadsheet to do an accurate comparison, not many people analyze suspension geometry before purchasing a car.

Basically got it down, also Prelude's have no blind spot lol, at least for me.