FR-S/BRZ VS Prelude

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by jaorocks1

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

Lets be honest though, the poor vision in a Toyobaru while annoying also means that in a rollover the occupants won't be getting shorter, the Prelude (especially the ones I like [mk3], considering there wasn't a generation specified in the OP) might leave you a bit compressed.

[dustinkessler]

I just sold my 5th gen Prelude...

I'll own another one in the next few years without a doubt.

[echo419]

Originally Posted by WazzuGrad

You must be trolling.

No one actually comes on a FRS/BRZ forum and asks such a question seriously...
And in case you were not aware of this, the twins we not designed with high speed or drag times in mind.

Your comparing a FWD to a RWD.

/thread

neither were 4cycl FWD Hondas

[WazzuGrad]

Originally Posted by echo419

neither were 4cycl FWD Hondas

Fair point. What I meant is that majority of mini-vans nowadays will beat an 86 in a straight line, but its not what it was all designed for.

Out of the Honda brand, the S2k is the only fair comparison to the 86.

[echo419]

Originally Posted by WazzuGrad

Fair point. What I meant is that majority of mini-vans nowadays will beat an 86 in a straight line, but its not what it was all designed for.

Out of the Honda brand, the S2k is the only fair comparison to the 86.

I know what you mean. I was just making a dig at Hondas.

[WolfpackS2k]

The Twins are the better overall performance package, but the bias in this thread is ridiculous. People saying the Prelude "felt like it was going to fall apart"? Gee, I dunno, maybe you shouldn't compare a brand new car against a 15 year old car you drove 2-3rd hand after it was neglected by a previous owner.

I've already stated that the Twins are a better performance car, but I'll list a few things which are superior in the Prelude:

-reliability
-build quality
-engine in everyway (save fuel economy)
-suspension (double wishbone front & rear)
-Gear shifter (it's a honda nuff said)

The Prelude was, according to C&D, the best handling car one could buy for under $30k.

Unfortunately for the Prelude, it's 180 lb heavier than the Twins. And even worse, FWD.

And to whomever said VTEC is only good for fuel economic apparently doesn't know the first thing about Powertrain engineering.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tahdizzle]

I'm going to chime in and say iVTEC, now is more geared to fuel economy compared to the VTEC YO! of yesteryear.

[WolfpackS2k]

You're still oversimplifying. And the reason that happens is because not all VTEC is created equal

In the 90s when VTEC debuted it was employed on the NSX and Integra GS-R (XSi in Japan). What these two cars shared were engines with DOHC design. In those applications it was used to allow for extremely advanced cam timing at high rpms (by changing the cam profile itself with another set of oil pressure actuated lobes) that at low engine speed would be barely driveable. Not much later, VTEC started to show up on Civic and Accord engines (and later Acura engines). VTEC on these engines was tuned for fuel economy, as changes were limited due to the single cam design of these engines. It's easy to know which engines had this type of VTEC because they were all SOHC design. Of course, your average neanderthal Honda fanboi didn't know this and thus thought his Civic LX was awesome because it had VTEC

iVTEC developed this further by offering an continuously variable cam gear, which they called intelligent (hence the i).

Even this post of mine is oversimplifying things, but hopefully it gets the message across

[rice_classic]

Yeah, it's FWD but the Prelude's front suspension is superior to the twins so the front of the Prelude is better at doing work than the front of the twins and it should be too, after all, the front tires of the prelude have 2 jobs to do but still. The 92-96 Prelude is particularly brilliant in the handling department too.

Give them equal weight, equal tires and properly tuned suspension setups for their drive-train layouts along with some decent diffs and you'll be surprised how close the competition is, I guarantee it. In fact, for being both ~200BHP engines, the Prelude may have a power advantage on a long track due to fewer ponies lost in the drive-train.

But to say things like, "it's not even close" is myopic at best. It's definitely close.

[echo419]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

Yeah, it's FWD but the Prelude's front suspension is superior to the twins so the front of the Prelude is better at doing work than the front of the twins and it should be too, after all, the front tires of the prelude have 2 jobs to do but still. The 92-96 Prelude is particularly brilliant in the handling department too.

Give them equal weight, equal tires and properly tuned suspension setups for their drive-train layouts along with some decent diffs and you'll be surprised how close the competition is, I guarantee it. In fact, for being both ~200BHP engines, the Prelude may have a power advantage on a long track due to fewer ponies lost in the drive-train.

But to say things like, "it's not even close" is myopic at best. It's definitely close.

you're forgetting one key factor in regards to the Prelude good sir....

[GTSRolla34]

The overall specs on the '92-'96 prelude are pretty close to those of the twins as far as size, weight and wheelbase are concerned. My brother's '92 Si lude has an H23 Bluetop and that makes my BRZ look like it's moving in slow motion. The prelude handles very well too. It's a very stable platform. A very good comparison with the twins. Discounting them because they are front wheel drive is a bit much, and regardless of how old their engine technology is, they still have a relevant impact on honda tuning today.

Prelude (92-96)

Wheelbase 2,550 mm (100.4 in)
Length 4,440 mm (174.8 in)
Width 1,765 mm (69.5 in)
Height 1,290 mm (50.8 in)
Curb weight 1,288 kg (2,840 lb)

86/FRS/BRZ

Wheelbase 2,570 mm (101.2 in)
Length 4,240 mm (166.9 in)
4,234 mm (166.7 in) (Subaru BRZ)
Width 1,775 mm (69.9 in)
Height 1,285 mm (50.6 in)
Curb weight 1,190–1,298 kg (2,624–2,862 lb) (Toyota 86)
1,251–1,273 kg (2,758–2,806 lb) (Scion FR-S)

[jaorocks1]

Originally Posted by GTSRolla34

The overall specs on the '92-'96 prelude are pretty close to those of the twins as far as size, weight and wheelbase are concerned. My brother's '92 Si lude has an H23 Bluetop and that makes my BRZ look like it's moving in slow motion. The prelude handles very well too. It's a very stable platform. A very good comparison with the twins. Discounting them because they are front wheel drive is a bit much, and regardless of how old their engine technology is, they still have a relevant impact on honda tuning today.

Prelude (92-96)

Wheelbase 2,550 mm (100.4 in)
Length 4,440 mm (174.8 in)
Width 1,765 mm (69.5 in)
Height 1,290 mm (50.8 in)
Curb weight 1,288 kg (2,840 lb)

86/FRS/BRZ

Wheelbase 2,570 mm (101.2 in)
Length 4,240 mm (166.9 in)
4,234 mm (166.7 in) (Subaru BRZ)
Width 1,775 mm (69.9 in)
Height 1,285 mm (50.6 in)
Curb weight 1,190–1,298 kg (2,624–2,862 lb) (Toyota 86)
1,251–1,273 kg (2,758–2,806 lb) (Scion FR-S)

The 4th gen Prelude..... idk wth it is about this car that makes it so appealing for me. It looks plain, so inexpensive, oil leaks everywhere, the best part of having the car was that I didnt have to care about it all the time... I got my 92 Prelude for $2000 super fun toy just let your anger out lol no matter how you treat it it'll still be there waiting for you to do it again...

[BRZoomTX]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

The Twins are the better overall performance package, but the bias in this thread is ridiculous. People saying the Prelude "felt like it was going to fall apart"? Gee, I dunno, maybe you shouldn't compare a brand new car against a 15 year old car you drove 2-3rd hand after it was neglected by a previous owner.

I've already stated that the Twins are a better performance car, but I'll list a few things which are superior in the Prelude:

-reliability
-build quality
-engine in everyway (save fuel economy)
-suspension (double wishbone front & rear)
-Gear shifter (it's a honda nuff said)

The Prelude was, according to C&D, the best handling car one could buy for under $30k.

Unfortunately for the Prelude, it's 180 lb heavier than the Twins. And even worse, FWD.

And to whomever said VTEC is only good for fuel economic apparently doesn't know the first thing about Powertrain engineering.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reliability is good with the Prelude pre-100k miles. Beyond that, everything and I mean absolutely everything starts failing on them. My SO makes a living off of buying and selling these cars, parting them out, etc because of so many parts failures for the people who try and maintain them. Let us not even get in to the horrible automatic transmission issues. :/

Definitely not "reliable" in the long run. If you were an original owner and had one up through 100k miles then maybe I can see it. The current state of the cars now, there are other 20 year old cars which have lasted the test of time far better than Preludes. That is coming from an ex-prelude owner with a girlfriend who is addicted to them.


I can back up @rice_classic however. Performance out of them while they are running good is on par with the twins, which has 20 years of research and development on top of the Prelude. Once could say even better in straight lines with V-TEC.

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by [Ron]

Reliability is good with the Prelude pre-100k miles. Beyond that, everything and I mean absolutely everything starts failing on them. My SO makes a living off of buying and selling these cars, parting them out, etc because of so many parts failures for the people who try and maintain them. Let us not even get in to the horrible automatic transmission issues. :/

Definitely not "reliable" in the long run. If you were an original owner and had one up through 100k miles then maybe I can see it. The current state of the cars now, there are other 20 year old cars which have lasted the test of time far better than Preludes. That is coming from an ex-prelude owner with a girlfriend who is addicted to them.

A lot of the reliability is particular to the owners and the Vtec models are/were abused more.

I was the 3rd owner of a 1996 Si (non vtec 2.3L) and when I traded it in, it had 205k on it and I even put it on the track at 190k. I put 60k on it from when I bought it and the only thing I needed to do was the timing belt and water pump. The previous owner did the same with also a clutch. All electronics, A/C, sunroof, cruise.. all worked. Also mine was a 5sp for obvious reasons.

Now that's not to say I wasn't the exception that proves that rule but you are the first person who I've ever seen claim the preludes are garbage after 100k. But I've only owned one so I will just have to stroke my proverbial chin beard and say, "hmmm, that's interesting."

I think the 92-96 Vtec models probably have the performance advantage over the 97+ models.