prelude vs. evo VIII

my friends were agruing the other day about what car would win in a 1/4 mile race .... a stock 03 evo VIII or an 01 prelude w/ a stage one turbo kit .... and also how much HP gain do you normally get from a stage one kit?

Originally posted by voclom21285
my friends were agruing the other day about what car would win in a 1/4 mile race .... a stock 03 evo VIII or an 01 prelude w/ a stage one turbo kit .... and also how much HP gain do you normally get from a stage one kit?


stage 1 means nothing....each company calls that its basic kits and it can mean anything.....upgrades on that kit become then stage 2 stage 3....etc.....

The Evo 8 would win for any stage 1 turbo kit for the Prelude. The all wheel drive platform gives it a .5 second headstart at the tree. both cars would be putting similar power to the crank.

unless the prelude had one hell of a so called "stage one"

the evo would win. and pretty easily at that.

why don't you ask around in the prelude forum, to find out what turbo'd 5th gen ludes are running?
then ask here...
or ask in the street racing forum...

"Stage 1 Turbo" lol, Grand Turismo fan? Like neu said, Stage 1 means nothing, what kind of turbo? it all depends.
(i would put my money on the Lancer, hardcore)

AWD helps for the launch, but takes away from the high end because of weight and rivetrain power loss.
I would bet on the prelude because the stock evo in the US is crappy. in Japan it is the shit however.

whaaaaat, the evo eight has 271 (or somthing) Hp stock, and the 4G63T is a great engine, I think thats a hell of a car.

are you serious?
the stock evo here is a 13 second car already, if not into the 12's with a good driver.

a stage 1 turbo on an 01 prelude would get you over 200whp, but not much more. the lude weighs about the same as an evo. with less whp. and fwd only.

the evo is going to win. it's not easy to get a 5th gen prelude into the low 13's, let alone 12's. you'll have to build internals, as the h22 doesn't do well with boost.

the stock evo in the states differs only in it's seating (wider for our fat asses), it's transmission (5 instead of 6 gears, which isn't an issue), and in the lack of controllable differentials...

but that's it. same power.
yep. it's crap.

well, the Evo 8 weighs 3100 lbs.
The prelude weighed 2800lbs.
the prelude had 200hp stock.
a turbo would probably give them equal power.
Also, due to vehicles having to pass california emissions, the Japanese version was quicker due to 1. more power
2. like you said, a differnt gearbox.
and saying the Evo is crappy is my opinion, and doesn't mean a damn thing. I happen tolike the prelude more. I'd say it's a tie in a race now that I think about it.

prelude doesn't weigh 2800 lbs. much closer to 3100.

do you know much about them?

the 3rd gens were 2750lbs. (88-91)
the 5th gens (97-01) are about 2900 or more. far more than 2800 lbs, and much closer to the evo's weight.

a turbo doesn't give them equal power. i know this for a fact.
the evo puts 230-240 to the wheels. the prelude, stock, puts 160-170 to the wheels.

a turbo on a prelude will get you to about the same power, if you're lucky. then you've got to deal with driving only 2 wheels, and they're the front wheels. compared to all 4.
like i said, a 5th gen with a low boost setup (stage 1, if you will) is not going to break under the 14's, let alone down to the low 13's to run with an evo. it's a fact.
sorry.

spend a little time in the prelude forum here, or go to www.preludepower.com to read about them, or www.superhonda.com/forum for some times...

then come back and tell me that they're even.

well, I've never driven an EVO, And I borrow my sisters 99 Prelude quite oftem when my car is being upgraded, but from a purely objective standpoint, equal power with less weight would seem to yeild lower, or at least similar times from most racing that I've seen.
It is a proven fact that the AWD will yeild a better launch, but hurt top end performance, compared to 2wd. Granted, FWD is not as nice as RWD for drag racing, but the parasitic loss is roughly 5% more than RWD while AWD is Roughly 10% more.
The 5th Gen weighed from 2850 to 3000, depending on options, while the Evo is 3100 minimum, and goes up when you add features.
250lbs might not seem like a lot, bot it makes a difference. and 70 HP is not unreasonable for a turbo, which would give them equal power.

back to my point.

find me a prelude with a turbo that's running low 13's. with a "stage 1" turbo.

top 10 fastest ludes on superhonda (http://www.superhonda.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=112226)

that's the list of the top cars on their site... and turbo'd, it's hard to find one that's going to be as fast as an evo. let alone a mildly modded evo.

on the stock turbo, an evo can run mid 11's. stock motor. stock turbo. find me a lude that can run 11's with a turbo on a stock motor. not gonna happen.
it's just not.

back to my point. a 5th gen, at 2900 lbs, with 220whp, is not going to be as fast as the evo, with 3100lbs and 230whp. it's not gonna happen. and it's documented that it won't.

not sure what else you need. the lude feels fast, but fwd sucks for drag racing compared to the evo's awd.

Mid 11's on a stock turbo seems a bit far fetched, unless there are other mods being used (slicks, gears, N20, etc). considering the car does 13's from the factory.
so, your saying that with a 200lb weight advantage and only 10hp disadvantage the prelude would lose badly?
I understand that AWD gives the Evo a near perfect launch, but launch is only one aspect of a race, and it seems to me like the cars would be pretty evenly matched, especially considering the AWD would negate the power advantage as speeds increase (IE towards the end of the race).
I still say they would be about even.

not even. at all.
stock evo is low 13's.
a prelude with 10lbs of boost (which would not be stage 1, stage 1 is 7lbs) is running low 13's.
mind you, that car isn't stock, and ran on slicks.
Year: 1997
Model: Base
1/4@mph: [email protected]
Tires: m/t 22x8x15
1/8@mph: 8.417@ 82.60
60 ft: 2.031
Elevation:642 ft.
Mods: t3/t4b 10 psi, UR pulleys, 3" custom exhaust, low compression head gasket, stock engine other wise, full interior
that's sure as hell not a stage 1 setup...


drag sport magazine and buschur racing have an evo running 11.65. it's got the stock turbo, stock motor. it's got buschur's stage iv kit on it, but it's only running 2 more lbs. of boost than stock. and it's mid 11's.

trust me here. i know preludes like the back of my hand.

1/4 mile is all about the launch and the torque to move you down the track. the evo has both in abundance.

the prelude, which has a 200lb weight advantage, still has less hp, and is fwd. 2 big problems. they're not going to be even.
it's just simply not going to happen.

end of story.

buschur's stage 4
http://buschurracing.com/EVO_Stage4.html


stage 1 runs 12.94
http://buschurracing.com/EVO_Stage1.html

Flylwsi is absolutely correct.

It's good to know that some people educate themselves on both sides before making judgement.

thank you...

Most Importantly--You have to realize the Stock Prelude makes 200 H.P.--but---only 153 ftlbs of torque vs the Evo 271 hp, 273 ftlbs torque. Even with a gain of 100 hp and 100 ftlbs torque (definately not a stage 1 turbo) the Prelude could not win.

Is this a joke? Stang owner I'll bet my check on this one. I was just surfing and saw this and had to register to put my 2 cents in. I got an evo and I'll race any lude stage 1 one or not, and win.

lillarry

Evo vs. lude = spanked lude
5.0 vs. Evo = spanked 5.0 any questions
(do your homework)
lillarry

Bone stock 5.0, yeah the evo would murder it...
Put 6 grand at a 5.0 engine, and bye bye evo...

Bone stock 5.0, yeah the evo would murder it...
Put 6 grand at a 5.0 engine, and bye bye evo...

Put 6 grand into the EVO as well and then what?

Well then you have a 35,000$ car... You can get a early 90's 5.0 for 6 to 7 grand in pretty good condition. So do the math and then WHAT?!? Close to 30,000 left to spend on modifications on the 5.0. I'm not saying an early 90's 5.0 is better car then the evo by a long shot... But if you put money into them, and with the HUGE aftermarket that exists for the 5.0, don't make the mistake of underestimating the potiential of a 5.0 mustang. My 2 cents...

ya know, i really freakin hate that argument.

you have a car. end of story.
you don't have this "mythical" 35000 dollars sitting around. so you can spend only 5 k on the car...

that's the same as "well, if i had 50k, i'd buy a civic and spend 40k to mod it" instead of a zo6.

it's illogical.

it's cheaper, and easier, to get an evo down to the 10's than it is for a 5.0.

and there are not any preludes that run even close to that.

considering that there are 8 and 9 second awd eclipses (same drivetrain as the evo) it wouldn't be tough to get them even lower...

so... there's the end of that one...

Hate all you want...I don't like it when people shoot down somebodys powerplant because they are ignorant about it's potential. And about that one in a million Eclipse, well you can have that. There are "street legal" mustangs breaking 8's and trapping at 180. Don't take my word for, check Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords website for info. I don't know jack about preludes so I won't go there. But evo's and eclipses aren't the end all be all of speed and neither are heavily modded mustangs... Just stating that there is somebody always faster unless your name happens to be Tony Shumacher... Peace

wow.
that was mostly intelligent.
it costs far less to get an eclipse to 10 seconds than a mustang 5.0. guaranteed.
if not, it's hella close.
closer than you think.

no one said they're "be all end all" cars. especially not me.
i'm quite aware of the potential of the 5.0. but i know the limits as well, as i'm around quite a few in the 10's around here, so i'm not stupid on that front at all.

street legal 8 second cars.
mustang vs. eclipse awd, i'd think the eclipse is far more streetable, on tires that don't resemble steam rollers, (even if they're 10" slicks).

I respect your posts on here flylwsi. I wasn't trying to flame you at all. I wasn't trying to get you in to a this vs. that thing. I just don't like people putting down another person's choice in building up a fast car, be it a civic, or a camaro. I know you have respect on both the import and domestic scene... I just don't understand why people try to clown the 5.0... The comparsion wasn't aimed at you, it was at the people that can't figure out that a 306 basicaly stock block with a Vortech blower can run a 10.5 and trap at nearly 130 at the end of it's run... Or a 347 stroker kit with K/B blowzilla will put you in the the 9 second range... Granted, you would need one hell of a 1/4 mile suspension... Hey, its ugly but can whip some ass...

honestly...
cost?
what's the cost of the 306 and blower for 10/11 seonds?
compare that to the cost of a stage 4 kit from buschur for the evo that runs 11s.

i know that a 347 block is 1500 bucks alone. what's the s/c from kb cost? at least 4 grand...

i know what you're saying, and i agree, but i'm looking at both sides...

upgrade the turbo on stock evo internals, and you can be in the 10s

in either case, i like both cars/motors, but the evo, in this case, is far cheaper to hit the same et/speeds...

Well then you have a 35,000$ car... You can get a early 90's 5.0 for 6 to 7 grand in pretty good condition. So do the math and then WHAT?!? Close to 30,000 left to spend on modifications on the 5.0. I'm not saying an early 90's 5.0 is better car then the evo by a long shot... But if you put money into them, and with the HUGE aftermarket that exists for the 5.0, don't make the mistake of underestimating the potiential of a 5.0 mustang. My 2 cents...

All I was trying to say is that you should never bring mods to a stock for stock comparison without being able to put the same amount of cash to modify the other car in the comparison. Forget the cost of the car... an Evo enthustiast would already have his car, he wouldnt take the cost of the car in consideration with the cost of the mods. And what if someone wants to modify a new car...

Trust me, I dont disrespect the domestic scene, I just hate people who think its smarter to instead of a sports car, buy a CRX and use the difference in price to be just as fast, as less practical/daily drivable.

Prelude 12.71 @ 115.8 1.96 60ft Albuquerque Slicks 11 psi
379 hp / 306 tq
stock motor.
www.solid-technology.com

Don't know if you consider that a "stage 1" or not.

Just kinda going back to the original topic of "stage 1" turbo prelude vs. stock Evo VIII. Don't mind me, just postin' some info.

honestly, no. it's not a stage one.
379 whp is definitely not considered stage one.

it's a nice car, but i find it very difficult to believe that anyone can make that much power, with boost, on a stock h22, even with a ton of tuning.

in any case, a stage 1 kit would be in the 200-220whp range, or even (for the sake of argument) up to the 239whp that the evo 8 puts down stock.

but 200ish is closer to a "stage 1" hp rating for an h22.

Ugh... why would you 'drag' race an EVO anyway? That AWD is there for a purpose! Use it on the curves!