prelude or si?

i am currently looking into buying a new car. two choices..2000 prelude or 200 civic si. i am leaning towards the prelude but what would you suggest?

If you can afford it, I'd always say Prelude. It really depends on your budget and what your plans are for the car. List these things and we'll be able to help give you the pros and cons of each.

prelude...SH!

whats the difference between the SH or any other model. i am generally looking at gen 5s.

the only difference between standard and SH is that SH has ATTS which reduces understeer that FWDs normally have.

I've noticed that parts for the type SH are rarer to find than base models. Keep that in mind. The SH makes for an excellent stock Autocrosser, but from what I hear, the ATTS starts slipping in higher hp numbers.

Get the car you like the best.

gotcha, i'll just probably go out and test drive a couple of them, then i'll decide.

prelude, for every 10 civics out there theres 1 prelude and i dont think anyone wants to be a trend follower =D plus atts, keep in mind it doesnt eliminate understeer just reduce's the chances of it happening but still thats better then nothing

If you are a dragger (which most self proclaimed racers seem to be...), you'll want the base model Prelude. Or better yet, a 4th gen Prelude VTEC.

Civic Si aftermarket is HUGE. If you want options, the Civic is the way to go, at a lower stock horsepower rating.

What are your plans for the car?

im thinking about just exhaust, intake and possibly turbo, visual i want to keep mostly stock except for a nice set of rims. it would be my daily driver so i dont want to mod it too much.

jdmcivic -
It seems you are more into performance of the engine than anything else at this point, so I can break a few things down for u.

They have an almost identical Power to Weight ratio.
The 99-00 Civic Si has been supported greatly by the aftermarket community, mostly because of Honda's choice to actually put the highly customizable B16 back into the American market.
The Prelude's got the torque, the Civic has the Rev, which do you prefer?
There are an awful lot of Civic's out there...:-/

If you do plan on turbocharging, then a nice high, quick, peppy revving motor like the one in the Civic could handle it a little better, but goodbye torque. I'm sure the Ludatics in here will prolly flame me though.

The choic is yours my man, you will be stuck with that car until you do one of three things.

1. find a better choice of car and sell
2. wreck
3. need money

better make your choice wisely my man.

If all you're doing is intake/exhaust/header (the preliminaries...) then the Prelude VTEC is the choice here.

Personally though, I think that anyone who gives a damn about true upgradeable performance would steer clear of Honda (INCLUDING the NSX and S2000). We've got well tuned cars straight from the factory that don't like furthur modifications.

Either car, the Civic and Prelude, are not meant for turbochargers; and it shows. They are tuned for handling and a refined ride.

Well I do agree about the whole turbocharger thing. If they were meant for turbochargers, then they would have them. That's the thing though, I beleive that if Honda can pull 240 HP out of a 2.0, naturally aspirated, and more streetable than a Eclipse GS-T, then you have to respect them. I'm not saying Honda is god of motor vehicles or anything, but I am saying that if they combined their High-Tech knowledge with their one disadvantage in motorspots (cubic inches) then maybe they would hold a lot higher of a ranking than "Most Dependable". They do all this without turbo's, cuz they don't need em!

i totally agree, honda is known for making nice reliable and powerful engines for their small size. No domestic manufacturer could possibly provide that power from such a small displacement. Aceshigh, if honda increased the size of the engines then all the internals would have to increase in size and most importantly, weight. They wouldnt be able to handle the high rpms like they can now, and thats where most of the power comes from for hondas. One reason i would chose the prelude tho, is for that fact that it isnt a civic like everyone elses (or at least the one i have now).

Well, I disagree about the fact that the engine won't be able to turn as high RPM's. Yeah the weight will be more, but don't you got to remember the olden days of formula-1. They weren't that big in displacement, they just ran more cylinders (V10). Their 3.5 Liter V10 was a VERY low displacement motor because of restrictions in rules. Their concept was, "short ass stroke, big ass bore, turn 16,000, build it to run 1 track day of immortal hell at that RPM". Honda would do this, and sometimes, have the same engines for up to 4 track days before blowing. Their turbocharged motors were V6's (grandfather of the C30 in the NSX)not very normal of Honda to run such a long stroke, but less moving parts and they were turboed so they needed little more torque. If Honda could forget fuel-economy for 5 years (which they won't, but not a bad thing), I guarentee that a car like the new Accord would be marketed toward the young consumer, and they would want to break records, and necks. They would finally produce the near-perfect V8, B16 stroke, H22 bore, DOHC, 32 valve, i-VTEC motor. I bet this motor would push around 400 horses out of a 4.2 liter V8 with F20C cam specs and compression. And this is streetable and isn't too aggressive on gasoline. I'd say it would turn somewhere around 9000 RPM. Okay, I went WAYYYY off o the thread topic. I'm done!

thats true, if they ran more cylinders but same displacement per each cylinder it might work however then you would have a heavy v8 sitting in a very lightweight chassis and therefore it would throw the cars balance and handling right off.

No one would buy it. The price would be through the roof. The Acura NSX is incredibly expensive as it is, and you can buy a car for half its price that's just as fast. A used Mitsu 3000gt VR4 can be bought for around 10k and more or less performs the same.

The mid engine layout is AWESOME, but sadly for the NSX it's way too large. A small mid engine car is a superb performer. The Nissan MID4 and Toyota MR2 (some of my favorite cars of all time) come to mind.

Screw drifting. It's overrated.

LOL, I do agree on drifting, absolutely pointless. Then again I do live in the mountains, so I see it alot. How can you say the NSX is WAY too large dude. The Type-R (MY fave car of all time) only weighs in at 2700 lbs. The 3000GT weighs around 3500 lbs in the performance models. You can't really compare the NSX to a MR2, you have to compare it to a mid-engine Ferrari. I agree about it being pricey, but it is dubbed "The reliable exotic". And when people say that it doesn't perform like a Ferrari, then drive one, much like their little brothers (let's say a prelude and a mustang) the honda will corner like a dream compared to the mustang, but it will lack the straigh-line performance. I do have to say that Honda is very modest with their power and displacement, and that will NEVER change. If I was going to put any weight onto the chassis of an NSX to compensate the bigger, badded lamborghini's and ferrari's, then I would drop the Formula-1 V10 in the little baddie, and it WILL bolt up to the NSX tranny, thanks to the NSX's close relation to the V6 used in Formula-1 in 89. The thing is it wouldn't be centered into the vehicle properly. Damn I'm gonna do that someday, where is the local Honda museum???

JDMCivi - It would increase the weight of the vehcile a bit (try around 500 lbs), but that weight won't be all over the front wheels. The motor would be mounted vertically toward the back wheels (aka RWD). You would be surprised at how much the rear differential will weigh. The car would actually be much closer to 50/50 weight distribution than a FWD RSX. Here, lemme just end this big fantasy. Put the motor in the MR NSX, there, now work with that. To be honest, Honda has considered a V8 prototype (Formula-1 again) the recent V8 used in F1. Also a front electric engine, with the same V6 in middle (Ace - here's you revered AWD ;-) And last but definately the least surprising from Honda, the same motor turbo-charged. These are all steps Honda could possibly take in a direction their company has never ventured before. Me, theperformance geek that doesn' mind a little gas and was raised on chevy's, I prefer all of the above. :-)

I realize we're straying way off topic (and I apologize...) but:

The NSX is way too large to be a good Autocrosser. 'Large', not heavy. It does lose alot of weight from using lightweight parts, but its dimensions don't make it good for a course. Most supercars are no good.

The MR2 was used as an example of a small mid engined car; it is by no means the equal of an NSX, stock.

Personally I think Honda is outshined in all categories; but wins as an overall car. Handling is not as great as an Rx-7. Power is nowhere near its competitors. Hell, it can be taken out by a Subaru Impreza STi, a car a third its price.

The Ferarri Testarossa or Lotus Espirit are the close competitors to the NSX, but there's no reason it shouldn't be compared to front engined cars. A supercar should not be losing.

Bottom line is it fails on the dragstrip and on a course; being a mediocre performer in both categories.

Rant done. That being said, I have always wondered why the Civic and Integra have been so popular with tuners.

Once again you are correct. I see your views on comparisons, and I think your'e right about us being too ar off topic, so let's just retire this off topic.

civics and integras are so popular because they are inexpensive and have a very large aftermarket industry. getting parts is easy and cheap.

well anyways have you decided on which car your getting? or did you already get it?

depending on how hard it will be to find a nice prelude for a decent price i might have to go with the civic. but no complaints because it is still a very nice car.

Bottom line is it fails on the dragstrip and on a course; being a mediocre performer in both categories.

Rant done. That being said, I have always wondered why the Civic and Integra have been so popular with tuners.

I wouldn't say it fails.. it just wasn't made to be a race car. Economic doesn't just mean gas mileage in the case of the civic and integra. Give it a couple thousand dollars in aftermarket parts and you have yourself a contender.

The prelude, integra, and civic all had a very good suspension and chassis design. From the old double wishbone in the civics to the ATTS making the prelude one of the best handling FWD cars on earth. I'd say it held its own.

The only thing I can see that limits honda is the FWD factor. Look at the S2k. With street tires, it owns most other cars equipped with race tires on the autox course.

You're right. But speaking from a competitive side, the competitors against the NSX are simply more desirable; that's why it's sales haven't been the best.

And S2000 is the only one that I really think is above average compared to the other Hondas. But while you can dump aftermarket parts onto a Civic or Intregra and hope it runs faster, this is true of any car. The only plus is that parts are numerous and cheap.

There are just easier cars to work with. But I guess it's simply a preference thing in this hobby.

Prelude for sure!!! Civics are cool but preludes are way better looking and faster. Fuck honda haters!