WRX vs. Prelude

I've posted several threads the prelude against other cars, but i want to know which car is more forgiving on a first manual car driver? Which car is more expensive for repairs and maintenece? I don't want to buy a car for 4 weeks and have to cough up money to replace the clutch and what not. I probably can get a wrx with 86,000 for about $12~13,000, I live in Washington. I'm guessing insurance is going to be a bitch on the wrx, but i want something wiht performance with reliability that dosen't associate with ricers.

Unfortunately, although both are decent cars, the wrx and prelude are both associated with ricers. But given your choices, I would definately rather the wrx over the prelude.

I think the prelude is definantly cheaper to afford, insure, and more forgiving on poor driving/maintainence. Subarus are good, but their trannies aren't that great. I love the AWD, and my family has a few, but like I said, the honda is cheaper, parts are cheaper, cheaper to insure because it isn't a turbo car.

Personally, I think you can make rice out of anything, and you can have a honda or a (i don't believe I'm gonna say this) a neon that is perfectly respectable. It all comes down to how you build the car, adn how you act. Ricer is more a state of mind and hwo you act then what car you buy. Granted if you put over-the-top body modifications on the car, and started to act like it was the fastest thing on the planet, that is one thing. But I think it's stupid to base your car purchasing decision on what other people may or may not associate you with.

Anyway, both are good cars, but for a new/younger driver, I think the Honda is the better bet.

For a first-time manual driver, go with the Prelude. Honda's clutches and transmissions are much smoother than Subaru's (especially the 2.5 RS/WRX), and you don't want the stress of newbie manual driving on an AWD transmission. The Prelude will also be cheaper to insure and maintain, I'd imagine.

yea the prelude is a better 1st time driver car. plus it looks better imo.

My first manual car was a WRX

I of course learnt to drive manual in a different car (Hyundai Getz), but only a few lessons to get the basics (i had my licence beforehand)

The WRX clutch is unforgiving for learner drivers. It is pretty much on or off, whereas the prelude, i understand, is a bit moe gradual.

I got mine 2nd hand, and I was by no means a good manual driver when I got it (almost two years ago) - and yes, I stalled a lot in it when I got it.

Of course, that was mainly due to the lack of experience.

When I first got it, yes i did a few 5000rpm launches, and burnt the clutch a few times from the lack of experience - and two years on, the drive train is fine.

All these people who shit on the glass trannied WRX are only correct to a certain point. If you drive it normally, and if you have to, shift it properly at high rpms (i.e. not just letting the clutch out too quickly), it should be fine - mine is.

If you want more forgiving, get a hyundai. If you want a sports car, get a WRX. The prelude feels slow and handles like crap compared to an impreza.

But it also depends on what you want. I like the twisties, and I don't think any Honda short of an s2k could satisfy me the way a WRX does. Also, you gotta admit that an AWD is pretty easy to drive, much better grip and less chance of spinning out.

In terms of maintenance, the prelude would be better I think.

I was in exactly the same position as you about two years ago and I would recommend you getting a POS manual car and learn it for about 3 months. So when you buy your car, something as trivial as a manual transmission won't influence your decision.