Why is the Prelude FWD?
Doug Chartier
Acura) flag ship that exhibits Honda's new technology and is the best
performer. Why would Honda manufacture this flag ship as a front-wheel
drive automobile, unlike the manufacturers of most other high performance
machines? The NSX and the S2000 are rear wheel drive vehicles so
Honda cannot be averse to designs that drive the rear wheels or deny the
advantages. Honda designed the Prelude with great handling in mind so why
did they design and continue to design the Prelude as a front wheel
driver?
Scott Keeler
Honda has always been known for fron wheel drive cars. Almost all cars
that are made now are FWD. RWD cars are always heavier and would require a
lot more power to get the same performance. The Prelude is already a hog as
far as weight goes making it a RWD would just make it worse, and no matter
what people say about horse power, weight is one of the biggest factors in
performance. The flagship Honda is actually the Integra GSR, I know that you
said you won't count Acura's but in Japan the Integra is actually a Honda.
The GSR is also FWD and is known to be one of the best handleing car there
is.
SK©
Doug Chartier <char...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.96.990120...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU...
Jafir El-Kurd
Scott Keeler wrote:
>
> performance. The flagship Honda is actually the Integra GSR, I know that you
> said you won't count Acura's but in Japan the Integra is actually a Honda.
> The GSR is also FWD and is known to be one of the best handleing car there
> is.
I thought that the TV ad said that the RL was the "flagship" maybe I
was wrong.
slacker808
model, which is the RL. on the other hand, the Integra is the *top
selling* model.
---
rich
VTM Chris
before it gets to the wheels, unlike in a FWD car, where it gets power
instantly. I say get rid of that ATTS bullshit and bring back 4WS =)
Hondamaniac
The Prelude seems to come out with Honda's newest technology: 4WS, VTEC, rear
disk brakes, sportshift, double wishbone suspension are some I think came out
on the Prelude first.
Doug Chartier wrote:
> The Prelude is, historically, supposed to be Honda's (I'm not including
> Acura) flag ship that exhibits Honda's new technology and is the best
> performer. Why would Honda manufacture this flag ship as a front-wheel
> drive automobile, unlike the manufacturers of most other high performance
> machines? The NSX and the S2000 are rear wheel drive vehicles so
> Honda cannot be averse to designs that drive the rear wheels or deny the
> advantages. Honda designed the Prelude with great handling in mind so why
> did they design and continue to design the Prelude as a front wheel
> driver?
--
John/Cindy Green
Honda Racing Rules!
http://home1.gte.net/jcgreen/index.htm
http://home1.gte.net/jcgreen/CART.htm
JasonH
>RWD cars are always heavier and would require a
>lot more power to get the same performance.
You know I will never be amazed at some of the responses given in this
group. Tell me why the Miata is only 2200lbs with RWD then? A Civic
*hatchback* is pushing 2400lbs. And my RX-7 is a paltry 2650lbs. That's less
then the Interga!
In a FWD all the parts are still there sans a driveshaft. You have a tranny,
flywheel, axles...Yup, all hanging over the front wheels.
>The Prelude is already a hog as
>far as weight goes making it a RWD would just make it worse,
Uh Why? Yea a 50/50 weight bais would sure make the car worse. Please...Oh
and then there is that pesky torque steer when acclerating out of a corner,
joined with wheel spin <plow plow plow> Don't get me wrong FWD's do okay.
It's just not the ideal set up.
> and no matter
>what people say about horse power, weight is one of the biggest factors in
>performance.
<snip>
True indeed!
Andrew Skalet
latest ones have become large), my Gen3 handles better than my previous
front engine, rear drive, 50/50 weight distribution Gen2 RX7. Take a
car like the Integra type R. FWD, can outhandle almost anything,
certainly anything in its price range.
Andy
Err nitto
>lot more power to get the same performance. The Prelude is already a hog as
>far as weight goes making it a RWD would just make it worse, and no matter
>what people say about horse power, weight is one of the biggest factors in
>said you won't count Acura's but in Japan the Integra is actually a Honda.
>The GSR is also FWD and is known to be one of the best handleing car there
>is.
I'm scratching my head trying to figure out where this guy gets his info...
RWD cars are heavier?? it's like saying African Americans are always tanner
than Anglo Saxons... The reason you don't find many lightweight RWD cars is
because manufacturers don't make economy sportscars. The RWD cars, like the Z,
Supra, 3000GT, Ferraris, Porsches, etc..are heavy because they tend to have
more sprung (and unsprung) weight, like bigger engines, beefier transmissions,
beefier driveshafts,more complex suspension components, more luxury items {my
power seats weigh 90 pounds! manual cloth seats weigh about 40} etc
You're saying that the Prelude is a hog at 3000 pounds? lol... that's a
lightweight.
----
Phuong
90 300ZX 2+2 Stage 3
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/nitto
CADMAN
(except the camaro and firebird)
Doug Chartier wrote in message ...
Brian Hepler
>I thought the main advantage of FWD was handling, especially in wet or snow.
>The Prelude seems to come out with Honda's newest technology: 4WS, VTEC, rear
>disk brakes, sportshift, double wishbone suspension are some I think came out
>on the Prelude first.
Honda uses the Prelude to introduce a lot of it's new technologies.
And yes, FWD improved handling in less-than-ideal road conditions.
However, RWD has the advantage in handling around the track due to
torque steer, the advantage in drag races due to the weight shifting
to the rear of the car during acceleration (I think I just mangled the
terms, but I'm really tired) and helps improve the weight balance of
the car.
FWD is cheaper than RWD to assemble. Think about it. You just drop
the engine into the body, lift the transmission/wheels into the front,
attach everything, and go. With RWD, you have to get the differential
and the real axle ready, run the driveshaft the length of the car,
hook it up to the transmission, drop the engine into the front, make
sure that the engine-transmission-driveshaft-differential-axle
assembly all lines up and then bolt it all down.
RWD is found on higher end performance cars and certain luxery cars.
Usually (not always) with higher price tags and more standard features
and more complex setups to take advantage of the benefits that RWD
offers.
Brian
************************************
Brian Hepler bhe...@erols.comm
************************************
"The system won't do that. I don't care
how much you want it to do that. It
won't do that. You can't drive a Ford
into a lake and expect it to work
like a submarine."
Funj
>>performance. The flagship Honda is actually the Integra GSR, I know that
you
>>said you won't count Acura's but in Japan the Integra is actually a Honda.
>>The GSR is also FWD and is known to be one of the best handleing car there
>>is.
Umm.... I think you mean one of the best handling FWD cars around. The GSR
is certainly not one of the best handling cars out there. Interesting thing
is that while watching one issue of the Best Motoring videos on the JDM
Integra Type-R, the testers kept saying that the handling of the Type-R is
as good as it gets for a FWD car. On the circuit race in the video, the 4
door Integra Type-R hung in there with the WRX RA, RX-7 and was ahead of
likes like the MR2 turbo etc. I also noticed that altough the WRX RA
completely trounced the Type-R on the dragstrip (13.1-13.3 secs vs.
14.7+secs), the WRX and the RX-7 only inched up very slowly to the Type-R on
the straights on the circuit, not enough to get a clear advantage on the
straights. It got worse as they ran more laps (probably power losses from
heat on the turbo cars???).
All in all the Integra Type-R is definitely a worthy oponnent to turbo RWD
and 4WD cars on the circuit in stock form.
Funj
96 JDM Civic SiR EK4
RainMeister
<36A660FA...@isp.net.com.edu.org.mil.gov.etc>...
>i think he mis-used the word. "flagship" usually means *top of the line*
>model, which is the RL. on the other hand, the Integra is the *top
>selling* model.
I believe what he really meant was "technology leader", as in using the
model as a rolling test-bed for consumer acceptance of new technology such
as VTEC and 4WS.
Brian Hepler
>every car GM makes is FWD!
>(except the camaro and firebird)
You know, there are a lot of Corvette owners who are going to be
really surprised...
erict...@earthling.net
reason I think the Lude is FWD is because it is simply cheaper that way. The
Lude may be Honda's flagship here in the US, but bear in mind that anywhere
else in the world, there are no Acuras. In that case, the Lude just becomes
yet another mid-class sports coupe. The NSX is Honda's true flagship tho it
wears an Acura badge here in the States.
el
In article <785u1s$kq9$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>,
Hondamaniac <jcg...@gte.net> wrote:
> I thought the main advantage of FWD was handling, especially in wet or snow.
> The Prelude seems to come out with Honda's newest technology: 4WS, VTEC, rear
> disk brakes, sportshift, double wishbone suspension are some I think came out
> on the Prelude first.
>
> Doug Chartier wrote:
>
> > The Prelude is, historically, supposed to be Honda's (I'm not including
> > Acura) flag ship that exhibits Honda's new technology and is the best
> > performer. Why would Honda manufacture this flag ship as a front-wheel
> > drive automobile, unlike the manufacturers of most other high performance
> > machines? The NSX and the S2000 are rear wheel drive vehicles so
> > Honda cannot be averse to designs that drive the rear wheels or deny the
> > advantages. Honda designed the Prelude with great handling in mind so why
> > did they design and continue to design the Prelude as a front wheel
> > driver?
>
> --
> John/Cindy Green
> Honda Racing Rules!
> http://home1.gte.net/jcgreen/index.htm
> http://home1.gte.net/jcgreen/CART.htm
>
>
--
Electricity comes from electrons; morality comes from morons.
E-mail: erict...@earthling.net.spamthis
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
JasonH
skill is a major factor in any race. But let me say this...An Acura
Integra with equal drivers will NEVER EVER EVER EVER catch and pull a
Mazda RX-7 Turbo on a road coarse.
Mazda RX-7's are in A-Stock in the SCCA world. Right there with the
Vipers, 911's, NSX's, Vette's...etc etc. And guess what? They dominate
the class. Yes that's right, I said they dominate. Go look around
www.scca.org and you will see them consistently at the top.
You may have seen a non-turbo car running. That is possible. Many racers
have built non turbo models to drop into a lower class.
But as far as the Integra outgunning a RX-7 turbo with comparable
drivers...NO WAY.
headbone
I'm not gonna argue with you re: how a great-handling turbo-rotor car can
"dominate" over the likes of vettes and vipers....A lot of issues come into
play when you talk about racing. Most notable is $$$$$
However, for what its worth, I would give the edge to the RX7 turbo against
a type R. The type R is a GREAT handler though, as well as 20 times more
reliable than the G3 RX7s. What exactly did mazda (fail to) do that
accounts for the RX7 horrible reliability. Also the type R has greater fuel
efficiency, can carry more groceries and it has the supra's spoiler. All
these factors, plus the readily availble stickers you can put on your
non-type R make the type R the most amazing honda on the planet...except
for the prelude type R-S. VVTi.
yeah....my shopping cart is bigger than yours......
e
JasonH <"jasonh"@cttel.net(nospam)> wrote in article
<_FHp2.152$2o2.3...@petpeeve.ziplink.net>...
~Z
looking for the aol domain
Scott Keeler wrote in message
<0xqp2.21558$W_.12...@news1.teleport.com>...
>Doug,
> Honda has always been known for fron wheel drive cars. Almost all cars
>that are made now are FWD. RWD cars are always heavier and would require a
>lot more power to get the same performance. The Prelude is already a hog as
>far as weight goes making it a RWD would just make it worse, and no matter
>what people say about horse power, weight is one of the biggest factors in
>performance. The flagship Honda is actually the Integra GSR, I know that
you
>said you won't count Acura's but in Japan the Integra is actually a Honda.
>The GSR is also FWD and is known to be one of the best handleing car there
>is.
>
>SK©
>
>
>Doug Chartier <char...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
>news:Pine.GSO.3.96.990120...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU...
~Z
to me that sounds like it still lost but not by a big margin
JasonH <"jasonh"@cttel.net> wrote in message
<_FHp2.152$2o2.3...@petpeeve.ziplink.net>...
>Okay, look I will give you the benefit of doubt. Mainly because drivers
>skill is a major factor in any race. But let me say this...An Acura
>Integra with equal drivers will NEVER EVER EVER EVER catch and pull a
>Mazda RX-7 Turbo on a road coarse.
>
>Mazda RX-7's are in A-Stock in the SCCA world. Right there with the
>Vipers, 911's, NSX's, Vette's...etc etc. And guess what? They dominate
>the class. Yes that's right, I said they dominate. Go look around
>www.scca.org and you will see them consistently at the top.
>
>You may have seen a non-turbo car running. That is possible. Many racers
>have built non turbo models to drop into a lower class.
>
>But as far as the Integra outgunning a RX-7 turbo with comparable
>drivers...NO WAY.
>
>Funj wrote:
>>
>> >>performance. The flagship Honda is actually the Integra GSR, I know
that
>> you
>> >>said you won't count Acura's but in Japan the Integra is actually a
Honda.
>> >>The GSR is also FWD and is known to be one of the best handleing car
there
>> >>is.
>>
~Z
didn't say safter then RWD just safter for a average driver which is a
......bad driver.
i think that RWD car and FWD can be driven equally safe in all weather
conditions if the driver has a clue on how to drive. i see MANY MANY mustang
owners (kids 16/17) in ditches during the first couple of snow
accumulations.
CADMAN wrote in message ...
>every car GM makes is FWD!
>(except the camaro and firebird)
>
>
>Doug Chartier wrote in message ...
Mike Kohlbrenner
> >
> > ... RWD cars are always heavier and would require a
> > lot more power to get the same performance.
Err nitto wrote:
> ...
> I'm scratching my head trying to figure out where this guy gets his info...
>
> RWD cars are heavier??
JasonH wrote:
> ...
> You know I will never be amazed at some of the responses given in this
> group.
Admittedly, Scotts initial point was somewhat shy on the
constraints, but he is, in fact, correct.
What he should have said was this:
Of two cars, equal in interior volume, engine, structure,
etc, but different in which wheels are driven by a front
engine, the RWD car will be heavier than the FWD car.
That is a fact and cannot be argued.
> Tell me why the Miata is only 2200lbs with RWD then?
Because it is a tiny little two seater. The original VW
Rabbit was probably 500 lb. lighter than the Miata. That
proves nothing.
> In a FWD all the parts are still there sans a driveshaft.
Exactly! The addition of the front to rear shaft and
associated components means you have a heavier car, all
else remaining equal.
~Z wrote:
>
> total bullshit, RWD heavier then FWD.....
I hope you can see that you are wrong...
--
Mike Kohlbrenner
<kohlbren (-a t-) an dot hp dot com> sorry!
Lee Cao
>
> every car GM makes is FWD!
> (except the camaro and firebird)
Corvette?
--
Lee Cao - http://www.leecao.com/
\ READ THE FAQs BEFORE YOU ASQs /
= http://www.mobileaudio.com/rac-faq/ =
/ http://tutorials.jlaudio.com/ \
MattB
--
Matt Berg
GReddy/DC Sports/RS AKimoto/17in. ADR
Rockford Fosgate/JL Audio
Andrew Skalet <ask...@nospam.exactis.com> wrote in message
36A6BC0A...@nospam.exactis.com...
>ah, you fail to understand. preludes do handle very well (though the
>latest ones have become large), my Gen3 handles better than my previous
>front engine, rear drive, 50/50 weight distribution Gen2 RX7. Take a
>car like the Integra type R. FWD, can outhandle almost anything,
>certainly anything in its price range.
>
>Andy
>
>Doug Chartier wrote:
>>
CADMAN
RWD with the same 50 year old engine too.
CADMAN wrote in message ...
>every car GM makes is FWD!
>(except the camaro and firebird)
>
>
>Doug Chartier wrote in message ...
Mark Huntington
is far better than 4WS
Mark
98 Prelude
VTM Chris wrote in message <19990120184048...@ng-fx1.aol.com>...
Doug Chartier
The Civic, the Accord, the Legends -- all front wheel drive. However, I
don't think that, if Honda wanted the Prelude to be rear wheel drive,
that it would design the car exactly the same as the front wheel drive
version with just a drive shaft and whatever else is needed added. Honda
does good engineering so I'm sure that they could design the Prelude such
that a rear wheel drive setup would not be detrimental. Would a good rear
wheel drive design increase weight enough to significantly affect
acceleration?
Let me ask this: has the Prelude ever been rear wheel drive?
Honda must know that there are advantages to rear wheel drive considering
the NSX and S2000 are rear wheel drive. I'm wondering why they did not
apply that principal to the Prelude, Honda's flagship.
BTW: I would not consider the Integra the Honda flagship in America
because:
1) it's sold as an Acura.
2) the Prelude is more expensive.
3) the Prelude features more new, improved, and beneficial technology
before the Integra (VTEC, 4WS, ATTS).
4) the Prelude is arguably the better performer in acceleration and
Handling.
Perhaps in Japan the Integra would be considered more of a flagship than
the Prelude, but (unfortunately) all of those NSX-R's and Prelude Type S's
and Nissan Skyline GT-R's don't affect life in America very much.
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Scott Keeler wrote:
> Doug,
> Honda has always been known for fron wheel drive cars. Almost all cars
> that are made now are FWD. RWD cars are always heavier and would require a
> lot more power to get the same performance. The Prelude is already a hog as
> far as weight goes making it a RWD would just make it worse, and no matter
> what people say about horse power, weight is one of the biggest factors in
> performance. The flagship Honda is actually the Integra GSR, I know that you
> said you won't count Acura's but in Japan the Integra is actually a Honda.
> The GSR is also FWD and is known to be one of the best handleing car there
> is.
>
> SK©
>
>
> Doug Chartier <char...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.3.96.990120...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU...
Doug Chartier
are rear wheel drive, and both (especially the S2000) perform very well.
The BMW 316ti's and 318i's also did not produce very much torque. So
obviously a car with a small engine and little torque can be rear wheel
drive and very driveable.
Doug Chartier
American Honda line. It is also the flagship of the American Honda line.
Now, if I were to name the flagship of all automobiles manufactured by the
Honda Motor Company, I'd name the NSX. The NSX could also be called their
technology leader, but hasn't that car remained pretty much the same since
it debuted (in '91, I believe).
MattB
--
Matt Berg
GReddy/DC Sports/RS AKimoto/17in. ADR
Rockford Fosgate/JL Audio
CADMAN <dm...@ame.net> wrote in message
DmOp2.1192$PH....@news.rdc1.on.wave.home.com...
>oh ya sorry I forgot about the scrap box of a corvette that is still made
>RWD with the same 50 year old engine too.
>
>
>CADMAN wrote in message ...
>>every car GM makes is FWD!
>>(except the camaro and firebird)
>>
>>
>>Doug Chartier wrote in message ...
Eric
Eric
entirely different block, bore and stoke. The Buick 3.8 (or now the GM 3800)
year after year is judged to be one of the 10 best engines out there, and its
basic architecture dates back to 1962. That hardly means its the same engine.
If you really want to nit pick, the internal combustion engine is 100 years
old. As for the rwd part, well every premier sports/GT car out there is rwd or
awd.
CADMAN wrote:
> oh ya sorry I forgot about the scrap box of a corvette that is still made
> RWD with the same 50 year old engine too.
>
> CADMAN wrote in message ...
JasonH
<01be4556$1c39b300$73e0...@headbone.ix.netcom.com>...
>yeahh..but RX7s suck!
Says you. I actually own one so I can speak first hand. They don't suck.
Well I guess it does suck having 11+" rotors stock, oh and aluminum 4 piston
calipers stock, those factory aluminum pedals really suck, so does the
double wishbone aluminum suspension. That 2700lb curb weight is a real bitch
too now that you mention it, an easy 400hp motor is the pits... ;)
>I'm not gonna argue with you re: how a great-handling turbo-rotor car can
>"dominate" over the likes of vettes and vipers....A lot of issues come into
>play when you talk about racing. Most notable is $$$$$
What part of A-*Stock* did you miss? SCCA A-*Stock* means, well, Stock. You
can do a cat back, and a filter upgrade and shocks, thats about it. The 3rd
Gen RX-7 does dominate the SCCA A-Stock world. Sorry if that is hard to
believe. I race in the SCCA ITS class. That is a 2nd gen non turbo. I have
a turbo street car as well.
>However, for what its worth, I would give the edge to the RX7 turbo against
>a type R.
Thanks...
>The type R is a GREAT handler though, as well as 20 times more
>reliable than the G3 RX7s.
Whoa...The R is a great car I never said it wasn't I just said it's in a
different class then the REX. As far as more reliable...Look, I have had
this conversation a million times. A properly cared for rotary will last
forever. I have 100,000 miles on my engine and it runs as strong as the day
it was new. Period. What happens is a lot of piston engine guys treat them
like piston engines. For instance...You have to change the plugs on a rotary
every 10K. They, look totally different then a piston engines plug. If you
do not change them the electrode becomes brittle and breaks off...possibly
jamming an apex seal. Then all of a sudden the rotary is a piece of
shit...Thats just one example. There are many.
>What exactly did mazda (fail to) do that
>accounts for the RX7 horrible reliability.
Read the above. One area is the fact that the car has 72 vacuum lines that
controll an awsome yet complicated sequential turbo set up. If *ONE* line
blows off or cracks it can throw everything off and the car will run like
shit, then the owner will take it to the dealer who will screw it up worse,
then the owner sells it and claims to never buy the piece of shit
again...like I said if you treat them right and learn how they work...No
problems at all.
>Also the type R has greater fuel
>efficiency,
LOL yea that's for sure!
>can carry more groceries and it has the supra's spoiler.
Like I said, the cars are two different classes. I have a Nissan 200sx SE-R
to scoot around with. (damn quick little car, I have Autox'd it and
surprised many a Acrua owner)
>All
>these factors, plus the readily availble stickers you can put on your
>non-type R make the type R the most amazing honda on the planet...
No doubt, I like the Integra R. I just don't like it when people say "MY NON
TURBO INTEGRA WILL SMOKE YOUR TT RX-7 ANY DAY!!!"
That gets a little boring.
>except
>for the prelude type R-S. VVTi.
Don't know much about them?
>
>yeah....my shopping cart is bigger than yours......
Well my lawn tractor will kick you tractors ASSSSS buddy. :)
Here's a couple of quotes about the RX-7 I have hanging around.
The RX-7 explodes out of corners... On the race track, it had ferocious
cornering power, but seemed to get the biggest edge with enormous jump off
the corner... The new RX-7 blitzed the Bang portion of Bang for the Buck...
The RX-7 didn't just win the numbers game, it humiliated the field... It was
also rated first in Fun Factor, with an almost perfect 99.57 score. Motor
Trend, Apr. and Sep. 1992
The RX-7 may be a performance highwater mark for years to come... The RX-7's
performance is awe-inspiring. It's within 1 foot of being the shortest
stopping street car we've ever tested; ... and grips the road harder than
the best race cars of only a few years ago... This is the best hardcore
sports car in its price range, maybe in any price range... The RX-7
redefines road manners for its class, the handling feels nimble and
natural... No sports car in its price range delivers the same level of
sensory gratification for the enthusiast driver. Motor Trend, proclaiming
the RX-7 the Import Car of the Year, Feb. 1993.
JasonH
Sorry my computer went ballistic...
JasonH
>constraints, but he is, in fact, correct.
>
>What he should have said was this:
Then I would not have said what I said. In the context that he wrote it,
that was the reply.
> Of two cars, equal in interior volume, engine, structure,
> etc, but different in which wheels are driven by a front
> engine, the RWD car will be heavier than the FWD car.
>
>That is a fact and cannot be argued.
Feel better now? Yes you proved your supreme knowledge, this lemming
concedes...It does not however, answer his response in it's context.
>> Tell me why the Miata is only 2200lbs with RWD then?
>
>Because it is a tiny little two seater. The original VW
>Rabbit was probably 500 lb. lighter than the Miata. That
>proves nothing.
His argument was that the Prelude was FWD to make it lighter. My point is
that's a crock. You can make a RWD very light as well. If they were
concerned about feather weight on their "premier" performance car they could
have taken some of the steps that Mazda did to lighten their cars. A 3000lb
4cylinder sport car is a porker, period.
Nice spin, you should work for the Whitehouse...
fung
Hank T. Fang
:RWD cars are heavier?? it's like saying African Americans are always tanner
:than Anglo Saxons... The reason you don't find many lightweight RWD cars is
:because manufacturers don't make economy sportscars. The RWD cars, like the Z,
:Supra, 3000GT, Ferraris, Porsches, etc..are heavy because they tend to have
3000 GT (and I am assuming you're speaking of the VR4) is a AWD, ditto
for the ultimate Porsche (911 Turbo)
Hank
www.wam.umd.edu/~fangtl
ICQ: 5301885
Funj
>But as far as the Integra outgunning a RX-7 turbo with comparable
>drivers...NO WAY.
>
Hey, this is my exact feelings on both the RX7 and the WRX RA on the
circuit. However, you just have to watch the video. After watching it,
you'd have a lot more respect for Honda's normally aspirated 1.8ltr 4 FWD
banger.
By the way, if I remember correctly, the 4 door Type-R finished 2nd, behind
the Rx7. The WRX RA crashed out (crashed with a 2 door Integ Type R). It
was an extremely close race for the RX7 and the Type-R. The rest of the
racers, MR2 turbo, Mitsu FTO, Silvia Turbo etc.. all finished way behind the
1-2 positions.
Tino
about 5% more power than a front wheel drive car, but the advantage can be
handling. Its very easy to add another 5% power to a car but not very easy to
make it rear wheel drive when the car is already front wheel drive. I feel the
prelude should have been a rear wheel drive car. As a mustang owner (I know that
RWD is something I'm used to) but I would consider purchasing a RWD Prelude that
has even the same power. I'm willing to sacrifice the 5% power increase and have
it go 0.1 seconds slower in the 1/4 mile (may not even be slower as traction
will be improved if it uses limited slip).
My next car may or may not be a mustang or another ford product (althought I've
been very happy and no probs) but one thing I know for sure is that it will not
be FWD. A BMW 328i or a mustang Cobra may be the next best thing. One thing I
can say is that Honda would sell a lot more if it was RWD as almost every
performance enthusiast I know has a RWD car (RX7's, 300z's, Mustangs, Camaros,
Vettes, Supras, MR2's). They have FWD cars but as their main car and usually its
a lower priced car such as Civics and Sentras and Corollas.
I dont know about anyone else but I find a RWD car seems to be more fun when
driven hard and offers a different feel. PS...dont a lot of FWD cars get power
to only one wheel or was the the case only many years back? Seems that all high
performance RWD have limitted slip diffs.
Tino
JasonH wrote:
> <snip>
> >RWD cars are always heavier and would require a
> >lot more power to get the same performance.
>
> You know I will never be amazed at some of the responses given in this
> group. Tell me why the Miata is only 2200lbs with RWD then? A Civic
> *hatchback* is pushing 2400lbs. And my RX-7 is a paltry 2650lbs. That's less
> then the Interga!
>
> In a FWD all the parts are still there sans a driveshaft. You have a tranny,
> flywheel, axles...Yup, all hanging over the front wheels.
>
> >The Prelude is already a hog as
> >far as weight goes making it a RWD would just make it worse,
>
> Uh Why? Yea a 50/50 weight bais would sure make the car worse. Please...Oh
> and then there is that pesky torque steer when acclerating out of a corner,
> joined with wheel spin <plow plow plow> Don't get me wrong FWD's do okay.
> It's just not the ideal set up.
>
> > and no matter
> >what people say about horse power, weight is one of the biggest factors in
> >performance.
> <snip>
>
> True indeed!
Tino
Supras, Mustangs, Firebirds, M3's, Vettes or supras. It does well in the corners
and thats probably due to weight more than anything else but anything gained
seems to be lost by the end of the straights and then some.
I think the Integra GSRs, Type R's and Preludes are great cars but when compared
with cars within their class. I'd pick those out of all the FWD cars but I would
not pick them over any of the RWD cars mentioned above. This is especially true
for street performance as Fuel consumption and Brake consumption is not an
issue. I mean on the track the lighter FWD cars seem to conserve more fuel and
keep their brakes better and therefore pit less and sometimes this helps to win
races but on the street none of this counts (My opinion).
Funj wrote:
> >>performance. The flagship Honda is actually the Integra GSR, I know that
> you
> >>said you won't count Acura's but in Japan the Integra is actually a Honda.
> >>The GSR is also FWD and is known to be one of the best handleing car there
> >>is.
>
> Umm.... I think you mean one of the best handling FWD cars around. The GSR
> is certainly not one of the best handling cars out there. Interesting thing
> is that while watching one issue of the Best Motoring videos on the JDM
> Integra Type-R, the testers kept saying that the handling of the Type-R is
> as good as it gets for a FWD car. On the circuit race in the video, the 4
> door Integra Type-R hung in there with the WRX RA, RX-7 and was ahead of
> likes like the MR2 turbo etc. I also noticed that altough the WRX RA
> completely trounced the Type-R on the dragstrip (13.1-13.3 secs vs.
> 14.7+secs), the WRX and the RX-7 only inched up very slowly to the Type-R on
> the straights on the circuit, not enough to get a clear advantage on the
> straights. It got worse as they ran more laps (probably power losses from
> heat on the turbo cars???).
>
> All in all the Integra Type-R is definitely a worthy oponnent to turbo RWD
> and 4WD cars on the circuit in stock form.
>
Tino
the car and has experience no troubles. It should be mentioned that plugged
catalytics can account for much of the troubles of the RX7's as they produce a
lot of heat in the exhaust. The first thing he did was put an aftermarket with
no cats. Now I know this is not environmentally friendly but the car is
reliable and very quick and handles great and gas mileage is not too bad if you
manage to stay out of boost.
headbone wrote:
> yeahh..but RX7s suck!
>
> I'm not gonna argue with you re: how a great-handling turbo-rotor car can
> "dominate" over the likes of vettes and vipers....A lot of issues come into
> play when you talk about racing. Most notable is $$$$$
>
> However, for what its worth, I would give the edge to the RX7 turbo against
> a type R. The type R is a GREAT handler though, as well as 20 times more
> reliable than the G3 RX7s. What exactly did mazda (fail to) do that
> accounts for the RX7 horrible reliability. Also the type R has greater fuel
> efficiency, can carry more groceries and it has the supra's spoiler. All
> these factors, plus the readily availble stickers you can put on your
> non-type R make the type R the most amazing honda on the planet...except
> for the prelude type R-S. VVTi.
>
> yeah....my shopping cart is bigger than yours......
>
> e
>
> JasonH <"jasonh"@cttel.net(nospam)> wrote in article
> <_FHp2.152$2o2.3...@petpeeve.ziplink.net>...
> > Okay, look I will give you the benefit of doubt. Mainly because drivers
> > skill is a major factor in any race. But let me say this...An Acura
> > Integra with equal drivers will NEVER EVER EVER EVER catch and pull a
> > Mazda RX-7 Turbo on a road coarse.
> >
> > Mazda RX-7's are in A-Stock in the SCCA world. Right there with the
> > Vipers, 911's, NSX's, Vette's...etc etc. And guess what? They dominate
> > the class. Yes that's right, I said they dominate. Go look around
> > www.scca.org and you will see them consistently at the top.
> >
> > You may have seen a non-turbo car running. That is possible. Many racers
> > have built non turbo models to drop into a lower class.
> >
> > But as far as the Integra outgunning a RX-7 turbo with comparable
> > drivers...NO WAY.
> >
Tino
Firebird are considered their performance cars.
CADMAN wrote:
> every car GM makes is FWD!
> (except the camaro and firebird)
>
> Doug Chartier wrote in message ...
Tino
who prefer RWD even in snow (as long as they have snow tires). I know a guy who
used to Rally as part of a race team many years back in England and he said that
RWD is safer in the winter and in the rallys as you could control the back end
with the throttle, but FWD is almost impossible to recover if the rear tries to
come around in the snow. I'm not too sure since I usually drive slow in the
snow.
All I can say is that my 86 mustang was actually easier to drive in the snow
when it had all 4 snows on the car (and full tank of gas) than my little winter
beater now ('92 suzuki swift with 4 snows). This might be weight helping but its
easier to drive for me but I would not give my sister or mother the same car as
I fear for their life.
So you are right that the average driver may end up in a ditch in bad weather in
a RWD if they are not careful.
~Z wrote:
> and why is that? maybe because FWD is safer for an average driver. and i
> didn't say safter then RWD just safter for a average driver which is a
> ......bad driver.
>
> i think that RWD car and FWD can be driven equally safe in all weather
> conditions if the driver has a clue on how to drive. i see MANY MANY mustang
> owners (kids 16/17) in ditches during the first couple of snow
> accumulations.
>
> CADMAN wrote in message ...
Tino
If anyone wants to try and compare NSX to Vette, then all I will say is that
for the price difference I'd take the vette and dump a few $$ in the stock
suspension and take out the NSX (that 50 year old motor seems to produce the
350hp quite easily without having to spin over 6 grand. If you really like to
spin over 6 grand and need a vette then get a used ZR-1. PS...ever watch what
happens to an NSX when a similarly priced ZR-1 (back in '93 and '94) is on the
track? Ooohh, not pretty at all.
CADMAN wrote:
> oh ya sorry I forgot about the scrap box of a corvette that is still made
> RWD with the same 50 year old engine too.
>
VTM Chris
the Prelude was ever going to be FWD, it would have to first be an Acura.
Eran Geller
tell me what you think about the handling of a front
wheel drive car, and how fun is it to drive.
I just so a post by someone in the rx-7 mailing
list who just bought a 99 prelude sh and seemed
very pleased.
You might even end up buying one.
-Chai Geller
99 Prelude SH
Crystal Blue Metallic
Tino wrote in message <36A7F9BA...@home.com>...
>Actually I recall reading that on average a rear wheel drive car may
require
>about 5% more power than a front wheel drive car, but the advantage can be
>handling. Its very easy to add another 5% power to a car but not very easy
to
>make it rear wheel drive when the car is already front wheel drive. I feel
the
>prelude should have been a rear wheel drive car. As a mustang owner (I know
that
>RWD is something I'm used to) but I would consider purchasing a RWD Prelude
that
>has even the same power. I'm willing to sacrifice the 5% power increase and
have
>it go 0.1 seconds slower in the 1/4 mile (may not even be slower as
traction
>will be improved if it uses limited slip).
>
>My next car may or may not be a mustang or another ford product (althought
I've
>been very happy and no probs) but one thing I know for sure is that it will
not
>be FWD. A BMW 328i or a mustang Cobra may be the next best thing. One thing
I
John Frost
>
>Mazda RX-7's are in A-Stock in the SCCA world. Right there with the
>Vipers, 911's, NSX's, Vette's...etc etc. And guess what? They dominate
>the class. Yes that's right, I said they dominate. Go look around
>www.scca.org and you will see them consistently at the top.
>
Actually, 3rd Gen RX-7 Turbo's are in Super Stock, as is the NSX, late model
Vette's, and 911's after 1995. The Viper is not even in a stock category, it
goes directly to ASP.
The rest of your post is right on the money, though.
John
John Frost
yosh...@maplecity8.com
Current: '98 Prelude SportShift
Former: '93 Accord LX
'90 Integra LS
'84 CRX 1.5
Remove the "8" to email.
JasonH
Doug Chartier
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Eric wrote:
> and vette and caddy catera
>
> CADMAN wrote:
>
Doug Chartier
upset if, today, Honda announced that the next generation Prelude would be
rear wheel drive?
And to any muscle car owners roaming about this newsgroup: would you be
upset if, today, GM said that the next generation F-Body (imagine that GM
wasn't considering discontinuing it) would be front wheel drive?
Doug Chartier
dealerships, advertised separately, and most people probably do not know
that Acura is part of the Honda Motor Company.
If one asked "what is the luxurious Toyota," another person would probably
say the Avalon, not the Lexus LS400. The differentiation is similar for
Honda and Acura in the United States.
JasonH
>
> go test drive the Prelude SH's and then
> tell me what you think about the handling of a front
> wheel drive car, and how fun is it to drive.
I own a Nissan 200sx SE-R, so I know what a FWD can do. They are okay,
just not the ideal set up.
> I just so a post by someone in the rx-7 mailing
> list who just bought a 99 prelude sh and seemed
> very pleased.
Okay, I'm on that list. I have talked with that guy one on one. His name
is Crandell. He likes the Prelude yes, because it replaced a 12 year old
car!
We talked about performance. He has said the Lude would get walked 10
out of 10 times by his REX...
> You might even end up buying one.
To replace my RX-7? Never. To have as a daily scooter? Sure.
<snip>
Scott Keeler
the RX7 is a Twin Turbo with over 80 more horsepower. They are not even in
the same class as an Integra. An RX7 is more comparible to an NSX and it
does not even come close to matching the performance of an NSX. The highest
T class in SCCA is T1. The NSX's came in 2nd behind the Saleen Mustangs.
There is no car in that series that even comes close to the handleing
performance of an NSX though.
Scott K.
JasonH <"jasonh"@cttel.net(nospam)> wrote in message
news:_FHp2.152$2o2.3...@petpeeve.ziplink.net...
>Okay, look I will give you the benefit of doubt. Mainly because drivers
>skill is a major factor in any race. But let me say this...An Acura
>Integra with equal drivers will NEVER EVER EVER EVER catch and pull a
>Mazda RX-7 Turbo on a road coarse.
>
>Mazda RX-7's are in A-Stock in the SCCA world. Right there with the
>Vipers, 911's, NSX's, Vette's...etc etc. And guess what? They dominate
>the class. Yes that's right, I said they dominate. Go look around
>www.scca.org and you will see them consistently at the top.
>
MattB
--
Matt Berg
GReddy/DC Sports/RS AKimoto/17in. ADR
Rockford Fosgate/JL Audio
VTM Chris <vtmc...@aol.com> wrote in message
19990122013909...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
JasonH
>Comparing an Integra and an RX7 is rediculous. The Integra is a N/A while
>the RX7 is a Twin Turbo with over 80 more horsepower. They are not even in
>the same class as an Integra.
No kidding, that was my point. The RX-7 is lighter then the Integra as well.
>An RX7 is more comparible to an NSX and it
>does not even come close to matching the performance of an NSX. The highest
>T class in SCCA is T1. The NSX's came in 2nd behind the Saleen Mustangs.
Uh oh, time for school. So you think the NSX is sooo much faster then the RX
huh. Take a look at these numbers then.
1996 Acura NSX-T
0-60 5.8 sec.
1/4 mile 14.3
Lat G's .84
60-0 111"
Slalom 68.4mph
1997 Acura NSX-T
0-60 4.8 sec
1/4 mile 13.3
Lat G's .94
60-0 120"
slalom 69.5mph
1995 Mazda RX-7
0-60 5 sec
1/4 mile 14.0
Lat G's .98
60-0 113"
Slalom 69.8mph
Gee, looks like the RX-7 walked all over the 252hp NSX and still ran ahead
of the improved 290hp version in the handling dept. For half the price.
And it looks just as good if not better in the styling dept.
Schools out.
BTW The Touring class is a modified class so...
Take a look at the Stock classes if you want to see real world.
>There is no car in that series that even comes close to the handleing
>performance of an NSX though.
Yea sure, whatever.
Tino
but just not the best. Like I mentioned (I think in another email), I wouldnt
mind a fun front driver as my main car but I'd still want a strong rear drive
for weekend fun. Thats the ideal.
Eran Geller wrote:
> go test drive the Prelude SH's and then
> tell me what you think about the handling of a front
> wheel drive car, and how fun is it to drive.
>
> I just so a post by someone in the rx-7 mailing
> list who just bought a 99 prelude sh and seemed
> very pleased.
>
> You might even end up buying one.
>
> -Chai Geller
> 99 Prelude SH
> Crystal Blue Metallic
>
> Tino wrote in message <36A7F9BA...@home.com>...
Err nitto
>This is true and I will agree with you however I know many exprienced drivers
>who prefer RWD even in snow (as long as they have snow tires). I know a guy
>who
>used to Rally as part of a race team many years back in England and he said
>that
>RWD is safer in the winter and in the rallys as you could control the back
>end
>with the throttle, but FWD is almost impossible to recover if the rear tries
>to
>come around in the snow. I'm not too sure since I usually drive slow in the
>snow.
>
>All I can say is that my 86 mustang was actually easier to drive in the snow
>when it had all 4 snows on the car (and full tank of gas) than my little
>winter
>beater now ('92 suzuki swift with 4 snows). This might be weight helping but
>its
>easier to drive for me but I would not give my sister or mother the same car
>as
>I fear for their life.
>
>
>So you are right that the average driver may end up in a ditch in bad weather
>in
>a RWD if they are not careful.
>
well said. RWD cars have a bad reputation cuz people some don't have a clue on
how to manipulate the throttle in certain positions. Also, when braking, the
front wheels will lock up, but the rear wheels will still continue to spin. I
remember the first time I drove the Z in the snow...(that was fun). I would
start to brake, causing the front to lock but still continue to slide since my
rear wheels would continue to move. Easy fix: shift into neutral when braking.
I couldn't agree with you more on the RWD power slides. It's much harder to
bring the rear end back under control w/ a front wheel drive, whereas w/ a RWD
you can easily control it w/ some throttle modulation.
----
Phuong
90 300ZX 2+2 Stage 3
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/nitto
Gary Wolfe
>Eran Geller wrote:
>>
>> go test drive the Prelude SH's and then
>> tell me what you think about the handling of a front
>> wheel drive car, and how fun is it to drive.
>I own a Nissan 200sx SE-R, so I know what a FWD can do. They are okay,
>just not the ideal set up.
But do you know what ATTS can do? Last time I looked, that was only
on the Prelude SH. :-)
>> I just so a post by someone in the rx-7 mailing
>> list who just bought a 99 prelude sh and seemed
>> very pleased.
>Okay, I'm on that list. I have talked with that guy one on one. His name
>is Crandell. He likes the Prelude yes, because it replaced a 12 year old
>car!
I replaced a Gen2 RX-7 with a Prelude as well. I think they are both
very similar in many ways. They are about the same speed-wise, and
they both are very "tossable". The Prelude has more passenger space,
and is a bit heavier, but the "feel" of the car is similar to the
RX-7. The steering is heavier, which I had to get used to, but the
only real "problem" is that it comes with crummy tires stock, while
the RX-7 came with great Z-rated tires. There just didn't seem to be
many cars to look at in this segment, unless you also go into the
$30K+ range.
>We talked about performance. He has said the Lude would get walked 10
>out of 10 times by his REX...
Perhaps, but I can't tell. The Prelude is very neutral, with only a
slight push. I think if I could find stickier tires, I'd be much
happier. The RX handled great, but with mediocre tires, it would do
poorly. I would be interested to hear if Crandell is still using the
stock Potenza's. I'm not saying the Prelude is a supercar, but then
neither was the 2nd Gen RX-7. The 3rd Gen is a different story, but
it's in a completely different price bracket as well.
>> You might even end up buying one.
>To replace my RX-7? Never. To have as a daily scooter? Sure.
>
><snip>
For a 3rd Gen, I completely agree, they are at different performance
levels. I just couldn't see myself getting a used Gen 3 RX-7, and the
Prelude was the closest thing I could find with a similar "feel".
--
Gary Wolfe
t...@ix.netcom.com
Eran Geller
out in japan, now if i had the money and wanted
a 2 seater and they imported them to the US,
i'd definitely like one of those.
280 ps, improved suspension, etc.....
just think....
For now, i'm very happy with my car.
-Chai Geller
99 Prelude SH
Crystal Blue Metallic
JasonH <"jasonh"@cttel.net> wrote in message ...
>Eran Geller wrote:
>>
>> go test drive the Prelude SH's and then
>> tell me what you think about the handling of a front
>> wheel drive car, and how fun is it to drive.
>
>I own a Nissan 200sx SE-R, so I know what a FWD can do. They are okay,
>just not the ideal set up.
>
>> I just so a post by someone in the rx-7 mailing
>> list who just bought a 99 prelude sh and seemed
>> very pleased.
>
>Okay, I'm on that list. I have talked with that guy one on one. His name
>is Crandell. He likes the Prelude yes, because it replaced a 12 year old
>car!
>
>We talked about performance. He has said the Lude would get walked 10
>out of 10 times by his REX...
>
JasonH
>hehe, did you see the new rx-7 that's comming
>out in japan, now if i had the money and wanted
>a 2 seater and they imported them to the US,
>i'd definitely like one of those.
Tell me about it...I am interested in the RX-01 that is supposed to hit
stateside in 2000. 2400lbs 225hp non turbo newly designed rotary, and most
of the weight is inside the wheelbase! Priced in the mid 20's.
>280 ps, improved suspension, etc.....
>just think....
I just watched a video that has the new NSX and the Mitsu EVO racing the New
RX in a "iron man" type competition. Drag, Road, Cone....
The RX came in first, the other two were right on his ass, but he still took
it. :)
>For now, i'm very happy with my car.
Prelude are nice cars, I never said thery were not...
Aside from the RX-01 I'm waiting for the Skyline. It was revealed at the
Detroit Motor show rebadged as an Infiniti, it's scheduled here in 2001!
Mike Kohlbrenner
>
> Eran Geller wrote:
> >
> > go test drive the Prelude SH's and then
> > tell me what you think about the handling of a front
> > wheel drive car, and how fun is it to drive.
>
> I own a Nissan 200sx SE-R, so I know what a FWD can do.
> They are okay, just not the ideal set up.
The 200SX SE-R is not the best example of FWD performance.
The original Sentra SE-R or the NX2000 were good examples,
but once Nissan decided to cripple the handling of both
the Sentra/200SX and Maxima with beam rear ends, they
ceased to be top notch FWD cars.
For cars with low-to-moderate power, the advantage of
RWD is certainly there, but a good FWD can certainly
get closer than most seem willing to admit.
--
Mike Kohlbrenner
Mike Kohlbrenner
>
> >Admittedly, Scotts initial point was somewhat shy on the
> >constraints, but he is, in fact, correct.
> >
> >What he should have said was this:
>
> Then I would not have said what I said. In the context that he wrote it,
> that was the reply.
>
> > Of two cars, equal in interior volume, engine, structure,
> > etc, but different in which wheels are driven by a front
> > engine, the RWD car will be heavier than the FWD car.
> >
> >That is a fact and cannot be argued.
>
> Feel better now? Yes you proved your supreme knowledge, this lemming
> concedes...
There is no need to be so nasty... Can't we just have a
mature discussion about cars?
> It does not however, answer his response in it's context.
>
> >> Tell me why the Miata is only 2200lbs with RWD then?
> >
> >Because it is a tiny little two seater. The original VW
> >Rabbit was probably 500 lb. lighter than the Miata. That
> >proves nothing.
>
> His argument was that the Prelude was FWD to make it lighter.
If the Prelude were RWD, all else remaining equal, it would
be heavier. Its acceleration would therefore suffer, if by
only a small amount, but it just might handle better in
certain situations.
> My point is that's a crock.
I agree with you that saving the weight of RWD is not the
primary reason that the Prelude is FWD.
> You can make a RWD very light as well.
Sure, but again, all else remaining equal, FWD is lighter.
> If they were
> concerned about feather weight on their "premier" performance car they could
> have taken some of the steps that Mazda did to lighten their cars. A 3000lb
> 4cylinder sport car is a porker, period.
The Prelude is NOT intended to be a sports car. It is
intended to be a high end sports coupe.
> Nice spin, you should work for the Whitehouse...
Nice attitude. You should check it at the door.
Again, if you can't have a mature discussion, I'm finished
with you.
--
Mike Kohlbrenner
Mike Kohlbrenner
>
> I understand that Honda makes primarily front wheel drive automobiles.
> The Civic, the Accord, the Legends -- all front wheel drive. However, I
> don't think that, if Honda wanted the Prelude to be rear wheel drive,
> that it would design the car exactly the same as the front wheel drive
> version with just a drive shaft and whatever else is needed added.
Of course not. There are a lot of changes required -- the
tunnel needs to be enlarged, the whole rear end needs to
be redesigned to accomodate the rear diff and drive shafts.
> Honda does good engineering so I'm sure that they could
> design the Prelude such that a rear wheel drive setup would
> not be detrimental. Would a good rear wheel drive design
> increase weight enough to significantly affect acceleration?
All else being equal, RWD would be heavier. Not by a huge
amount, but heavier. Also, to maintain the same interior
volume, the overall car would be bigger. This is part of
where the extra weight comes in and it also effects things
like aero drag, etc.
> Let me ask this: has the Prelude ever been rear wheel drive?
No.
> Honda must know that there are advantages to rear wheel drive considering
> the NSX and S2000 are rear wheel drive. I'm wondering why they did not
> apply that principal to the Prelude, Honda's flagship.
I think that herein lies the root of the problem in this
discussion. Your original premise is flawed. You started
by saying:
The Prelude is, historically, supposed to be Honda's
(I'm not including Acura) flag ship that exhibits Honda's
new technology and is the best performer.
I think "flagship" is the wrong word to use. And it is
certainly not Honda's best performer now (and I specifically
DO include Acuras). Back in 1980, when the model was first
introduced, it was merely intended to provide a Honda
offering in the Sport Coupe market. 1984 was when it really
began to exhibit anything close to performance.
The Prelude was then, and remains today, Honda's high end
4 cylinder FWD Sport Coupe offering. It was then, and
remains today, Honda's primary platform with which it
introduces new FWD technology -- multilink suspension, 4WS,
ATTS, etc. Of course, even this is blurring since VTEC
first appeared on the NSX and then the Integra before it
hit the Prelude.
The fact of the matter is that the Prelude is a FWD car
first and a performance car second. If only more folks
would acknowledge this context, we wouldn't have all of
these ridiculous comparisons with REAL performance cars...
--
Mike Kohlbrenner
LoudAssSH
would. I have always been a big fan of FWD til my Prelude. It handles like a
RWD car when pushed hard in hairpins but dosen't react like one. I have to
admit it confuses me sometimes. As for a completely off base useless point, I
think the car really really looks like a RWD machine. Later.....
99 Type SH Premium White Pearl
JasonH
We have different opinions on the multilink beam. The 200sx SE-R posts just
as quick a time in ALL the autocross events I attend with it, and on the
SCCA stock circuit as the old SE-R's. I have two friends with the Sentra
SE-R and neither on can run away from the other.
You need to stop going by magazine qoutes alone, that's almost word for word
what "certain" magazines have said. However some real grassroots mags have
said different.
I don't know why you are dogging my heals but it's starting to get old now.
I can out acclerate a 170hp Integra GSR and stay with a Type R in the turns.
MT got 67.8 mph in the slalom from the Type R
67.3 out of the 200sx SE-R.
And I know what they can do in the real world as well, because I own one,
and actively race.
Nuff said.
Mike Kohlbrenner wrote in message <36A9F6...@My.Mailbox>...
JasonH
>There is no need to be so nasty... Can't we just have a
>mature discussion about cars?
<snip>
>Again, if you can't have a mature discussion, I'm finished
>with you.
>Mike Kohlbrenner
<snip>
That is what erks me about you. Your arrogance is sad. Like it would change
my life if the "teacher" is through with me...Dont' flatter yourself.
Hairsplit to be right if you want, but the major point still stands.
Maturity includes not "spliting hairs just to be right" Mike. When you can
overcome that let me know. I will be glad to have a discussion with you, if
your willing to listen and learn as well as "teach and instruct".
It's easy to say this or that and qoute from here or there. It's a whole
different ball game when your actually out there driving the cars.
Mike Kohlbrenner
>
> <snip>
> >There is no need to be so nasty... Can't we just have a
> >mature discussion about cars?
> <snip>
>
> <snip>
> >Again, if you can't have a mature discussion, I'm finished
> >with you.
> >Mike Kohlbrenner
> <snip>
>
> That is what erks me about you. Your arrogance is sad.
And what do you call your response? I quote:
"You know I will never be amazed at some of the responses
given in this group.
I merely tried to clarify a valid point made by someone else
who got everything from your condescending response to
another who said simply "bu!!$h!t".
Methinks you have a bit of a problem being shown you are
wrong...
Like I said, you can't seem to hold a mature conversation.
I am done with you.
--
Mike Kohlbrenner
Mike Kohlbrenner
but that is before I read this post...
JasonH wrote:
>
> You ever drive one?
No, I haven't.
> We have different opinions on the multilink beam. The 200sx SE-R posts just
> as quick a time in ALL the autocross events I attend with it, and on the
> SCCA stock circuit as the old SE-R's. I have two friends with the Sentra
> SE-R and neither on can run away from the other.
>
> You need to stop going by magazine qoutes alone, that's almost word for word
> what "certain" magazines have said. However some real grassroots mags have
> said different.
Fair enough. I admit that my statement about the handling of
the beam rear ended SE-R was probably baseless.
Call me surprised that it handles as well as the multi-link,
but since you have direct experience, I won't doubt you.
> I don't know why you are dogging my heals but it's starting to get old now.
I am not dogging you. I was simply trying to talk about
cars. Isn't that what this newsgroup is about?
I am responding to this post because it was void of the crap
that you put into your other posts to me. Further, I am
trying to show you how easy it is to simply say to someone
"I guess I was wrong..."
--
Mike Kohlbrenner
John Frost
>
>I think "flagship" is the wrong word to use. And it is
>certainly not Honda's best performer now (and I specifically
>DO include Acuras). Back in 1980, when the model was first
>introduced, it was merely intended to provide a Honda
>offering in the Sport Coupe market. 1984 was when it really
>began to exhibit anything close to performance.
>
Actually, the Prelude was introduced in 1979.
Michael Ereon
No.Ju...@My.Mailbox (Mike Kohlbrenner) Re: Re~Why is the Prelude
FWD?
>Methinks you have a bit of a problem
>being shown you are wrong...
Sorry to jump in here, Mike, but Id like to state that Jason has been
proven wrong by me(and others) a few times and vice versa. He admits
when he is wrong and so do I.
>Like I said, you can't seem to hold a
>mature conversation.
With all due respect, do a DejaNews search on him. He has excellent
credibility. He goes to the track and interacts with alot of
enthusiasts, something a lot of people never do.
I have yet to see some "immature conversations" from him on the Mustang
NG. Only when he has to.
>I am done with you.
Give him some time. Hes a good kid.
>--
>Mike Kohlbrenner
See ya!
Mike
1986 Pontiac Grand Prix LE
http://members.xoom.com/GPMike/GPMike.htm
Michael Ereon
From: char...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Doug Chartier) Re: Why is the
Prelude FWD?
>Let me ask this question to the
>members of this newsgroup: would you
>be upset if, today, Honda announced
>that the next generation Prelude would
>be rear wheel drive?
IMO, it would be better off with FWD. With a RWD setup, you will be
able to use torque from the engine and Hondas have no significant
torque(as supposed to a 3L Yamaha-Ford). Youd have to develop some kind
of new engine with at least 180ft. lbs. Look at the S2000, It has
almost no torque, but it uses high gears,thus the NEED for a 6th gear(to
keep cruising revs low) HP sells cars, torque wins races...
>And to any muscle car owners roaming
>about this newsgroup: would you be
>upset if, today, GM said that the next
>generation F-Body (imagine that GM
>wasn't considering discontinuing it)
>would be front wheel drive?
Probably, since it has been RWD for 30 years, and the Lude has been for
15?. Its pretty much a loyalty issue. Why has there been such a
commotion when the RWD Grand Prix, Monte Carlo and Cutlass went to FWD?
Mike Kohlbrenner
>
> Group: rec.autos.makers.honda Date: Sat, Jan 23, 1999, 9:52pm From:
> No.Ju...@My.Mailbox (Mike Kohlbrenner) Re: Re~Why is the Prelude
> FWD?
>
> >Methinks you have a bit of a problem
> >being shown you are wrong...
>
> Sorry to jump in here, Mike, but Id like to state that Jason has been
> proven wrong by me(and others) a few times and vice versa. He admits
> when he is wrong and so do I.
How am I to interpret the following:
"Feel better now? Yes you proved your supreme knowledge,
this lemming concedes..."
"Nice spin, you should work for the Whitehouse..."
"That is what erks me about you. Your arrogance is sad."
What did I say to deserve this kind of treatment?
--
Mike Kohlbrenner
JasonH
That was very nice of you. I still think your overweight, old, Detriot
iron muscle car sucks though... ;) Just kidding :)
Maybe I did come off a little to harsh on Mike K. I dunno, I just can't
stand when the original point gets marred by hair splitting. He is
technically right in what he said, it just was not in context of the
original post. It seemed like somone stepping in just to say "look I am
smart"
If not I apologize.
<Mike Ereon saves the day, crowd cheers>
Michael Ereon wrote in message
<13825-36...@newsd-154.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Group: rec.autos.makers.honda Date: Sat, Jan 23, 1999, 9:52pm From:
No.Ju...@My.Mailbox (Mike Kohlbrenner) Re: Re~Why is the Prelude
FWD?
>Methinks you have a bit of a problem
>being shown you are wrong...
Sorry to jump in here, Mike, but Id like to state that Jason has been
proven wrong by me(and others) a few times and vice versa. He admits
when he is wrong and so do I.
>Like I said, you can't seem to hold a
>mature conversation.
With all due respect, do a DejaNews search on him. He has excellent
credibility. He goes to the track and interacts with alot of
enthusiasts, something a lot of people never do.
I have yet to see some "immature conversations" from him on the Mustang
NG. Only when he has to.
>I am done with you.
Give him some time. Hes a good kid.
>--
>Mike Kohlbrenner
See ya!
Eric
> >about this newsgroup: would you be
> >upset if, today, GM said that the next
> >generation F-Body (imagine that GM
> >wasn't considering discontinuing it)
> >would be front wheel drive?
Yes, i would be upset if GM did that (and it has been suggested, the
possibility of the camaro name being used in the same way the cougar name
is, on a FWD little sports car).
First it wouldn't have as good handling characteristics. Maybe honda can do
it, but i'll admit i have a hard time seeing gm make a front wheel drive car
loose the torque steer and understeer. (hell even the STS has some and
that's what they use to show off their new techology). 2nd it would mean no
V8, as i really don't think they could shoehorn a big V8 in transversely, or
make it drivable.
LoudAssSH
>that's what they use to show off their new techology).
......I've driven them and those cars have a ton of torque steer.
> 2nd it would mean no
>V8, as i really don't think they could shoehorn a big V8 in transversely, or
>make it drivable.
Umm isn't the Northstar V8 a V8? Caddy did it for years as did a few Buick
Riverea's. Later..........
Doug Chartier
> > design the Prelude such that a rear wheel drive setup would
> > not be detrimental. Would a good rear wheel drive design
> > increase weight enough to significantly affect acceleration?
>
> All else being equal, RWD would be heavier. Not by a huge
> amount, but heavier. Also, to maintain the same interior
> volume, the overall car would be bigger. This is part of
> where the extra weight comes in and it also effects things
> like aero drag, etc.
>
Yes, I have noted that RWD would be heavier than FWD, all things being
equal. However, it doesn't sound like the Prelude would need to be
significantly heavier if it were RWD so acceleration would not be greatly
diminished from the weight. Someone said that its acceleration could
remain unchanged in spite of the weight change because of the advantages
of RWD.
The RWD design could also improve the Prelude's handling over the front
driver, right? So such a change to the Prelude's design doesn't sound too
detrimental to me.
I doubt if the Prelude would increase in dimensions because of a loss of
interior space. When has vast interior space ever been the hallmark of
the Prelude?
> > Let me ask this: has the Prelude ever been rear wheel drive?
>
> No.
Alright. I asked that question because there are many cars today that are
FWD that used to be RWD. The Corolla is among them.
>
> > Honda must know that there are advantages to rear wheel drive considering
> > the NSX and S2000 are rear wheel drive. I'm wondering why they did not
> > apply that principal to the Prelude, Honda's flagship.
>
> I think that herein lies the root of the problem in this
> discussion. Your original premise is flawed. You started
> by saying:
>
> The Prelude is, historically, supposed to be Honda's
> (I'm not including Acura) flag ship that exhibits Honda's
> new technology and is the best performer.
>
> I think "flagship" is the wrong word to use. And it is
> certainly not Honda's best performer now (and I specifically
> DO include Acuras). Back in 1980, when the model was first
> introduced, it was merely intended to provide a Honda
> offering in the Sport Coupe market. 1984 was when it really
> began to exhibit anything close to performance.
I'm still unconvinced that the Prelude is not the flagship of the
Honda line in America (but I'll change this view when the S2000 is
available). In Japan, the Prelude may even just be another mid-level
sports coupe for Honda (though I'm dubious of that statement as well), but
the automobile world in Japan is quite different from the automobile world
of America. In Japan, Nissan's best offering is the GT-R while in
America, it was the 300ZX. So in America, one would consider the 300ZX
Nissan's flagship while, in Japan, it clearly is not. Similar principal
here.
Did the Prelude in the early 80's outperform the Accord and Civic? If so,
I would consider the early 80's Prelude the flagship of Honda automobiles.
And there was no Acura back then.
Even if my original premise were flawed, such a flaw would not explain
why the Prelude was not originally designed as a rear wheel drive
automobile. It also would not explain why the Prelude did not evolve into
RWD. I suppose that one could extend the same questions to the Integra
because the two automobiles are so comparable and compete in roughly the
same markets. Both cars are designed to appeal to people who like fun
cars that accelerate well and handle very nicely. Certainly RWD would be
an added attraction.
>
> The Prelude was then, and remains today, Honda's high end
> 4 cylinder FWD Sport Coupe offering. It was then, and
> remains today, Honda's primary platform with which it
> introduces new FWD technology -- multilink suspension, 4WS,
> ATTS, etc. Of course, even this is blurring since VTEC
> first appeared on the NSX and then the Integra before it
> hit the Prelude.
I don't think that the Prelude is a front wheel drive car first and a
performance car second. I think that it is a performance car that happens
to be front wheel driver (an oxymoron to some enthusiasts). For a front
wheel drive automobile, the Prelude handles wonderfully. I have no doubts
about that. I also do not doubt that Honda wanted the Prelude to be a fun
to drive and well performing machine. Such intentions bring RWD to mind.
My fundamental question is why Honda has and continues to build the
Prelude as a front wheel drive car. Why would Honda not want the Prelude
to be a "real" performance car, as you clearly do not think that it is
due to its driven wheels?
Doug Chartier
wheel drive.
I remember that in Car & Driver, in their 40,000(?) mile review of the
current generation Prelude, one reviewer noted that the center tunnel was
mighty large for a front wheel driver. It's probably for
reinforcement, but maybe Honda's was also trying to give the driver a
visual impression of rear wheel drive?
Doug Chartier
find loopholes is the best way to hold a discussion, but I can understand
his desire for a mature discussion (no offense to you, JasonH -- I must
admit that I can't remember what you guys were discussing).
It's far too easy oo receive a reply to a valid question on Usenet that is
something along the lines of:
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!! YOU'LL NEVER GET
ANYWHERE IN LIFE!!! CHEVYS RULE, FORDS DROOL!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
As funny as those posts are to read the first time you see them, they get
a little old after a while.
Of course we'd never see any of that on the Honda newsgroup. We're above
all that!
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, JasonH wrote:
> <snip>
> >There is no need to be so nasty... Can't we just have a
> >mature discussion about cars?
> <snip>
>
> <snip>
> >Again, if you can't have a mature discussion, I'm finished
> >with you.
> >Mike Kohlbrenner
> <snip>
>
Doug Chartier
automobile?
If that were a problem then, as you say, gearing could solve it. Hondas
are always geared pretty low as it is. Honda owners can live without the
sixth gear as most owners are used to their noisy, rev-crazy engines.
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Michael Ereon wrote:
> Group: rec.autos.makers.honda Date: Fri, Jan 22, 1999, 10:40am (EST-3)
> From: char...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Doug Chartier) Re: Why is the
> Prelude FWD?
>
> >Let me ask this question to the
> >members of this newsgroup: would you
> >be upset if, today, Honda announced
> >that the next generation Prelude would
> >be rear wheel drive?
>
> IMO, it would be better off with FWD. With a RWD setup, you will be
> able to use torque from the engine and Hondas have no significant
> torque(as supposed to a 3L Yamaha-Ford). Youd have to develop some kind
> of new engine with at least 180ft. lbs. Look at the S2000, It has
> almost no torque, but it uses high gears,thus the NEED for a 6th gear(to
> keep cruising revs low) HP sells cars, torque wins races...
>
> >And to any muscle car owners roaming
> >about this newsgroup: would you be
> >upset if, today, GM said that the next
> >generation F-Body (imagine that GM
> >wasn't considering discontinuing it)
> >would be front wheel drive?
>
> Probably, since it has been RWD for 30 years, and the Lude has been for
> 15?. Its pretty much a loyalty issue. Why has there been such a
> commotion when the RWD Grand Prix, Monte Carlo and Cutlass went to FWD?
>
I would go so far as to say F-body owners would be outraged if GM told
them that FWD was the wave of the future for the Camarobirds. Have fun
drag racing and doing burnouts! Such an announcement would be good for
the used F-body market, though. There could also be an exodus to the
Mustang camp.
Doug Chartier
are far worse things he could have said. At least he didn't cuss or
impugn your sexual predilections.
I suppose that you could always console yourself by thinking, "Who cares?
Great men are always hated."
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Mike Kohlbrenner wrote:
> Michael Ereon wrote:
> >
> > Group: rec.autos.makers.honda Date: Sat, Jan 23, 1999, 9:52pm From:
> > No.Ju...@My.Mailbox (Mike Kohlbrenner) Re: Re~Why is the Prelude
> > FWD?
> >
> > >Methinks you have a bit of a problem
> > >being shown you are wrong...
> >
> > Sorry to jump in here, Mike, but Id like to state that Jason has been
> > proven wrong by me(and others) a few times and vice versa. He admits
> > when he is wrong and so do I.
>
> How am I to interpret the following:
>
> "Feel better now? Yes you proved your supreme knowledge,
> this lemming concedes..."
>
> "Nice spin, you should work for the Whitehouse..."
>
> "That is what erks me about you. Your arrogance is sad."
>
z
years ago; not a big seller. Bottom line: Prelude is already a pretty
good handler; attempts to improve it by going to something heavier and
with more parts pan out less than just refining the existing design.
Gary Wolfe
.....
>The RWD design could also improve the Prelude's handling over the front
>driver, right? So such a change to the Prelude's design doesn't sound too
>detrimental to me.
>I don't think that the Prelude is a front wheel drive car first and a
>performance car second. I think that it is a performance car that happens
>to be front wheel driver (an oxymoron to some enthusiasts). For a front
>wheel drive automobile, the Prelude handles wonderfully. I have no doubts
>about that. I also do not doubt that Honda wanted the Prelude to be a fun
>to drive and well performing machine. Such intentions bring RWD to mind.
Would a RWD Prelude be "better" or "different"? Keep in mind that, as
a FWD, you can drift the car, especially if you play with the tire
pressure a bit... :-) SEEMS to be fun... Personally I think it's fun
to step on it from a light in the rain and NOT fishtail into the car
next to me, but hey, that's just me. ;-)
>My fundamental question is why Honda has and continues to build the
>Prelude as a front wheel drive car. Why would Honda not want the Prelude
>to be a "real" performance car, as you clearly do not think that it is
>due to its driven wheels?
Maybe they look at it as a challenge, the same way that they use it to
experiment with 4WS, ATTS, etc. It's obvious that the manufacturers
would prefer FWD, else all of them wouldn't be making so many of them,
so the question is, how to make the best of it?
And is the Prelude really THAT limited because of FWD? The two main
arguments seem to be that 1) RWD has better handling, and 2) RWD
provides traction for drag racing. Although I would think stiffening
up the suspension might help, I'll assume you'll never get #2 to be a
positive for FWD. But for #1, how is it that Motor Trend gives it a
"best handling under $30K", and gives it an honorable mention in the
"over $30K" review (actually comparing it to the M3)? How about the
comments in the latest Automobile? In other words, if FWD were such
an impediment to handling, how come everyone seems to think it handles
well? Honda loyalty? Mass hysteria? ;-)
I guess all I'm trying to get at is, is it really THAT bad? In the
same vein, some people complain about the lack of IRS in certain
muscle cars. Is it really THAT bad? Maybe in certain circumstances
it's not ideal, but perhaps it's Good Enough for the most part.
>> The fact of the matter is that the Prelude is a FWD car
>> first and a performance car second. If only more folks
>> would acknowledge this context, we wouldn't have all of
>> these ridiculous comparisons with REAL performance cars...
>> Mike Kohlbrenner
Can I assume that "REAL performance" is being defined as NSX,
Corvette, Supra Turbo, Gen 3 RX-7, Camaro Z28, for some examples? Or
is it the mention of NSX & S2000 2 messages back up the thread? I'm
confused....
What should the Prelude be compared to? It seems like it compares
well (arguably) to the Mustang GT (although prob'ly not quite to the
'99's accel. level), maybe Eclipse, maybe a loaded V6 f-body.... uh,
are there any other sporty coupes these days that don't have wimpy
engines? :-)
I think the worst part about the Prelude is that you pay a bit more
than you might think you should, probably because it's an import. But
for the money, you get something that is a bit more unique. For all
of the statements about how few f-bodies are being sold, I see them on
the road each and every day, yet I rarely see another Prelude. I like
the uniqueness and I prefer the "small car" handling that I don't get
in some other cars. I think what makes a car "performance" and "fun"
depends upon the priorities of the driver. I wouldn't buy the Prelude
just to drag race, but if you are into that, perhaps trying to work
past the limitations of FWD would be quite a challenge. At least it
might make a hobby.
--
Gary Wolfe
t...@ix.netcom.com
Lee Cao
>
> I think that few people would be heart-broken if the Prelude became rear
> wheel drive.
>
> I remember that in Car & Driver, in their 40,000(?) mile review of the
> current generation Prelude, one reviewer noted that the center tunnel was
> mighty large for a front wheel driver. It's probably for
> reinforcement, but maybe Honda's was also trying to give the driver a
> visual impression of rear wheel drive?
Most Honda automobiles, including the current Prelude and Accord,
are available as AWD vehicles in Japan. =) Imagine that...
--
Lee Cao - http://www.leecao.com/
\ READ THE FAQs BEFORE YOU ASQs /
= http://www.mobileaudio.com/rac-faq/ =
/ http://tutorials.jlaudio.com/ \
Eric
> them that FWD was the wave of the future for the Camarobirds. Have fun
> drag racing and doing burnouts! Such an announcement would be good for
> the used F-body market, though. There could also be an exodus to the
> Mustang camp.
I agree, but i don't know about the exodus to Mustangs. Many of us F-body guys
are die hard Chevy/Pontiac fans and buying a Ford would be equivalent to
selling your soul.
Michael Ereon
>Why would a RWD automobile require
>so much more torque than a FWD
>automobile?
Im saying with a RWD car, you can use torque more efficiently. Torque is
more important than hp. Hp is the rate of torque production over a given
amount of time. A Civic Si (127hp?) would have a hard time with a 2.8
V-6 Camaro (135hp) because the Camaro has more torque. I should know, I
raced one.
>If that were a problem then, as you say,
>gearing could solve it. Hondas are
>always geared pretty low as it is. Honda
>owners can live without the sixth gear
>as most owners are used to their noisy,
>rev-crazy engines.
Huh? Low gearing? How come the NSX cruises at 70mph at 2750rpms? Thats
pretty high, if you ask me. The C5 Vette and Viper do it at 1400rpms.
High revs=high wear and tear.
A low geared car would have a great top speed.
See ya!
Mike
1986 Pontiac Grand Prix LE
http://members.xoom.com/GPMike/GPMike.htm *better pics coming soon
Mike Kohlbrenner
> ...
> Maybe I did come off a little to harsh on Mike K. I dunno, I just can't
> stand when the original point gets marred by hair splitting. He is
> technically right in what he said, it just was not in context of the
> original post.
The context of the posts I responded to (including yours) was
simply that someone said "RWD is heavier" and folks landed on
him saying he was wrong. I merely clarified what I thought
his point was.
Obviously you agreed with my clarified point,
so why was that not merely taken at face value?
> It seemed like somone stepping in just to say "look I am
> smart"
If I came off that way, I certainly didn't mean to. That is
not my intent for posting here. I read a lot, learn a lot,
and contribute when I think I have something to offer.
> If not I apologize.
Don't sweat it...
--
Mike Kohlbrenner
<kohlbren (-a t-) an dot hp dot com> sorry!
Mike Kohlbrenner
>
> I think that few people would be heart-broken if the Prelude became rear
> wheel drive.
Few enthusiasts, anyway. Unfortunately for those enthusiasts,
my guess is that the majority of actual current Prelude buyers
are actually part of the FWD generation and wouldn't know what
to do with RWD if they had it. Let's face it, many people
don't care one way or another, a bunch actually prefer FWD
since (like myself) they have to deal with snow and only want
one car, and a bunch more shouldn't be allowed to drive a RWD
car with any kind of power. I think this is really what
Honda sees as the market for this car.
Of course, this begs the question of whether more buyers would
be gained than lost with a conversion to RWD...
Mike Kohlbrenner
>
> The RWD design could also improve the Prelude's handling over the front
> driver, right? So such a change to the Prelude's design doesn't sound too
> detrimental to me.
It wouldn't be detrimental to performance, but I think it
would be detrimental to its market position. It would be
a different car.
> I doubt if the Prelude would increase in dimensions because of a loss of
> interior space. When has vast interior space ever been the hallmark of
> the Prelude?
The "MM Concept" has long been a part of Honda's design
philosophy. This stands for something like "maximum interior
volume/minimum exterior size". FWD is a big part of that
concept.
> > > Honda must know that there are advantages to rear wheel drive considering
> > > the NSX and S2000 are rear wheel drive. I'm wondering why they did not
> > > apply that principal to the Prelude, Honda's flagship.
> >
> > I think that herein lies the root of the problem in this
> > discussion. Your original premise is flawed. You started
> > by saying:
> >
> > The Prelude is, historically, supposed to be Honda's
> > (I'm not including Acura) flag ship that exhibits Honda's
> > new technology and is the best performer.
> >
> > I think "flagship" is the wrong word to use. And it is
> > certainly not Honda's best performer now (and I specifically
> > DO include Acuras). Back in 1980, when the model was first
> > introduced, it was merely intended to provide a Honda
> > offering in the Sport Coupe market. 1984 was when it really
> > began to exhibit anything close to performance.
>
> I'm still unconvinced that the Prelude is not the flagship of the
> Honda line in America (but I'll change this view when the S2000 is
> available). In Japan, the Prelude may even just be another mid-level
> sports coupe for Honda (though I'm dubious of that statement as well), but
> the automobile world in Japan is quite different from the automobile world
> of America. In Japan, Nissan's best offering is the GT-R while in
> America, it was the 300ZX. So in America, one would consider the 300ZX
> Nissan's flagship while, in Japan, it clearly is not. Similar principal
> here.
I think this is breaking down into a semantic argument over
the definition of "flagship". I do see your point. I guess
in the sense of marketing, the two companies are separate
in one of Honda's largest markets.
> Did the Prelude in the early 80's outperform the Accord and Civic?
Probably, but not by enough to raise it well above the rest
of the FWD market. If I am not mistaken, its weight was
between the Civic and Accord with the Accord engine.
> If so, I would consider the early 80's Prelude the flagship
> of Honda automobiles. And there was no Acura back then.
Again, it comes down to semantics. I don't know if Honda
marketed the car that way back then.
> Even if my original premise were flawed, such a flaw would not explain
> why the Prelude was not originally designed as a rear wheel drive
> automobile.
Let's skip the "flagship" argument for now...
The point I was trying to make was that Honda was and remains
a company that produces primarily FWD cars. From an engineering
and manufacturing standpoint, I don't think it would have made
any sense to design the original Prelude as a RWD car. They
couldn't have simply dropped the Accord drivetrain into it,
they would have had to develop an entirely new assembly
process, etc. That is a lot of work simply to get into
the small (relative to Accord/Civic) coupe market.
> It also would not explain why the Prelude did not evolve into
> RWD.
I think that this was simply a question of market position.
Right up to the present day, I still contend that Honda sees
the Prelude as a high-end FWD 4 cyl Sport Coupe. It gets
the best and newest of Honda's FWD technology.
Call it Honda's "FWD flagship" and I think we've got it
nailed...
> I suppose that one could extend the same questions to the Integra
> because the two automobiles are so comparable and compete in roughly the
> same markets. Both cars are designed to appeal to people who like fun
> cars that accelerate well and handle very nicely. Certainly RWD would be
> an added attraction.
The Integra is marketed as an entry level Acura. Capture
the folks who will graduate into the more expensive models.
It is based on the Civic platform and it would be prohibitively
expensive to design a new RWD platform.
Look, for example, at how expensive the S2000 will be and
how few they plan on selling.
> > The Prelude was then, and remains today, Honda's high end
> > 4 cylinder FWD Sport Coupe offering. It was then, and
> > remains today, Honda's primary platform with which it
> > introduces new FWD technology -- multilink suspension, 4WS,
> > ATTS, etc. Of course, even this is blurring since VTEC
> > first appeared on the NSX and then the Integra before it
> > hit the Prelude.
>
> I don't think that the Prelude is a front wheel drive car
> first and a performance car second.
Then we disagree...
> I think that it is a performance car that happens to be
> front wheel driver (an oxymoron to some enthusiasts).
Let me ask you this, and please answer it from the Honda
perspective -- If they wanted to build a PERFORMANCE car,
what would they build, the current Prelude or the S2000?
> For a front wheel drive automobile, the Prelude handles
> wonderfully. I have no doubts about that. I also do
> not doubt that Honda wanted the Prelude to be a fun
> to drive and well performing machine. Such intentions
> bring RWD to mind.
Then why didn't they do it?
That is my point. FWD first, Performance second...
> My fundamental question is why Honda has and continues to build the
> Prelude as a front wheel drive car. Why would Honda not want the Prelude
> to be a "real" performance car, as you clearly do not think that it is
> due to its driven wheels?
Simply because I don't think _HONDA_ sees it as a "performance"
car, in spite of what some folks here think. I still think
they see the Prelude market as a FWD market. They build the
Prelude as a FWD car with performance rather than the other
way around. That, to me is the only explanation that explains
why the Prelude was and remains FWD.
Again, when Honda builds a "real" performance car, they
build it RWD (NSX, S2000).
Eric
> Because it's cheaper. Did you observe the prices of all the
> rear-drive Japanese cars? The RX7, 300ZX, and Supra were all $35k+
> while the Prelude was $20k.
Front wheel drive is not necesarily cheaper to build, and sure is not cheaper
to fix the drivetrain. The 3 cars you listed are expensive because of their hi
tec, small displacement, turbocharged engines, and because they are the image
cars of their respective divisions (and the supra is AWD). The firebird/camaro,
mustang, and 240SX are rear drive and cheap.
Christopher Millet
> You need to stop going by magazine qoutes alone, that's almost word for word
> what "certain" magazines have said. However some real grassroots mags have
> said different.
>
> I can out acclerate a 170hp Integra GSR and stay with a Type R in the turns.
> MT got 67.8 mph in the slalom from the Type R
> 67.3 out of the 200sx SE-R.
>
I got two problems with this:
1. Your a hypocite, look at the first paragraph. You say to some guy
to stop going by magazine quotes alone and here you are in the next
paragraph getting slalom figures from MT of all magazines! And as
if the slalom figures is the end all number to rate performance.
You could NOT hang with a Type-R on a track and might possibly with
a GS-R but I doubt it.
2. Your kidding yourself when you say you can out accelerate a GS-R:
Apples to apples, simple math shows:
SE-R 2586lbs/140hp = 18lbs/HP
GS-R 2672lbs/170hp = 14lbs/HP
Perhaps your just a better driver than the Integras you have raced or
seen(wouldn't surprise me with all the riceboys out there).
Andrew Skalet
high gearing=high top speed.
Andrew Skalet
make *very* good points.
JasonH wrote:
>
> Headbone wrote in message
> <01be4556$1c39b300$73e0...@headbone.ix.netcom.com>...
> >yeahh..but RX7s suck!
>
> Says you. I actually own one so I can speak first hand. They don't suck.
> Well I guess it does suck having 11+" rotors stock, oh and aluminum 4 piston
> calipers stock, those factory aluminum pedals really suck, so does the
> double wishbone aluminum suspension. That 2700lb curb weight is a real bitch
> too now that you mention it, an easy 400hp motor is the pits... ;)
>
> >I'm not gonna argue with you re: how a great-handling turbo-rotor car can
> >"dominate" over the likes of vettes and vipers....A lot of issues come into
> >play when you talk about racing. Most notable is $$$$$
>
> What part of A-*Stock* did you miss? SCCA A-*Stock* means, well, Stock. You
> can do a cat back, and a filter upgrade and shocks, thats about it. The 3rd
> Gen RX-7 does dominate the SCCA A-Stock world. Sorry if that is hard to
> believe. I race in the SCCA ITS class. That is a 2nd gen non turbo. I have
> a turbo street car as well.
>
> >However, for what its worth, I would give the edge to the RX7 turbo against
> >a type R.
>
> Thanks...
>
> >The type R is a GREAT handler though, as well as 20 times more
> >reliable than the G3 RX7s.
>
> Whoa...The R is a great car I never said it wasn't I just said it's in a
> different class then the REX. As far as more reliable...Look, I have had
> this conversation a million times. A properly cared for rotary will last
> forever. I have 100,000 miles on my engine and it runs as strong as the day
> it was new. Period. What happens is a lot of piston engine guys treat them
> like piston engines. For instance...You have to change the plugs on a rotary
> every 10K. They, look totally different then a piston engines plug. If you
> do not change them the electrode becomes brittle and breaks off...possibly
> jamming an apex seal. Then all of a sudden the rotary is a piece of
> shit...Thats just one example. There are many.
>
> >What exactly did mazda (fail to) do that
> >accounts for the RX7 horrible reliability.
>
> Read the above. One area is the fact that the car has 72 vacuum lines that
> controll an awsome yet complicated sequential turbo set up. If *ONE* line
> blows off or cracks it can throw everything off and the car will run like
> shit, then the owner will take it to the dealer who will screw it up worse,
> then the owner sells it and claims to never buy the piece of shit
> again...like I said if you treat them right and learn how they work...No
> problems at all.
>
> >Also the type R has greater fuel
> >efficiency,
>
> LOL yea that's for sure!
>
> >can carry more groceries and it has the supra's spoiler.
>
> Like I said, the cars are two different classes. I have a Nissan 200sx SE-R
> to scoot around with. (damn quick little car, I have Autox'd it and
> surprised many a Acrua owner)
>
> >All
> >these factors, plus the readily availble stickers you can put on your
> >non-type R make the type R the most amazing honda on the planet...
>
> No doubt, I like the Integra R. I just don't like it when people say "MY NON
> TURBO INTEGRA WILL SMOKE YOUR TT RX-7 ANY DAY!!!"
>
> That gets a little boring.
>
> >except
> >for the prelude type R-S. VVTi.
>
> Don't know much about them?
>
> >
> >yeah....my shopping cart is bigger than yours......
>
> Well my lawn tractor will kick you tractors ASSSSS buddy. :)
>
> Here's a couple of quotes about the RX-7 I have hanging around.
>
> The RX-7 explodes out of corners... On the race track, it had ferocious
> cornering power, but seemed to get the biggest edge with enormous jump off
> the corner... The new RX-7 blitzed the Bang portion of Bang for the Buck...
> The RX-7 didn't just win the numbers game, it humiliated the field... It was
> also rated first in Fun Factor, with an almost perfect 99.57 score. Motor
> Trend, Apr. and Sep. 1992
>
> The RX-7 may be a performance highwater mark for years to come... The RX-7's
> performance is awe-inspiring. It's within 1 foot of being the shortest
> stopping street car we've ever tested; ... and grips the road harder than
> the best race cars of only a few years ago... This is the best hardcore
> sports car in its price range, maybe in any price range... The RX-7
> redefines road manners for its class, the handling feels nimble and
> natural... No sports car in its price range delivers the same level of
> sensory gratification for the enthusiast driver. Motor Trend, proclaiming
> the RX-7 the Import Car of the Year, Feb. 1993.
Andrew Skalet
low end torque, you know.
Tino wrote:
>
> BTW that scrap box of a car can destroy everthing honda has in their line up.
> If anyone wants to try and compare NSX to Vette, then all I will say is that
> for the price difference I'd take the vette and dump a few $$ in the stock
> suspension and take out the NSX (that 50 year old motor seems to produce the
> 350hp quite easily without having to spin over 6 grand. If you really like to
> spin over 6 grand and need a vette then get a used ZR-1. PS...ever watch what
> happens to an NSX when a similarly priced ZR-1 (back in '93 and '94) is on the
> track? Ooohh, not pretty at all.
>
> CADMAN wrote:
>
> > oh ya sorry I forgot about the scrap box of a corvette that is still made
> > RWD with the same 50 year old engine too.
> >
> > CADMAN wrote in message ...
> > >every car GM makes is FWD!
> > >(except the camaro and firebird)
> > >
> > >
> > >Doug Chartier wrote in message ...
> > >>The Prelude is, historically, supposed to be Honda's (I'm not including
> > >>Acura) flag ship that exhibits Honda's new technology and is the best
> > >>performer. Why would Honda manufacture this flag ship as a front-wheel
> > >>drive automobile, unlike the manufacturers of most other high performance
> > >>machines? The NSX and the S2000 are rear wheel drive vehicles so
> > >>Honda cannot be averse to designs that drive the rear wheels or deny the
> > >>advantages. Honda designed the Prelude with great handling in mind so why
> > >>did they design and continue to design the Prelude as a front wheel
> > >>driver?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
outthere@leftfield
(Michael Ereon) wrote:
>
>Im saying with a RWD car, you can use torque more efficiently. Torque is
>more important than hp.
Oh shut up. Nonesense.
>Hp is the rate of torque production over a given
>amount of time.
Wrong. Power is Work/Time.
> A Civic Si (127hp?) would have a hard time with a 2.8
>V-6 Camaro (135hp) because the Camaro has more torque. I should know, I
>raced one.
Oh, so that makes you a physics expert. Not.
>Huh? Low gearing? How come the NSX cruises at 70mph at 2750rpms? Thats
>pretty high, if you ask me. The C5 Vette and Viper do it at 1400rpms.
>
>High revs=high wear and tear.
Nonsense. "Wear" is hardly an issue with modern cars, driven normally
and well-maintained. I'm sure the NSX engine lasts plenty long before
needing an overhaul.
outthere@leftfield
<char...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>Yes, I have noted that RWD would be heavier than FWD, all things being
>equal. However, it doesn't sound like the Prelude would need to be
>significantly heavier if it were RWD so acceleration would not be greatly
>diminished from the weight. Someone said that its acceleration could
>remain unchanged in spite of the weight change because of the advantages
>of RWD.
Oh, that's strong evidence. Listen buddy, it would be a totally
different car if it were RWD. There's all sorts of compromises here.
>The RWD design could also improve the Prelude's handling over the front
>driver, right? So such a change to the Prelude's design doesn't sound too
>detrimental to me.
Well, you are clueless, so why should we care?
>I doubt if the Prelude would increase in dimensions because of a loss of
>interior space. When has vast interior space ever been the hallmark of
>the Prelude?
So just because it has a small interior means that they could make the
interio smaller yet, and no one would care? Real smart.
>Even if my original premise were flawed, such a flaw would not explain
>why the Prelude was not originally designed as a rear wheel drive
>automobile. It also would not explain why the Prelude did not evolve into
>RWD. I suppose that one could extend the same questions to the Integra
>because the two automobiles are so comparable and compete in roughly the
>same markets. Both cars are designed to appeal to people who like fun
>cars that accelerate well and handle very nicely. Certainly RWD would be
>an added attraction.
FWD is cheaper, ok? That's about the long and short of it.
>I don't think that the Prelude is a front wheel drive car first and a
>performance car second. I think that it is a performance car that happens
>to be front wheel driver (an oxymoron to some enthusiasts). For a front
>wheel drive automobile, the Prelude handles wonderfully. I have no doubts
>about that. I also do not doubt that Honda wanted the Prelude to be a fun
>to drive and well performing machine. Such intentions bring RWD to mind.
>
>My fundamental question is why Honda has and continues to build the
>Prelude as a front wheel drive car. Why would Honda not want the Prelude
>to be a "real" performance car, as you clearly do not think that it is
>due to its driven wheels?
Because it's cheaper. Did you observe the prices of all the
Brian Hepler
So which is worse? Selling your soul, or destroying your mind by
buying a front wheel drive, 4 cylinder, 150 hp Camaro SS?
Which one? FWD or Ford? FWD or Ford?
Come, Eric. Join the Dark Side. Succomb to the lure of the Mustang.
Together we can rule the drag strips!
:-)
Brian
************************************
Brian Hepler bhe...@erols.comm
************************************
"The system won't do that. I don't care
how much you want it to do that. It
won't do that. You can't drive a Ford
into a lake and expect it to work
like a submarine."
Eric
> So which is worse? Selling your soul, or destroying your mind by
> buying a front wheel drive, 4 cylinder, 150 hp Camaro SS?
>
> Which one? FWD or Ford? FWD or Ford?
>
> Come, Eric. Join the Dark Side. Succomb to the lure of the Mustang.
> Together we can rule the drag strips!
>
> :-)
Hehe...you make it tough to refuse...I would prefer a mustang to a puny front
driver, but when and if GM kills the f-bodies (still up in the air, but looking
grim) i'd probably get a used one, though if i was going to buy a Mustang i think
i'd go for a nice '71 Boss 351. Now that's a car....Maybe we can lure some of those
import guys to the dark side, once they convert, they'll never go back. But it
appears the force is strong in them....;-)
Eric
YZF_rider
{EVO} wrote in message <36AE2960...@home.com>...
Huh? Low gearing? How come the NSX cruises at 70mph at 2750rpms? Thats
pretty high, if you ask me. The C5 Vette and Viper do it at 1400rpms.
Becuase they use a worthless 6th gear to keep the epa ratings up and the gas guzzling taxes at bay. They both reach their top speed in 5th gear. The 6 speed in the NSX is actually for performance. Wow, what a concept. The engine is efficient enough not to have to rely on a "fuel economy highway gear".
Cameron Huang
: outthere@leftfield wrote:
:> Because it's cheaper. Did you observe the prices of all the
:> rear-drive Japanese cars? The RX7, 300ZX, and Supra were all $35k+
:> while the Prelude was $20k.
: Front wheel drive is not necesarily cheaper to build, and sure is not cheaper
: to fix the drivetrain. The 3 cars you listed are expensive because of their hi
: tec, small displacement, turbocharged engines, and because they are the image
: cars of their respective divisions (and the supra is AWD). The firebird/camaro,
: mustang, and 240SX are rear drive and cheap.
--
| Cameron Huang | you can live in your car |
| ba...@panix.com | but you can't race your house |
| chu...@ixl.com | -- unknown |
JasonH
>On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, JasonH wrote:
>
>> You need to stop going by magazine qoutes alone, that's almost word for
word
>> what "certain" magazines have said. However some real grassroots mags
have
>> said different.
>>
>> I can out acclerate a 170hp Integra GSR and stay with a Type R in the
turns.
>> MT got 67.8 mph in the slalom from the Type R
>> 67.3 out of the 200sx SE-R.
>>
>I got two problems with this:
>
>1. Your a hypocite, look at the first paragraph. You say to some guy
> to stop going by magazine quotes alone and here you are in the next
> paragraph getting slalom figures from MT of all magazines! And as
> if the slalom figures is the end all number to rate performance.
1. Fuck off! who the hell are you to come out of the woodwork and start
slandering me? Next time try asking a question first.
Okay now that that is out of the way. I said to stop going by magazine
qoutes for "impressions" not #'s Comprendo?
BTW slalom #'s give the most accurate "snapshot" of real world handling
there is.
> You could NOT hang with a Type-R on a track and might possibly with
> a GS-R but I doubt it.
Uh, do you own either? Then you have no argument.
>2. Your kidding yourself when you say you can out accelerate a GS-R:
> Apples to apples, simple math shows:
> SE-R 2586lbs/140hp = 18lbs/HP
> GS-R 2672lbs/170hp = 14lbs/HP
Gee that's funny. I have to weigh in my 200SX at *every* SCCA event and it
never comes in over 2430lbs. But whatever...
AND, that 170hp is the most peaky, narrow hp you have ever seen. My power
band is WAY wider then a GSR, AND I have about 30ftlb's more torque. Carries
real nice out of a corner. While the GSR is waiting for his VTEC to kick in
, my extra torque and wider power band have me pulling away.
Take a look at this pic to see what I'm talking about. You can see what a
wider power band looks like through the gears.
http://www.se-r.net/about/200sx/scc/nov98/nov01.jpg
SE-R's are KNOWN to dyno around 120hp at the wheels. GSR's are about 135HP.
So in the real world they are closer then you think.
I run consistent 15.4's bone stock in the 1/4 mile. Hot Rod mag got a 14.9
out of the car.
In fact I just had a top speed run with my buddy on the highway with his GSR
and I pulled him very slightly, but I did pull him EVERY time.
>Perhaps your just a better driver than the Integras you have raced or
>seen(wouldn't surprise me with all the riceboys out there).
Perhaps. But It's consistent. There are not many "rice boys" around where I
live.
I never said I could beat a Type-R, but I can "hang" with them. Well I don't
see that many anyway so...
Relax, I like the Integra. But I have surprised MANY Honda owners with the
daily driver. Always keep your eyes open, there is more to life then VTEC.
The SR20DE motor is a very very very capable engine.
I just knew I would get flamed for that comment...<sigh>