Originally Posted by
CivicSiRacer
Anymore info on that test? There are too many other variables that could have affected the test like tire choice on both cars (all seasons versus summer), how old the suspension were on both cars (newer suspension would be faster than older). Blah blah blah.
If you have ever driven an M3 and then a Prelude there is no comparison. The M3 is much faster even at an autocross.
Nah, I happened to come across that test searching the net for something else.
Too many variables? They listed the fact that the M3 had wider tires, and this will certainly help in the handling department.
I'm not sure of the other "variables" but for them to state that the prelude has better handling, even better than an M3, is sure to awaken all of the die-hard BMW fans and all of the arguments they will try to make. Older suspension? They were both "new" cars, so how would the "oldness" of the suspension come into play?
Take it from them, they say it handles better, backed it up in testing, and then even pointed out that the BMW has an advantage in having wider tires and rear-wheel drive, and yet there are still people who will try and argue that Car and Driver is wrong, the testing evidence is wrong, and that their conclusion is wrong... Is it because these people drive BMW's and think they are better than everyone else, YES...
I've driven an 02 M3 and, (not on the track), it did not impress me.
You say the M3 is faster overall, I don't disagree with you, but then it costs almost twice as much, has more Torque (at least 100+ more) and more HP...
So I agree with the results that they got, and from my experience, I can say that the Prelude does INDEED have good, if not great handling from the factory... Better than the M3, apparently
