I am a prelude owner and we all love prelude as one of the best honda ever made. But speaking of to compare it with a 240, what do you guys think?

my opinions:

1) 240 handles better since it is RWD
2) the interior of a prelude is better furnished than a 240, when i compare the same year model
3) stock 240 is too under power, prelude has pretty good power at stock
4) when it is properly fixed up, you can drift with a 240 but not a prelude
5) original paid price is about the same between the 2, and resell value on a 240 is outrageous, but not on preludes
6) any of us owns both a prelude and a 240?

 

RWD cars do not automatically handle better than FWD. If you doubt me, go drive a Crown Vic sometime.

 

While I do like the 240 SX's I'd have to say the Prelude is the better car.

1. I agree with qtiger. Just because it is RWD doesn't mean it handles any better. Besides the Prelude SH tied the BMW M3 in 1997 for best handling sport coupe. I doubt the 240 has better handling than an SH.
2. I agree with you in that the interior is alot nicer. Was leather avaliable on the 240's?
3. Yup, the 240's motor is slightly bigger, but it does not breathe nearly as well.
4. Agree again. But I don't care for drifting, as only RWD cars have that ability.
5. Price is the same new, but I'm not sure if the 240's resell value is that much better. If it is higher, it's prob because there aren't many around.

Verdict: Prelude is the better car. Unless of course you have to have RWD.

 

I've owned an S14, it was a nice car. I prefer the more updated interior of my Accord. The 240SX doesn't really have THAT great of a resell value, 7-8K tops for a PERFECT one.

 

a) You can drift a 240 stock if you know what you're doing
b) You can drift a Prelude if you know what you're doing