Prelude v FTO

dilated · 18 Apr 2008 at 18:19

Does anyone know a lot about these cars, how they compare and if there is anything to look out for.

I like the look of the Honda Prelude 2.2 VTi

or the Mitsubishi fto 2.0 v6

Both are japanese, so Id assume well built and as such not likely to incurr large garage bills. Both are not rocket ships but quick fun and sporty looking and both appear to be a lot of car for the money. Im looking to spend circa £2,500 on a second hand car for my wife. It must be automatic and a preferably a little bit special.

Has anyone driven or ownded both?

InvaderGIR · 18 Apr 2008 at 18:21

So you want to get your other half a 'lude or an FTO, bit strange really? Unless you want one of these and you'll get her something else?...I think I've confused my self.

Well the FTO is then in theory out, as everyone here that knows about them seems to say to steer clear of autos.

InvG

Clarkey · 18 Apr 2008 at 18:23

The FTO is 2.0 not 2.2

The performance of these is probably quite similar, best to test drive each and go from there.

R220 · 18 Apr 2008 at 18:27

I vote for the Prelude, mostly because I used to own one and the H22a engine rocks. Unlike most VTEC engines it has fairly decent torque, and then it has the vtec kick driving 200+bhp at high rpms. Sounds brilliant too.

Malt_Vinegar · 18 Apr 2008 at 18:27

I have a 2.2 prelude manual.
I would say get the manual if possible, i test drove an auto and the manual makes use of the engine/revs a lot better

(oh, but you should be able to get an Auto a lot cheaper than a manual)
They are quick, comfy, reliable and handle really well. I do think that they win hands down on looks too!

I drive mine hard and reliably get 29-30MPG.

However, i have not driven an FTO, so cant compare directly.

dilated · 18 Apr 2008 at 18:30

my missus is not a fan of mumsy wagons and has had a 4th gen 2.2 lude, mazda 323 zxi, cappuccino, alfa 146ti, mk2 golf gti valver and an mr2 amongst others so it is easy to see that either of these cars would be desirable - dont see why thats strange?

does anyone know why the auto are to be avoided - does the auto box have problems or is it down to personal preference?

[TW]Fox · 18 Apr 2008 at 18:31

Whats the point in a high revving VTEC style engine with an autobox?

Autoboxes suit torquey engines and neither of these cars have one of those.

dilated · 18 Apr 2008 at 18:44

To be honest I prefer a manual and agree that this part of the package is slightly flawed but I can understand why an auto is desirable. As a whole package the cars seem to be good value and I cant think of anything for simlar money?

Is there any reason to favour one car over the other or should I test both and choose on merit?

[TW]Fox · 18 Apr 2008 at 18:44

Test both and chose on Merit. The Prelude is more of a cruiser, the FTO is more.. cant think of the word. Chuck about able.

Which, if it isn't going to be used for being caned on a regular basis, probably makes the Prelude a more useful choice even though I think they look utterly crap.

dilated · 18 Apr 2008 at 18:55

I loved the looks of the 4th gen Prelude, the 5th is very much a marmite car - you either love it or hate it.

My opinion of the 4th gen was that it was more of a crusier but it did surprise me on the tight twisty roads as you expect a car that is relatively comfy at speed to roll over and die at the first corner. It had more ability and better handling that you would expect. Assuming the 5th gen compares it would be more than acceptable.