Sunday, June 7, 2015

5k: Occam's Razorback: 2000 Honda Prelude Twin Engine

The constant discussion of which is better, rear-wheel-drive or front-wheel-drive in slippery conditions is sort of ridiculous when you consider how much better all-wheel-drive can be.  Sort of like residents of San Diego and Los Angeles arguing that one eats more granola than the other when San Francisco is only a short drive north.  The problem with conventional all-wheel-drive is where to put the engine and how to distribute power when slippage occurs, so clearly the best solution for any traction issue is a twin engine car.  Sometimes the best solution isn't the most simple, but it is still the bestest.  Find this  2000 Honda Prelude Twin Engine here on eBay currently bidding for $6,100 reserve-not-met with 1 day to go, located in Brush Prairie, WA.  Tip from Rod.


The fifth generation Honda Prelude comes with a strung out little 4-banger that won't make much more power unless you start adding forced induction and the you just go through front tires.  Obviously, the solution to this problem is to add another engine/transaxle setup out back.


This is one of the few photos provided by the seller that appears to be the rear engine while it is being installed, but it would be nice to see the finished product all buttoned up to understand if there is room for a golf bag.


See another twin engined car ready to hit VTEC yo-yo? tips@dailyturismo.com

25 comments:

  1. I was thinking the shift linkage would be quite something, but then read that it was an automatic(s). Very cool build. I'd love to drive it! Hmmm... wonder if he'd trade for an M5......

    ReplyDelete
  2. Neato, Bandito. The history of twin-engined cars is long and illustrious. I like the body mods on this Prelude.

    ReplyDelete
  3. First sentence = mind-boggling silly.

    [img]http://i.imgur.com/8R9SYLQ.png?1[/img]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Neato, Bandito." is mind boggling (bogglingly) silly?
      Or do you mean "The constant discussion of which is better, rear-wheel-drive or front-wheel-drive in slippery conditions is sort of ridiculous when you consider how much better all-wheel-drive can be."?

      I thought both were declarative, neither mean. Maybe yours was a MC gang reference?

      Help me, Kill-a-man-in-a-whiskey-jarro. You're our only hope.

      Delete
    2. I'm sure El Jefe meant it in a purely technical way but that statement is not true for a majority of the car-buying public. They don't need the added complexity of weight, cost and more crapola to break. Let's not even go near when these systems don't function very well and start to bind on every freakin' turn (thank you, Subaru). Plus, for most folks (not YOU and not any other DT minion EVER), the safety of how FWD handles makes much more sense, signaling impending doom much sooner, e-tech be damned. Plus, factoring in superior packaging, weight over the driven (front-engined) tires and about a million other things that mean FWD makes more sense in general.

      Of course, absolutely nobody agrees with me. Why? Because they all think they're Fangio and are now clearing their collective throats to yell at me. That's okay, I'm wearing my flame-proof undies. Briefs, natch. I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

      Besides, it seems to me it actually has more to do with the right tires in the winter, unless you're a rally car race driver. And who isn't, these days? Yep, slippin' and slidin' on the way to Costco...

      And you can't use the supercars as reference points because real, regular folks don't drive quarter-million dollar (much less $100K) cars around as DDs.

      Delete
    3. So I understand that the word bogglingly is an adverb. But I got worried that it wasn't the bestest of Engerlish, so I went with just plain old boggling. Because it actively boggles the mind...thus, mind boggling silly...I found the original statement to be essentially confusing in many ways...and not accurate for so many folks that making that declaration for anybody other than El Jefe himself to be preposterous.

      I'm NOT saying he's wrong...but it's all a matter of context and the Ws (who, what, why, when, where, whipped cream, wigs, wampum, wildebeests, etc.); I can't agree with it as a true statement that's accurate for every driver. Except this dude; he's 4WD for sure.

      [img]http://i.imgur.com/keUbRKD.png?1[/img]

      Delete
    4. I am with you, K2.

      Truckers have a saying that goes: "four-wheel drive lets you get stuck deeper, farther from home". My view of AWD on street cars is similar: "AWD lets you have your inevitable accident at a much higher rate of speed".

      The only thing AWD does is help you get moving. Braking and turning are still at the whim of the laws of physics (the limits of which are easily accessible for several months of the year up here in the Snow Belt).

      I'll stick with boringly predictable FWD for my daily drivers, thank you.

      Delete
    5. Thanks, B! I know not everyone agrees with me and my opinion is not always the most popular one.

      But the reality is that oversteer is actually a good thing for most folks because they're not all that interested in the process of driving, unlike my fellow DTers and I. For me, as you wrote, my DD is best served by FWD, year-round, and I've learned to really love that design element, mild torque-steer and all. My first car that I ever felt that way about was my 164 and maybe that car was good enough to sway me from RWD, which I actually prefer if it weren't for the weather conditions where I live at certain times of the year. When the weather is really bad, I'm thrilled how good the FWD + snows are. And when the weather is great, then it doesn't bother me because my car was never meant to be a sport sedan (wagon), anyway. Our Subaru taught me how truly unnecessary it is in these parts. Extra traction is a good thing, that can't be argued. But for what purpose does that serve for disinterested drivers who are more interested in engaging with their smartphones instead of focusing on their driving? I'll say it again that for those folks (i.e. most of the world), FWD-prone understeer is an excellent and preferred safety item/design that indicates to them earlier that they made a boo-boo, where AWD and RWD are often too late and require too much driver skill to catch and correct.

      Additionally, it always interests me when folks declare -and it's not just El Jefe, I know- that AWD is "the best". Whatever happened to the superior traction of the RWD and mid-engine (front or otherwise) configuration? Has that been negated by four-wheel traction? I've driven a couple of mid-RWD cars in the snow and their balance seemed quite good to me (again, with the correct tires). I suppose that's once again the domain of the supercars, now that the popularity of cars like the RX and MR2 is so low right now.

      Any declarative statement is open to debate, I guess. Things are never as black and white as they may seem. That's a lesson we could all consider, no matter the topic. Interesting that El Jefe chose Occam's razor as part of the title to this post...one should probably be very careful assuming...I know I've been bitten on the butt many times doing that; it's painful and always leaves a mark.

      [img]http://i.imgur.com/Tb6jmPJ.jpg?1[/img]

      Delete
    6. I really enjoy this topic as it isn't discussed much with all the Californians on here. I do believe that 4WD has the capability to slow you down faster than 2WD. It's not much, but I can tell you the first vehicle I owned a '93 explorer slowed down measurably faster due to the extra drag the 4WD system puts on the drive train. Think of it like putting you car in neutral vs leaving it in gear. Now the difference from 4WD to 2WD is not as drastic as a 2WD to neutral, but it is measureable I say!

      Delete
    7. Interesting point, Maximus. I'm sure you're correct in your assessment that 4WD adds drag, the complexity of the parts engaged and working together. I'm sure the newest systems are more advanced these days, though. They probably decouple and reduce that effect. They're also probably better built. But I'm not sure that it was a huge difference, even back then though. We had a friend leave her similar vintage Explorer and we had our Ranger, too. I don't recall noting that issue, but to tell you the truth I didn't engage 4WD unless the conditions were so bad that traction sucked anyway. So I'm not sure I would have noticing it, if it did.

      The AWD offered in Volvos has always interested me in that it's really FWD and only distributes to the slipping rear wheels when the system senses it. I'm aware that many systems work this way. But it does beg the question once again; what for? If you have good snow tires that offer good traction and you have a decent traction control system...? With the weight over the driven wheels and the snows, do I really need to have better traction to go around that corner (which is what B said)?

      Just to reiterate; I don't have any problem with 4WD or AWD. I just don't think the majority of the buying public has any need for it. It's just marketing and another way to skin the suckers (I'm not saying anybody is one!). Unless you're driving a 911 year-round in the midwest; then you DEFINITELY need it!

      Delete
    8. Public Service Announcement

      I had one of these for the first time, tonight. Fanfreakin'tastic!

      [img]http://i.imgur.com/OnEqzXe.jpg?1[/img]

      Delete
  4. So there is always the question about modified cars in CA. Do you think you could smog this by only opening the front hood and showing that everything was present and correct?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. +1, I was wondering the same thing. The only problem is, which exhaust pipe they should stick the probe in :) If they chose the wrong one, it would pass as with the same values as an electric car!

      Delete
  5. Remember the twinstar? I read about it back in highschool, they were eldorados with 2 northstar v8s. I guess they were sort of in production. Always wondered if they actually sold any. Looked fun.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh, and there was this twin engine turbocharged hyundai that entered a competition in one of the import mags of the early 2000's (turbo? Superstreet?) Thing ran 9s and he had it set up so he could put one trans in d and on in r and do insane burnouts.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If the steering was left in place, you could have the ultimate 4WS Prelude, as well. I would see about making the rear wheels steer independently of the front via servo and remote control. This way, I could dog-track down the interstate at a 45 degree angle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now you're thinking like SpeedyCop and would have to rename it as the Prelude/Postlude.

      Delete
  9. I have a weakness for twin-engined cars. It might be due to the 2CV Sahara, which was in the Citroen catalogue for around four years:

    [img]http://www.citroenet.org.uk/passenger-cars/michelin/2cv/sahara/saharaschema.jpg[/img]

    (c'mon, you knew I was gonna do that)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Fonda ain't got a motor in the back of her Honda.
    My anaconda don't want none.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Iirc, car and driver in the late 80's (back when it was run by a bunch of hooligans) , took a first Gen honda crx and put a second crx engine and auto Trans in the back...got it to post mid 6 sec 0-60. If I only had the time , space and fabrication skills...I'm more of a bolt on/off guy. I can build ya a house tho. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  12. The mag you are thinking of is Sport Compact Car. Their competition was then "Ultimate Street Car", and I still have that issue, what an amazing car!

    ReplyDelete
  13. The mag you are thinking of is Sport Compact Car. Their competition was then "Ultimate Street Car", and I still have that issue, what an amazing car!

    ReplyDelete

Commenting Commandments:
I. Thou Shalt Not write anything your mother would not appreciate reading.
II. Thou Shalt Not post as anonymous unless you are posting from mobile and have technical issues. Use name/url when posting and pick something Urazmus B Jokin, Ben Dover. Sir Edmund Hillary Clint Eastwood...it don't matter. Just pick a nom de plume and stick with it.
III. Honor thy own links by using <a href ="http://www.linkgoeshere"> description of your link </a>
IV. Remember the formatting tricks <i>italics</i> and <b> bold </b>
V. Thou Shalt Not commit spam.
VI. To embed images: use [image src="http://www.IMAGE_LINK.com" width="400px"/]. Limit images to no wider than 400 pixels in width. No more than one image per comment please.