Ever since Honda revealed the reborn Prelude, people on the internet have wondered whether 200 horsepower was enough. Now that this sport compact has made it stateside, a YouTube channel by the name of AeroflowDynamics picked one up and reported an 8.28-second zero-to-60 mph run. Not exactly a quick time. While the resulting video has lit the internet up, there are reasons why you might not want to take it as gospel.
See, a lot more goes into those shiny zero-to-60 MPH numbers seen in magazines than people think. Testing equipment and procedures can make a huge difference, just as the conditions of an acceleration run can. Is it possible to compare this viral video with other specifications you see listed online? No, and here’s why.
Right off the rip, the acceleration run in question involves using the Prelude’s simulated gearshift mode, where the powertrain mimics the behavior of a paddle-shifted transmission. Of course, the Prelude doesn’t actually have a transmission as such, instead relying on electric propulsion for primary drive with the gasoline engine able to clutch in on a fixed ratio when needed. It’s no secret that shifts make a car slower as they interrupt torque, so performance in this mode isn’t indicative of what the Prelude may be able to do if left to its own devices.
Secondly, the zero-to-60 MPH times you see in the major magazines are all GPS-verified and weather corrected, for a few good reasons. We can see in the Prelude acceleration video that the speedometer jumps from 59 MPH to 62 MPH, so it’s not exactly the most precise instrument in the world. We also don’t know what the slope of the road is from video footage alone, whereas a 25 Hz or even a 10 Hz multi-axis GPS box will give you an accurate reading of whether or not the surface you complete an acceleration run on is actually flat. Put simply, GPS will give you data you can’t accurately glean from simply counting frames of footage.
As for weather correction, it’s no secret that air density varies based on ambient temperature, altitude, and humidity. A naturally aspirated car on a humid, 100-degree day 1,000 feet above sea level will make substantially less power than one driven on a dry, 60-degree day at sea level. To correct for this, the Society of Automotive Engineers has a standard known as J1349. It corrects output to an environment that’s 77 degrees Fahrenheit with 29.2348 inHg of barometric pressure and no humidity. As a result, acceleration times by an outlet using J1349 for weather correction can be compared against each other, but they can’t be directly compared against what you might run at home.
Oh, and magazines usually deduct rollout, a legacy holdout from the days when drag strips were the testing ground of the time. When you roll up to the tree at a drag strip, there’s a beam of light just ahead of where your front wheels sit once you’re staged. Breaking that beam of light starts the reaction time, um, timer, and having it reconnect once your front tires pass it completely starts the actual timer you see on the big board. That foot or so of tire movement between breaking the beam of light and clearing it amounts to a couple tenths of a second.
However, there is another reason why this claimed eight-second zero-to-60 mph run probably isn’t a big deal, and that’s because our brains lie to us. See, a magazine-spec zero-to-60 mph time also usually involves an aggressive launch, something most of us just don’t do on our daily commutes. That little bit of wheelspin can fire a car out of the hole quickly, but the gap between most cars’ zero-to-60 mph times and their times when accelerating from a slow roll is worth keeping in mind. An extreme example is the Toyota GR Corolla. While Car And Driver clicked off a zero-to-60 mph run of 4.9 seconds from a Circuit Edition model, the 5-to-60 MPH run took a second-and-a-half longer at 6.4 seconds. Not only does a zero-to-60 mph time not tell you how hard a car pulls through the gears, but there’s a good chance that in the real world, your car is slower than you think it is.
What this all means is that we can’t really pass final judgement on how quick the new Honda Prelude is until someone publishes weather-corrected, GPS-verified acceleration figures. I suspect that without the fake shifts, it’ll likely land somewhere around the Civic Hybrid, which is already quicker than the Civic Si. For context, Car And Driver managed a 6.2-second zero-to-60 mph time and a 7.2-second 5-to-60 mph time out of a current Civic Hybrid. Quick enough? Quite possibly.
Top graphic images: YouTube/AeroflowDynamics
In canada the prices are the following:
Prelude = $52,961
Civic Hydrid Sport = $37,700
Toyota Prius AWD = $41,409
Civic SI Manual = $39,576
Acura Integra Manual = $49,110
Toyota GR 86 Base Manual = $35,399
I would have loved to see the Prelude in a manual transmission; however, that’s not the demographic that they are obviously looking for. There are cheaper and “arguably” more fun cars (If you want to drive a manual) that you can get instead.
To me it just makes the manual cars more desirable.
I do think it’s priced at the high end.
Having a GR 86 competitor would have been great. Imagine having a rear wheel drive manual 240hp honda car.
They brought back the civic coupe, gave it some brake and suspension upgrades and slapped the classic prelude badge on it to justify a price needed to make it worthwhile. I think it’s a real stretch
Former Prelude owner here. I don’t hate the car itself, but the price. It just doesn’t make sense. From what I’ve read it’s a fun enough car for your daily commute, but for the price they want for it, it needs to do way more than that.
I know we can’t take these results at face value without knowing all the tech details of the testing setup, but….It doesn’t seem like they did this run up something like Pikes Peak; it also doesn’t seem like they are doing this with the atmosferic pressure of the top of the Everest; or head on into Katrina-level winds.
How much quicker can we assume this slow ass 8.something seconds 0-60 could be in perfect conditions? Maybe down to 7.something? Still BAD for a 45k+ sports car in 2025
I think this overall project was hobbled by the tension between selling to enthusiasts vs selling to regular consumers (and the cost increases that come along with trying to satisfy that tension).
The enthusiasts want a small, lightweight, agile sports coupe with an excellent manual transmission and an engine you can wind out to 10k RPM. Hybrid power might be intriguing, but only if it doesn’t conflict with the above. If you lean into this you get an excellent car that sells in handfuls like the Toyobarus (and competes head on with the Type R and Si, which we’re lucky to still have).
The consumers want a big blob that gets excellent gas mileage and can either carry all the kid stuff or maybe cosplay as a midlife crisis car. If you take this route you wind up with the eclipse cross.
The accountants say you need to do all this without spending too much on new tech or parts, but you still have to spend some money to make the compromise and suddenly it’s a 45k+ car, when your volume sellers that this is based on are only 30-35k.
I do think it will fail, even though I want it to be a good car despite the evidence that it’s not turning out to be anything special. In the end I would go with a Civic Hybrid or an Si. Or just keep the Mazda3, which does a better job of trying to satisfy the tension between sporty compact and practical family car than any of the Honda options. Call me when you make an Si hatch.
They didn’t even have to do much. Honda has other engines it could have paired with the hybrid for nearly a decade now (1.5t in particular). There was the V6 sport hybrid MDX which had an automatic and 320+ hp. Honda is currently making a new V6 hybrid powertrain that will make 250hp+ (HOPEFULLY). So at the very least they could’ve made this thing fast.
I had a ’19 Civic coupe with the 1.5t and CVT for a bit. It was a fun car and part of the reason I liked the idea of this Prelude, but at this point I’d take the Civic coupe over this, even with the CVT and 1.5t concerns.
I just looked it up and the Civic Coupe 1.5t 0-60 was in the mid sixes. It certainly didn’t feel that quick, but enough to be fun if you could ignore whatever the hell the CVT was up to. 8 seconds in the Prelude? Oof.
Being able to shift gears in my Mazda3 makes up for the 8 second 0-60, but I still would like it if it was a bit quicker.
I grew up in the 70’s and 80’s peak Prelude time. Preludes, were never fast. They were “cute” and mostly owned by 20-30 year old girls/women.
This is on brand.
Can confirm that there are a myriad of factors that affect the acceleration of this drivetrain. Also, the last-gen Prelude Type SH everyone compares this to was 7.2 seconds to 60. IDK why everyone all of a sudden expected light-speed performance out of a new iteration. They do kind of need to keep this in its own category so it doesn’t compete too closely with the Si and CTR.
If the last gen prelude did 60 in 7.2 then surely it should be quicker than that now? A civic and ODYSSEY get to 60 in under 7 (for 7 years now might I add). And why shouldn’t it compete or beat out the Si for FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS???? A six or even 5 second 0-60 isn’t light speed performance. Come on man.
I really don’t care at all.
Then why’d you comment? Its supposed to be a sporty car and by default we would like to be quicker than most econoboxes. Your argument was plain bad. There’s a big gap between “light-speed” and 8.2 seconds to 60, which the entire rest of Honda’s lineup occupies. It also doesn’t make sense that this can’t compete with the Si if its more expensive than that or the type r if its the same price.