Good morning, and welcome back to Shitbox Showdown! I’ve gotten a good night’s sleep, after spending most of the day yesterday ripping out soggy stinky carpet in my basement (which is even less fun than it sounds), and I’m ready to show you some cool old cars, far better than yesterday’s exhaustion-induced snooze-fest. Speaking of which:
Looks like you’re all going to keep on truckin’. Given that I already have a truck I like way better than this one, and I’m a well-known Mopar apologist, I have to swim against the stream on this one. That Cirrus is too good of a cream-puff to pass up.
Now, today, we’re looking at two sporty red coupes. Both have carbureted four-cylinder engines and manual transmissions, but apart from that, they don’t have a whole hell of a lot in common, except that I built model kits of both of them in my youth. Both of them are rare sights these days, but I still think they’re pretty cool. Do you agree? Let’s check them out and see.
1979 Ford Mustang Cobra – $4,999
Engine/drivetrain: Turbocharged 2.3 liter overhead cam inline 4, four-speed manual, RWD
Location: Woodland Hills, CA
Odometer reading: 76,000 miles
Runs/drives? Yep, and registration is current
Let me set the scene for you. It’s the 1979 Chicago Auto Show, at McCormick Place, and my dad is shopping for a new car to replace his aging, rusty VW Beetle. Ford’s captive-import Fiesta hatchback is on the short list, so he’s checking them out. Meanwhile, his six-year-old car-crazy son is gazing in rapt wonder at a sleek silver and black sports car on a rotating dais: the all-new Ford Mustang. It was love at first sight, and I’ve had a thing for the Fox-body Mustang ever since. I haven’t owned one yet, but there’s still time.
1979 was, of course, right smack in the middle of the doldrums of the malaise era, and as cool as the new Mustang looked, it was no performance car, no matter which engine you picked. This Cobra is equipped with the 2.3 liter “Lima” four-cylinder, with a turbocharger and a two-barrel Holley carburetor. Turbos and carbs don’t play well together generally, but this one runs well according to the seller, and it’s registered, so it must have passed a smog test. It spins the rear axle through a four-on-the-floor, like it should.
But the real star of the show here isn’t under the hood; it’s on it. Automakers replaced horsepower with graphics during this era, and while the Fox-body Cobra is toned down from the previous year’s Mustang II version, it’s still a sight to behold. It came in last in Jason’s big roundup of the Class of ’79’s hood graphics battle, but I still like it. Though now that I look at it again, it kind of looks like the snake has breasts – which is cool, too, I suppose.
Condition-wise, it’s not terrible. No cars from this era held up particularly well, but this one is at least intact. It has some questionable add-ons, namely tacky LED (or HID?) headlights, and that hideous steering wheel, but those are reversible. Its original three-spoke alloy wheels are gone, probably because they need expensive Michelin TRX tires. The late-’80s Mustang LX wheels it wears now look OK, but they aren’t quite right.
1984 Honda Prelude – $2,250
Engine/drivetrain: 1.8 liter overehad cam inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Portland, OR
Odometer reading: 203,000 miles
Runs/drives? Runs great, they say
When someone mentions the Honda Prelude, this is the car I picture: the second-generation, in red. It’s my favorite era of Honda design, with sharp angles, low beltlines, slender window pillars, and the all-important pop-up headlights. I built an expensive Tamiya model kit of this car in my younger days, a rare splurge for me back then – most of my models were five-dollar Monogram, Revell, and MPC kits. You can still get them on eBay, but they’re not cheap now either. The real car, on the other hand, seems to be a bit of a bargain.
The second-generation Prelude had a couple of odd quirky features, namely twin side-draft carburetors instead of a single downdraft carb like the Accords with the same engine, and of course those weird seat-reclining levers. But it also has that pitch-perfect mid-1980s Honda driving experience, with great dynamics and easy ergonomics. This one runs and drives well, and everything works except for the air conditioning, though the seller is working on that.
It’s on Oregon “SP” specialty-vehicle registration, which is a permanent registration and sidesteps smog requirements, but it also doesn’t allow the car to be used regularly, only for “special events.” I see plenty of people daily-driving cars on SP plates, but if you get pulled over, the specialty registration could get revoked, and you’d have to get the car smog-tested and put regular plates on it. Personally, I’m not sure I would want to use a car like this every day anyway; it would get used up in short order. Better to save it for fun driving.
Many Hondas from this era and later ended up heavily, and sometimes questionably, modified, but this one is still mercifully stock. In fact, the seller actually did some work to return it to stock by tracking down the correct steering wheel, as shown above, in place of the 1986 Prelude wheel it came with.
I know I keep bemoaning the lack of simple two-door coupes available today, but dammit, why can’t we still have cars like these? They’re easygoing, charming, affordable, and fun. Somewhere along the line we forgot that those were supposed to be virtues. Thank goodness a few of these old relics are still floating around, and are still affordable. Yeah, in either case you have to deal with carburetor hassles, but they both run fine now, so don’t sweat it. So what’ll it be – the gaudy fun Mustang, or the crisp and clean Prelude?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
Have a lot of experience with both of these.
Honda for me, every time.
Tons of leg room. Engines ran like a sewing machine.
Not enough legroom in the Mustang. Engines ran like a popcorn maker with Tourette’s Syndrome, (one a good day.)
The Honda ran like a Swiss watch, the Ford ran like a cheap 4 buck Kmart watch.
YMMV.
My vote goes to the Prelude. And if you check the specs of both cars:
https://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1979/865475/ford_mustang_cobra_2_3l_turbo.html#gsc.tab=0
https://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1984/1091795/honda_prelude.html#gsc.tab=0
You’ll find they both have a 0-60 time that is about the same. But you just know that the Honda 4 cyl engine will be much more pleasant, likely to be more reliable (just don’t forget to change the timing belt) and more fuel efficient.
And chances are that the Prelude will have better handling as well.
And the fact that it costs less than half of what the Mustang costs makes it an easy choice.
Only $2.25k for the Honda? And in that kind of condition? That seems like a steal.
It probably is…I mean was.
I looked at the Mustang, had a vision for what it could be, but at that starting price, no. Went with the Honda.
I’m sure the Honda is the better car, but I can’t say no to those steekers.
Carbureted turbo? No thanks! And that red vinyl interior is almost as egregious. I bet the Prelude sounds pretty good with the twin side-draft carbs, but I’d like to get it revving higher than 6K to really enjoy it.
My wife had a Prelude of this era. I could not believe how low to the ground the driver sits in this vehicle. When I would drive it I felt like I driving in a go cart. The visibility when you were in traffic was scary and that was back in the 90’s when not everyone was driving a truck or SUV. Today I think you could drive it under many stock pickups!
Going Prelude because it seems like it still has the original floor mats?? Do something about the seats and that interior looks fine af.
If I was gonna go Fox-body, it would have to be something fuel-injected (and cheaper to boot, that price is atrocious.) I actually kinda like the late end of this generation, even then really only the notchbacks.
I already own a slow Mustang, but that Prelude will do much to fill the 80’s hole in my soul.
Although I like the Fox-body Mustangs, I can’t abide the Co’bro graphics. Given that it’s up against a fun little Prelude, there’s no contest for me. ‘Lude, all the way.
I’m typing this before I click on my response so my eyes don’t bleed from the one-sidedness of the results. The Accord is a better car than the Cobra in every possible way; looks, handling, fit/finish, economy, durability, you name it.
I’m about to click on the Cobra, for the simple reason that my first car was a 1980 cobra (the one that looked like the pace car). If I would buy this one, I would spend an afternoon soaking in all that familiarity of decades ago…the sound of the turbo (after the lengthy turbo lag), the burble of the exhaust, slapping the shifter from 2-3 with the base of my wrist like i used to do…all the feels. After that, I’d come to the realization that I had even back then…this is a half baked car that was put together out of the ford parts bin, hastily assembled with little quality control, and does its business very lesiurely. I still want it. Now, to see how badly I’m going to be outnumbered…..
35/65 currently…not nearly as bad as I thought.
How’s that turbo work? Didn’t add much in HP, 15 or so? I know people who have done fun things with these, but not in this configuration. The turbo pulls through the carb? I went with the Cobra, I think even at the asking price I would make it work. It’s too awful not to save.
It “worked” as you described – read; not well. The base 2.3 had only 88HP and the turbo pushed it to about 135, but even that modest number is misleading because the turbo lag was very real. Mine also demanded at least 92 octane and was happiest with 93. The one thing that my turbo was really good at was eating preconverters – it was traded in for that when I got it, and mine ate one after about a year as well. The pieces of converter would go back into the turbo and destroy the blades, leaving you with that wonderful 88 horse engine. Ford eventually cured all of this on the SVO via fuel injection and an intercooler.
Ahh yeah, Subaru did that, put a cat in the up-pipe, from the header to the turbo, so.. ummm thoughtful? I replaced it with the STI version with no cat.
‘lude fer me. Hmm, that don’ sound right, but I guess you’d hafta be a certain age.
Like me, my AMT and Revell models were $1.98 at the hobby shop. Yep, the same one with those glorious slot-car tracks and even an HO-scale layout in the back fer guys like me and my gang with big home layouts. Good times.
And it still sounds ok to me. And the old hobby shops did rule back then.
Back then was working as a stereo installer under contract to the local Honda dealers.
Another guy on the team was a mess and ate ludes at work like Homer Simpson eats donuts.
Part of my job was to inspect the work of the other techs. I bet I found 25 ludes and joints in those Hondas back then. Since the guy was sort of a douche, I never gave any of them back to him.
But yeah, these were very well built and designed cars vs the Mustang back then.
Even after reading the article, I was ready to (stupidly) vote for the Mustang, but I can’t get past the price for what it is. It’s not quite original or impressive enough at $5k. The Prelude is a good deal and would show well, but I’m not the right enthusiast for it.
The Honda is clearly the better car, but dammit my heart is with the Cobra and the silly graphics, so I’m going Mustang. Not a smart decision, but I’ve never been accused of being a particularly smart man.
Welp, I’ve made smart moves and I’ve made less-than-smart moves.
Guess which was more fun??…
…and you’re right. So who’s not smart?
I’m with you. The Honda IS a better car for driving to work….but for sitting at a car show… they would likely ask you to move it to regular car parking so cool things like this Mustang can park there, making the Mustang a better car.
While I generally like mustangs a 4 cylinder 79 hatch just doesn’t do it for me, even with the cool graphics. Were it a notch or an 87+ or had T-tops I might be a little more tempted.
I grew up with Hondas, my dad had an 87 Accord hatch (first car I ever drove) and my mom had a 78? and 85 Civic so the prelude was the one I always wished they had bought. So it wins for me. Plus pop up lights are cool.
Get the Prelude, and teach the kids how to wrench on a vehicle designed to use a 10mm wrench for just about everything.
Pretty much my favorite Honda, so yeah, Honda. I might go ‘Stang if it had a later 302 to go with the phone-dial rims.
In today’s market, and for how much people seem to love and want these cars, $2250 for the Prelude is suspiciously low. That said, I’m still going for it; I know a Honda guy that would be able to help me fix anything that could be wrong with it
I love Mustangs, but the price here is too high both absolutely and relative to the Prelude.
I do enjoy that Ford does seem to be referencing this Mustang’s overall dash setup with the (good) one in the 2024 Mustang.
That snake on the hood adds AT LEAST 50 hp.
+ another 10 from the stripes that extend over the freaking roof.
I never even realized that was a thing with the decal b/c flaming snake overload.
No level of novelty can overcome the price differential here. $5k is just too much for the Fox. I love Preludes – especially from this era. The price isn’t terrible for something as intact as this is. They are usually all modded up and/or rusted out. Easy vote for the Honda today!
I can probably get a cool Cobra graphic painted on the Prelude for less than $2749…
The mustang might be a disappointment, but it is loads more interesting than the good ole reliable Honda.
This like reliving high school, only with hindsight. At the time, the Fox body would have been my choice, as it was what all of my friends desired (though, to be fair, I was an F-body guy). We were always working on the Mustangs, fixing crap or trying to make them slightly faster. Thing was, when we needed to go anywhere with any sort of reliability, we called up our friends with Integras and Preludes, because they were reliable, fuel efficient, and honestly a lot more fun when the road had turns. With decades of life experience since then, I’m going with the Prelude – which is what I should have done back then too.
I was going to vote for the Cobra because turbo, but like others below have already pointed out, I don’t see a turbo…
Fuggit. Gonna vote for it anyway, because I voted for its graphics in that poll.
The Mustang has its own level of odd “better than it should be” desirability, but it’s no match for peak Honda. Add in that the neighbor girl I had a crush on in 1987 drove a similar Prelude and it wins by a mile, especially with the much lower price.
You get my star for the neighbor girl alone.