Impressions of the TSX vs. it's C & D competitors...

[Driver72]

Hello all, brand new here, but today I test drove the TSX for the first time and thought you all might enjoy my impressions. I wrote this write up in another forum too, so here it is for you guys as well. Hope you enjoy. ***This is a VERY long post. But please read. I think you'll find it a good read and worth your time. You may even find a few surprises in there as well.*** Okay all, today I decided to test drive the cars that Car and Driver just compared in the "sport sedan" comparo and judge for myself how I'd score the cars. I want to say up front, I did NOT drive the Audi A4 1.8T 5 speed manual. I have THREE, yes three friends with this car (one a 3.0 Quattro auto and other a 1.8T Quattro auto, and the third a 1.8T quattro manual) So, I've been in this car enough and know how it will stack up against the other three without needing an immediate test drive. I made a list of Car and Driver's "scoring" section just like they do. Giving a value of each section the same points they do, and after the 3 test drives I listed my scores. I then looked at their scoring to compare. I, of cousre, already knew their scoring outcome and already ordered my Legacy GT sedan manual. But I went into this comparison with an open mind, and was as neutral as I could honestly be. I obviously don't recieve ANY compensation or benefits from my views, so I figure it will be as honest and forthright as possible. So here are my standings and explanations afterward: 1. Acura TSX (206 points) 2. Legacy GT (205 points) 3. Volvo S40 T5 (186 points) 4 Audi A4 1.8T (185 points) Now this is NO coincidence that the first and second place cars are only one point apart and the 3rd and 4th place cars are only one point apart. The Acura TSX and Subaru LGT were just that good, but for different reasons all together, and the other two trailed by nearly equal amounts as well. I'm now not so mad at Car and Driver for their outcome, with the exception of the Volvo! I just CANNOT fathom how they gave that car 2nd place in their testing. Sure they drove each car 800 miles, I drove each not even 8 miles (maybe 6). But let's be honest. 95% of the car buying public buys cars with only about a few miles test drive experience. It's kinda like a first date, you USUALLY know in the first 15 minutes whether you like the person and if he/she is for you or not. This applied here with these cars! Acura TSX Absolutely stunning interior. They got it right. From the minute I climbed into the car, I thought, "wow, this car fits like a glove" Like the LGT the gauge cluster is spot on. They light up fantastically. Everything about the interior of this car is nearly perfect. I gave it a perfect 10 in Driver Comfort and Fit and Finish. Solid as a rock, feels like it should! I also gave it a perfect 5 out of 5 for Rear Seat Comfort and Rear Seat Space. It's surprisingly roomy back there, more so than the others. The TSX engine is a gem. Smooth, rev happy to a degree, and pulls nicely. I gave it a perfect 10 in Engine NVH. But what it comes down to is lack o' heavyweight punch. It feels more like a middleweight. I'm surprised how well it pulls from low rpm, but it just doesn't have a big hit of power. Acceptable yes, thrilling, no. 20-30 more ponies, and just as important 20-30 more ft-lbs of torque (can we say small V6 anyone?) and this car would be rippin! Hello Honda, make this car the Honda Accord here too, and give it that 3.0 V6. It would sell like Google stock! I also gave a perfect score for the tranny. What can I say...like the mag guys and Honda drivers everywhere already know, D@MN that's a nice 6 speed. The only thing I don't like is having reverse to the lower right, right next to 6th gear. It should be in the upper left by first gear, like many of the german cars. Since the car lacks a bit of punch, especially in 5th and 6th gears, you have to row that shifter quite a bit. But it's a pleasure on the curvy back road I test drove the car on (same road as I did the Volvo S40 T5 by the way) but in Los Angeles traffic, it would get tiresome. No wonder the sales guy told me that was the ONLY 6 speed car they had, and it's been sitting there for over a month. He said they've only sold a few manuals since the car came out. Legacy GT I drove the car before, and so this was my second time. I honestly don't see why it's interior got such low marks from Car and Driver. It's a VERY nice place to spend your time. True, not up to TSX standard, but the TSX is also from a "premium" maker, the Subaru is on par with Honda's and Toyota's. And the doors shut pretty good too. Sure not as vault like as the TSX, but surely not like a rattling Saturn does. They're up to par with most sedans in that price range. I gave the LGT perfect scores in Driver Comfort and Front Seat Space. It felt perfect in there, with a bit of space to spare. Slightly more roomy than the TSX. Everything was where it should be and felt (and smelt) very nice. It had the best "new car smell" of all the cars too. The rear seats were not quite as comfortable or roomy as the TSX however. Unlike C & D I gave the LGT 9 out of 10 in the Features and Amenities category, just like I gave the TSX. True the TSX actually had MORE amenities (like homelink, sunglass holder, sliding armrest, etc) but the LGT has All Wheel Drive. A "FEATURE" that I did NOT overlook, unlike Car and Driver. That balanced out the Features and Amenities between the two cars. Of course, I gave the LGT perfect 10 points in both Engine Output and Powertrain Performance. It was by FAR the quickest car, felt the strongest, and the AWD let me go FULL BOOST making the corner onto the freeway on ramp. In the others, it would of just spun the inside tire, like it did the TSX. That engine and powertrain just ROCK. Definately a heavyweight slugger! However, I did have to knock it down a few points on the chassis performance just like Car and Driver did. I was amazed to find, after scoring the LGT's chassis performance section, then looking at how C & D scored it, that I scored it EXACTLY THE SAME!! The car is a bit soft compared to the TSX. It's as it says, a GT car. 10-15% stiffer suspension would do this car wonders in the handling department. But I suspect they figure the people buying the LGT don't want that. Or they'll save that for an STI version in a couple years if the LGT does well, and I can't imagine why it wouldn't. Of course, the tires are half to blame in the handling department too. With proper high performance sport tires, the suspension may very well not need to be tuned much, if at all. It's just the tires are a bit mushy. The brakes are also slightly subpar. I didn't realize it in the first test drive, but jumping on the brakes in this test drive, I had wished it scrubbed off speed a bit better, I almost stopped IN the crosswalk on one hard stopping event. Steering was fine too, but not quite as sharp as the TSX's or for that matter the Volvo's. Volvo S40 T5 I am baffled how several editors at Car and Driver could of scored this car the way they did. I actually looked forward to this car. I thought, "wouldn't it be a surprise if this car was the David, that slayed the Goliath's" It was the last car I drove, so I had ALL the others to compare it too. Car and Driver gave the Volvo an 8 out of 10 in Driver Comfort, same as the LGT. And for the life of me, I CAN NOT understand HOW. The front seat is absolutely SKINNY. Now I'm not a large man, I rise above the earth just 5 feet 10 1/2 inches and push the scale down 165 pounds. But I was sitting in the Volvo's seat all of 2 minutes when I was looking for a way to move the side bolsters out away from my butt cheeks! I asked the sales lady, how do I do this, her reply, " yeah they made the seats small, so it craddles you for spirited driving." Well that's great and all, but I'm pretty small, what would a 6 footer weighing 200+ pounds do? In short, there's no way to adjust those lower seat side bolsters. Car and Driver in there write up mentioned that this car is good for "average" and "small" drivers, then made a special mention to their feet. I wear a 10.5 extra wide shoe and didn't find that NEARLY as much of a problem as I did the seat. Again, baffled by C & D's lack of comment on this and their subsequent scoring. It was just plain uncomfortable. After 15 minute drive, I got out and could still "feel" the side bolsters pushing in on my bum, kind of like they left an impression, it just wasn't a good one. Same goes for the Rear Seat Space. C & D gave it a perfect 5 out of 5, but it's the ONLY car where when sitting in the rear seat this man's head was skimming the roof. I had about an inch or so space in the TSX and LGT. Even stretching my neck up, I couldn't touch the roof of the TSX or LGT. Yet C & D gave the Volvo higher scores here than both the others! Sure it had decent leg space, but you had to drop your feet down into a deep hole. All three had plenty of leg space, my knees didn't touch the seat backs on any of them. Onto the test drive of the Volvo. I told the sales guy I heard this car had pretty good performance, he said, "oh it would run circles around your Maxima (2002)" Circles? Maybe. Straightline...no way! The engine is peppy out of the gate, when the turbo hits, it's not as hard as the Legacy GT. It feels more like a Crusierweight...a hard punch for sure, but the Heavyweight punch of the LGT would floor it in return. The engine is not as smooth as the TSX and very similiar to the LGT. I thought the LGT's boxer engine had charm, in the Porsche kind of way. Maybe not the smoothest, but nice sounding and charmingly different. The Volvo's lacked that charm however. You could hear the boost more in the Volvo, but since it doesn't hit as hard, it didn't wow me. In Car and Driver's test, they got the Volvo S40 T5 to run to 120 mph faster than the Legacy GT. The only acceleration test it won. Personally, I think the Legacy GT C & D had must have been a low mileage unit. There is NO question it's the fastest. AWD cars DO however lose speed, when they are at high velocities. Obviously it takes more power to turn 4 wheels than it does just 2. So, when approaching higher speeds, it's harder for a car with AWD to continue charging hard, due to the additional drivetrain losses. This for sure played a hand in the Volvo's high speed ability, and reaching 120 mph sooner. But had the S40 been the AWD version (which would of priced it out of this comparison) it would of been several seconds behind the Legacy GT by 120 mph. As it stands, the fastest I took all three of these cars were about 75 mph. The Legacy GT would run away from all the rest with ease. The Volvo did get more points in the Chassis department than the Legacy GT though. Certainly not as much as the TSX though. The Volvo's steering was precise, but a bit heavy. It's brake pedal felt firm and the brakes stopped VERY good. It might be the only area the Volvo matched the TSX in feel, well save for the performance. It IS a nimble car, but taking the curvy road at about 40-50 mph I felt the steering was a touch heavy so it kind of made the chassis feel heavy. Not as light on it's feet as the TSX, but VERY solid nonetheless. But where the Volvo dropped in popularity as fast as Vanilla Ice, was the interior and the fun factor. The fit and finish fell soldly between the Acura and the Legacy GT, but there was ZERO flavor there. Where the Acura is Chocolate Fudge, and the Legacy GT is Mint Chocolate Chip, the Volvo was Vanilla Sherbet. It's GREY in there. Sure the center "flooting" console is cool and all the buttons on it are cool, but like the sales lady said, it took her 100 times to figure out what all the buttons do and which you need to push to do different things. The grey background on the speedo dials is atrocious. And they are set WAY deep. I swear there's a foot between the front of the dash and where the dials sit. Looking around it's boring...all grey with touches of aluminum. This was a $30K car without leather, but had the sport package and sunroof. Equip this car like the LGT (with AWD and the same options), and it's easily $33K maybe more. Car and Driver gave it a 8 out of 10 on value, gave the Audi 1.8T a 7 out of 10. How they could of possibly figured the Volvo had better value is beyond me. I gave it a 7 out of 10 along with the Audi, and gave the TSX 8 out of 10 and the LGT 9 out of 10. The Acura is expensive $27,035 without NAV. If it had AWD like the LGT, it would be at least $29K plus. Right where the LGT is, but still lack in the VERY important power department. Car and Driver also gave the Volvo nearly as much "Gotta Have It" points as they did the Legacy GT. I just don't see it. It's a quick car and feels decent, but other than it being brand new, I can't see anybody longing for this car. Unless they are Volvo faithful or super concerned with safety. On a side note too. Car and Driver does a 5-60 mph rolling start on their cars. I also did this with every one of these cars, at least twice each. Three times in the Legacy GT. They got a 7.6 second time on the Legacy GT. I have to say, I think this is a typo on their part, or again the result of a low mileage, not running well car. Each time I tried this in the Legacy, I got the car started by releasing the clutch in first gear and just giving it a touch of throttle, then actually lifting my foot OFF the gas until the car was just creeping along and nearly stalling. Then floored the gas. The car bogged for a second as their was significant turbolag, but then it boosted and just shot off. I hit second and then released. I've done this in a standard WRX before, and there's no question, the Legacy GT did it in JUST as fast, if NOT faster. Yet, Car and Driver got a 5-60 mph time in 6.6 seconds with the standard WRX. Furthermore, I even tried this in a Forester XT today as well. Car and Driver got the FXT to do it in 6.3 seconds. Both the young sales guy (who owns a new WRX STI) and myself couldn't tell a difference between the Forester XT and the Legacy GT in this "street start." They both did the exact same thing and felt nearly identical. If you were blindfolded, you wouldn't of know which of the two you were in during this acceleration test. It was that close. I'm thinking Car and Driver's time of 7.6 seconds was a typo and should of been 6.6 seconds. Had it truly been 7.6 seconds, we would of noticed a BIG difference between it and the Forester XT, and there just wasn't any. I also don't know why Car and Driver does this test. I couldn't find a SINGLE reason or time when someone driving on the "street" would "start" off like this. Nobody who drives a stick, let's out the clutch get's rolling to 5 mph then floors it. It is by NO means an accurate way to test a "street start" on a car. More aptly a street start would consist of, giving the car a bit of gas while letting the clutch out, then if desired floor the accelerator as soon as the clutch is fully engaged. This would be what you would do say... if you needed to suddenly merge into traffic and get in front of the other car. . As stated, I also did this with the other cars, the TSX bogged a bit then accelerated out smoothly and swiftly, but again, lacking any major power. In C & D's test, they got the TSX to do this 5-60 time a tenth of a second faster than the Legacy GT. I'll say it right now with conviction, this would NOT happen. The TSX would lose that acceleration competition too. It just doesn't have the burst of speed the Legacy GT has, even though the TSX might pull a car length while the Legacy GT's turbo is desperately trying to spool up, but once it does, it would shoot right past the TSX. The Volvo falls in between those two, the Audi, of course, the slowest. So there you have it. The Acura TSX narrowly comes in first place in my scoring too. Does that mean I'm going to pull out on my order of the Legacy GT? No way! I have a new found respect for the TSX. It is a GREAT little (actually it's larger than it seems) car and a sweet little DRIVER's car. But performance and AWD stability and traction is MORE important to me. If I want perfect fit and finish and a perfect interior, I'd be looking at a Lexus. The Acura though a blast to drive, doesn't have the engine wallop, or the great traction of the AWD. Plus it's not like the interior of the Legacy GT is a base Honda Civic. It's quite nice as well. The Volvo just would never be a consideration for me, and the Audi though great and great looking, is too slow, and too expensive. Even the 3.0 V6 in the A4 doesn't match the Legacy GT's power. Thanks all....Driver72

This ad is not displayed to registered or logged-in members. Register your free account today and become a member on Acurazine!

[Sarlacc]

Damn, thats a long ass review....

but thank you. it was a good read.

[biker]

x3

:padlock:

[Driver72]

Repost by ME!
No x 3

The original was also written by ME in another forum. Get over it.

"noob" here. Been on car forums since 1999. Thanks for your introduction.
There's always one of you on every forum.

Let's keep it on topic huh?

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by sarlacc23

Damn, thats a long ass review....

but thank you. it was a good read.

No prob. yeah, it's hard to give thoughts on 3 (I didn't really even go into the Audi) cars and not make it long. I tried to condense as much as poss.

[keg1997]

Great review...thanks.
I'm most interested in seeing if the 5-60 time for the Legacy is a typo. I've seen at least 2 other comments on other forums about that. It sure is possible, but I've got to believe that C&D's editors triple check their numbers b/c people really do hang on those. We'll see!
Thanks again and sounds like a great way to spend a day!

[Saintor]

Ah. Ah. Desesperately trying to justify yourself your purchase. Definitely looks like so.

Actually, I drove a few 2.5GT back in June and was deceived (like C&D). It has nowhere the wanna-have-fun or 'joie-de-vivre' temper of the TSX or even a MAzda 6s. Its powertrain is deceiving and consumes as much as a 6 cyl. for no reason. Interior felt good and exterior looked better in person. It is not a bad purchase, but I can see why the TSX was chosen.

[biker]

Originally Posted by Driver72

Repost by ME!
No x 3

The original was also written by ME in another forum. Get over it.

"noob" here. Been on car forums since 1999. Thanks for your introduction.
There's always one of you on every forum.

Let's keep it on topic huh?

OK repost maybe was the wrong smiley - I should have asked to have it moved to the same comparison well under way in these threads:
http://www.acura-tsx.com/forums/show...ighlight=C%26D
http://www.acura-tsx.com/forums/show...ighlight=C%26D
http://www.acura-tsx.com/forums/show...ighlight=C%26D
And it is also mentioned a bit in this one:
http://www.acura-tsx.com/forums/show...ighlight=C%26D

Your post count was 1 when you posted this that = noob on this site

I guess a instead of would have been more appropriate.

Sorry you took it as a intro it was not intended that way.

Anyway, welcome to the site and nice write up.

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by Saintor

Ah. Ah. Desesperately trying to justify yourself your purchase. Definitely looks like so.

Actually, I drove a few 2.5GT back in June and was deceived (like C&D). It has nowhere the wanna-have-fun or 'joie-de-vivre' temper of the TSX or even a MAzda 6s. Its powertrain is deceiving and consumes as much as a 6 cyl. for no reason. Interior felt good and exterior looked better in person. It is not a bad purchase, but I can see why the TSX was chosen.

Did you read my impressions?
I gave the TSX full credit for the car it is.
But I stated, power and AWD is what won me over in the LGT. How exactly is that justifying my purchase? Again, sounds more like YOU are justifying yours, or just wanted to bash someone for choosing another car.

You say, it "consumes" as much as a 6 cylinder for no reason.
It's got 2 PERFECTLY good reasons. 1. A turbocharger blowing 13.5 psi of boost that gives it as much power as a large V6. and 2. It's got AWD
The LGT makes as much hp and torque as a 3.5 liter Nissan Altima, but yet gets only 1 mpg worse in both city and highway. So that means the AWD is "consuming" only 1 mpg.
Those sound like pretty respectable reason to me.

As I said, to, I agreed with and could see why the TSX was choosen too. It "won" my comparo by 1 point. It's just individual interests vary. Again, mine was the power and AWD. I might of even given up the AWD had the TSX had 30-40 more HP and Torque.

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by biker

OK repost maybe was the wrong smiley - I should have asked to have it moved to the same comparison well under way in these threads:
http://www.acura-tsx.com/forums/show...ighlight=C%26D
http://www.acura-tsx.com/forums/show...ighlight=C%26D
http://www.acura-tsx.com/forums/show...ighlight=C%26D
And it is also mentioned a bit in this one:
http://www.acura-tsx.com/forums/show...ighlight=C%26D

Your post count was 1 when you posted this that = noob on this site

I guess a instead of would have been more appropriate.

Sorry you took it as a intro it was not intended that way.

Anyway, welcome to the site and nice write up.

Much better thanks. You guys all have a great car. My fiance' lease on her 2002 Maxima comes do in the next month or two. I'm going to take her to look at the TSX.
I may end up having the Legacy GT AND the TSX if she likes it as much as I did.
But I'm sure she'd want the automatic, which would make it even slower.
But she's coming from 255 hp, so the TSX might feel a bit sluggish to her too.
We'll see.

[Saintor]

It's got 2 PERFECTLY good reasons. 1. A turbocharger blowing 13.5 psi of boost. and 2. It's got AWD

Absolutely not. AWD has nothing to do with this. Actually, the Legacy H6 version has also AWD/250HP and the exact same fuel economy. I don't see the point of the turbocharged engine and I hated it with the automatic transmission; it was poorly matched.

[masmole]

Whew... how long did it take you to write that?

Great review but I still think the subbie's interior is sub-par. It looks nice enough but if you really examine the type and quality of materials used and the overall design and layout, it definitely falls short of others in its class. Mazda 3 doors are more vault-like than the subbie's and that's an econobox we're talking. Also, I'd take the A4 1.8T over the subbie or the Volvo S40 anyday, but not over the TSX. But then again, I guess I'm biased.

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by Saintor

Absolutely not. AWD has nothing to do with this. Actually, the Legacy H6 version has also AWD/250HP and the exact same fuel economy. I don't see the point of the turbocharged engine and I hated it with the automatic transmission; it was poorly matched.

Saintor you are wrong, sorry.
You are comparing apples to oranges by comparing the H6 to the F4 Turbo.
AWD not only adds about 200+ pounds to a car, but requires the engine to turn A LOT more moving parts. The more moving parts the engine has to turn the more gas it consumes. There's no two ways around that.

Consider this too: The Acura TSX with the manual is rated at 21 city and 29 highway.
It's a heavy car at 3200+ pounds. But like I've said when defending a VW, with the exception of aluminum and other strong lightweight parts, quality comes at a price...weight.

But now let's look at the TSX. This car is rougly 120 pounds lighter than the Legacy GT Limited. It has 100 cc smaller engine, no turbo charger and no AWD. Yet it gets only 2 mpg better city and 4 mpg better highway.
Imagine if you could throw in a turbocharger that would bring the TSX's horsepower up to 250, and add a 200+ pound AWD system so that engine gets to turn all four wheels, and the faster you go, the harder that is. That's why AWD cars don't accelerate as fast as FWD or RWD only cars of equal power at highway speeds.
How good of gas mileage do you think the TSX with it's new turbocharger and AWD system that weighs 200 pounds would be?

All you have to due is look at the G35 and G35x for another example. Get's about the exact same gas mileage as the Legacy GT Limited with the G35x. yeah, it has 10 more hp and torque, but it's naturally aspirated, and the car is more aerodynamic.

I don't want to get off topic here.
If you want to continue this gas mileage discussion, please start another thread about gas mileage in AWD and turbocharged cars.

Thanks.

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by masmole

Whew... how long did it take you to write that?

Great review but I still think the subbie's interior is sub-par. It looks nice enough but if you really examine the type and quality of materials used and the overall design and layout, it definitely falls short of others in its class. Mazda 3 doors are more vault-like than the subbie's and that's an econobox we're talking. Also, I'd take the A4 1.8T over the subbie or the Volvo S40 anyday, but not over the TSX. But then again, I guess I'm biased.

It took me a couple hours to do all of it.
First I sat down with the categories that C & D used right after I got home from the test drives.
Then I went down each category and gave each car a score.
Then I went over each again, and made a couple adjustments based on new things that I remembered.
Then I added up my scores.
Then I looked at Car and Drivers scores and wrote them next to mine.

Then I went onto the Subaru board and started writing the "review"
Then I reread it, and cut a few things out to shorten it a bit.

Total time probably 3+ hours. I know I didn't edit the best, but I was getting tired at that point and my better half just called and said she'd be home in 10-15 minutes.

Anyway, yeah I can see how you'd think the Legacy GT's interior was subpar coming from the TSX. But really it's not. Keep in mind, all the other cars in this comparo are of "premium" brands. The Subaru is not, it's just like any other "basic" Japanese car.
If Subaru had a "premium" brand and fit the car accordingly, then added $2K to the price (making it $30.5K) it would of been a more fair comparison). And that price wouldn't be too high for the only car with AWD. I would think that's about what a TSX would cost if you added a turbocharger to give it 250 hp and designed the car to accept an AWD system.
Those two things alone would add $3K+ to the price of the TSX too.

I have a 2002 Nissan Maxima and the Legacy GT's interior is just as, if not slightly nicer.
It feels just as, if not slightly better too.
Heck you can get an Altima SE and have a sticker price of $28K, with no AWD and no better interior.
A Pontiac Grand Prix GTP can cost $29K (nobody in there right mind would pay that much for it) but it by FAR has a worse interior and the quality is by far subpar.

There are A LOT of cars in the $26-30K range that have no better, and some worse, interiors than the Legacy GT. Subaru obviously had to make a bit of a compromise in order to keep the price where it is.
But honestly, I don't know of another car you can get for $29K that has the performance of the Legacy GT, has AWD, and I'd say slightly above average interior amenities and features. Remember, you can get a Legacy GT without the Limited package, and all you are losing is leather and the sunroof, and it's price is $25,900.
That's barely more than the WRX and when that car came out people were RAVING about it's performance potential for the money and ACCEPTED that it's interior was like a base Honda Civic.
The "base" Legacy GT is a mere $1000 more and you get MORE performance, and FAR better interior than the base WRX, plus more room and a better looking car to boot.

Too bad it's not possible to mix the TSX and LGT in one...make it a $32K car and watch it dominate everything in it's class.

[members78]

Let me start off by saying I appreciate the time and effort you put into his review, but I could not finish reading the post, which basically switched the volvo with the suburu. Because you have already ordered the suburu, that tells me there IS bias. That would probably explain why the suburu surpassed the volvo, and came within one point of the TSX, which in C/D, the competition was soundly trounced by acura.

C/D is arguably the most unbiased, objective car magazine here in the states. They spent mucho deniro comparing those four cars, followed a strict scoring structure, and when the dust settled, the TSX was on top. Since C/D gets top billing, they can afford to employ some of the brightest minds in the automotive world, which lends to their credibility.

While you were careful not to upset the TSX's reign on top, you nevertheless deny its complete, and utter superiority over the competition by placing it within one point of the suburu. Had the score been a little closer, maybe I would not feel compelled to challenge your 'review.' But like the article in C/D said, the TSX was equal or better in 17 out of 22 categories, which to me spells - landslide victory!!

im so stoked i bought a tsx, hehe.

[bigbadboss101]

Originally Posted by Driver72

Much better thanks. You guys all have a great car. My fiance' lease on her 2002 Maxima comes do in the next month or two. I'm going to take her to look at the TSX.
I may end up having the Legacy GT AND the TSX if she likes it as much as I did.
But I'm sure she'd want the automatic, which would make it even slower.
But she's coming from 255 hp, so the TSX might feel a bit sluggish to her too.
We'll see.

FYI, I am leasing and had a 02 Maxima SE with RSB, FSTB, Stillen intake etc. Car is great, fast, roomy, nice looking, reliable etc.

I tested the TSX, TL, LGT, G35C, Mazda 6. Let me know via PM what cars you test and what you came up with. For me, the G35C isn't practical, but I am getting to like the Sedan. Thought they were ugly at first. Mazda 6 do not interest me, nor would the VW, Volvos. MB and BMW out of the questions cuz of $$$. Final 4 in no particular order would be the TSX, TL, LGT, and G35S.

I think one can like all of these cars and have them as possible NEXT car. Once a decision is made, you can't really bash the ones you don't choose. Pros and Cons for all of them.

[nanda68]

people can say whatever they want. When C&D says TSX is first, IT IS FIRST. All this talk of honda giving lots of money for C&D ads tipping the tests in their favor is BS. IF Honda can give money dont u think other car makers cant. Coming first in these comparisons definitely increase the car makers sales. Lets not forget that. for ACURA TSX.

[Saintor]

Originally Posted by Driver72

Saintor you are wrong, sorry.
You are comparing apples to oranges by comparing the H6 to the F4 Turbo.
AWD not only adds about 200+ pounds to a car, but requires the engine to turn A LOT more moving parts. The more moving parts the engine has to turn the more gas it consumes. There's no two ways around that.

You don't get it. I am talking Legacy vs Legacy, the same car. with the same AWD. Consequently AWD does not matter. The H6 has the same fuel economy as the 4 cyl. turbo.

[subbie gt]

great post ....thanx

[VeniceBeachTSX]

Originally Posted by Saintor

You don't get it. I am talking Legacy vs Legacy, the same car. with the same AWD. Consequently AWD does not matter. The H6 has the same fuel economy as the 4 cyl. turbo.

I've driven them both. The feel of the two is very different. (And of course the H6 is currently available only in the Automatic, on the "Outback" versions.) My feeling was that if I wanted automatic, I would have purchased the H6, for a stick, I would have taken the turbo.

I've driven 3 of the four cars. My brother has an S40 (no turbo) which I drive from time to time an I drove both at the dealer. I was only looking at Automatics, so my opinions are somewhat different.

When shopping to replace my old S4 wagon, I initially thought I'd go for another "sport wagon" type vehicle, which would have left me with the Subie, the Audi (really don't want another) and possibly the new Volvo V50 (basically the S40 with more space in the back). In the end I decided that for hauling my bike around on weekends I'd just get a rack and skip the wagon, which made the Acura, and a few others possible contenders. Obviously, my selection was the TSX.

My impressions follow. I won't repeat what's been said, and would comment that my needs and criteria are far different from anything that any serious car magazine (or many of the readers of this board) worries about.

1) The Subaru automatic is nowhere near as smooth as any of the others. It's nice that they're finally offering a 5-speed on the turbo and H6 engines, but it's still unrefined compared to anything else. On the basic 4 cylinder the've still got the clunky 4-speed, which surprised me, since the competition (Accord, Camry) have been putting 5-speeds on their basic engines for a while.

2) Subaru definitely the best handling. All these cars would benefit from better tires. Sadly, all these manufacturers have selected tires for best fuel efficiency and little else. That said, if high performance handling was the key critierion, Subaru would get the nod. Since realistically, most of my driving is fairly normal driving on fairly normal roads, where the opportunities for any of this to matter are limited, that's just not my concern. TSX is second best.

3) Subaru did an OK job on the interior and appointments. Seats are better than they've been in the past, but not as good as others in the category. I didn't have a problem with the Volvo seats like the reviewer above (and I'm not a small guy), but to each their own. This is one of the reasons I take all magzine reviews with a huge grain of salt. Issues of personal comfort and preference are just not quantifiable. I found the TSX to be probably the most comfortable car (for me) that I've sat in recently. Not sure I'd feel the same way with a clutch, but for driving an automatic where my left foot rarely moves, it is far more comfortable than the Volvo, Subaru or my old Audi.

4) Also, Subaru did a rotten job with the sound system. NO accessories possible. And no "hidden" auxiliary input like we have on the TSX with the SNHOND3 solution. This means that anything you want to hook in has to be done with FM modulation. AND they've decided to switch to a proprietary antenna hookup this year, which means that at the moment even "hard wired" FM modulation isn't possible. (Most likely there'll be an adapter later.) You have to go to broadcast modulation, which means you're competing with local signals. That sucks for long distance driving where the stations change along the way. And navigation isn't even an option. Subaru's response to both of these problems is "maybe we'll offer satellite radio and navigation someday." Sorry, but this kind of stuff is fairly standard in the price range. Hell, even a Mazda3 I drove had a navi system in it! They would have done better to stay with a standard "DIN" sized radio that you could at least swap out. Virtually all cars in the same price range at least have some sort of "hidden" aux input that you can use.

Leaving aside the head unit's shortcomings, I thought the sound quality wasn't up to par.

Volvo's system is good, but annoying to use, as are all the climate and other controls in that central panel. IMO, Audi's sound system is the best of them and also the most adaptable without jumping through hoops. It's nice that they offer not only satellite radio, but your choice of which satellite vendor you'd like installed.

5) Let me say it again, the OEM tires on all these cars suck.

6) The Subie definitely sounded best. I've never liked the sound of the 5-cylinder Volvo. (Or any of the other 5-cylinder cars that have been made over the years, starting with the Audi 5000). The turbo A4 sounds too much like every other VW out there. TSX was the second nicest song.

7) I wish everybody would go to the "frameless" windows used by Subaru. I've always liked that design and my impression over the years has been that with less of a door frame there's less stuff to squeak and rattle.

8) Why, oh why do the GERMANS of all people, put a nice heavy tint on their sunroof glass, while the Japanese use a light 50% tint? It's not like Germany has all these hot bright summer days we have in LA. I'm going to have my TSX sunroof tinted when I do the windows, it's just too light for driving around in the sun.

9) TSX is the only one with standard HID headlights. Nice to have.

Can't think of anything else to add. Of course my needs are not well captured by the C&D reviews, but thought I'd add my few cents anyway.

[bigbadboss101]

Good work, thanks. Don't disagree. I wish I can take a couple of these cars and try em over a weekend, under similar conditions. It's hard to compare even over different days, roads, traffic etc.

[masmole]

Originally Posted by Driver72

It took me a couple hours to do all of it.
Anyway, yeah I can see how you'd think the Legacy GT's interior was subpar coming from the TSX. But really it's not. Keep in mind, all the other cars in this comparo are of "premium" brands. The Subaru is not, it's just like any other "basic" Japanese car.
If Subaru had a "premium" brand and fit the car accordingly, then added $2K to the price (making it $30.5K) it would of been a more fair comparison). And that price wouldn't be too high for the only car with AWD. I would think that's about what a TSX would cost if you added a turbocharger to give it 250 hp and designed the car to accept an AWD system.
Those two things alone would add $3K+ to the price of the TSX too.

I have a 2002 Nissan Maxima and the Legacy GT's interior is just as, if not slightly nicer.
It feels just as, if not slightly better too.
Heck you can get an Altima SE and have a sticker price of $28K, with no AWD and no better interior.
A Pontiac Grand Prix GTP can cost $29K (nobody in there right mind would pay that much for it) but it by FAR has a worse interior and the quality is by far subpar.

There are A LOT of cars in the $26-30K range that have no better, and some worse, interiors than the Legacy GT. Subaru obviously had to make a bit of a compromise in order to keep the price where it is.
But honestly, I don't know of another car you can get for $29K that has the performance of the Legacy GT, has AWD, and I'd say slightly above average interior amenities and features. Remember, you can get a Legacy GT without the Limited package, and all you are losing is leather and the sunroof, and it's price is $25,900.

Well, you can't really use Nissan as an example when comparing interiors. Nissan hardly represents "average" when it comes to interiors. Among all imports, they are among the worst not counting Kia and Hyundai. Hell, even their premium Infinity division is subpar in its class. A "non-premium" Honda Accord has a far better interior in terms of fit and finish and quality of materials when compared to a "premium" Infinity G35. In my opinion, the average interior is best exemplified by marques like Mazda, which have clean designs, good quality, and have decent choice of materials. I find that the Subaru Legacy GT's interior is not as good as a Mazda 6's interior which is why I call it sub-par. I respect the fact that you're defending your upcoming purchase decision... but I'm just keeping it real. Aside from the interior, the Legacy is a very good car.

[VeniceBeachTSX]

Originally Posted by masmole

Aside from the interior, the Legacy is a very good car.

Tend to agree, particularly when talking about the MT version, and when considering it as a "sport" rather than a "luxury" vehicle. My impression of the two can be summed up by saying that Acura spends more money on the "luxury" (which includes such factors as the better sound, navigation, etc), while Subaru spends more of it on the "sport" aspect.

I suspect that in the general marketplace, the Accura will be more successful, and the opposite will be true among "enthusiasts."

[Driver72]

I have responded to your post, my responses are enclosed in bold and *** below.

Originally Posted by members78

Let me start off by saying I appreciate the time and effort you put into his review,

*** Thanks ***



but I could not finish reading the post, which basically switched the volvo with the suburu. Because you have already ordered the suburu, that tells me there IS bias.
That would probably explain why the suburu surpassed the volvo, and came within one point of the TSX, which in C/D, the competition was soundly trounced by acura.


*** You should of read the whole post. You are completely wrong here. You apparently take the word of Car and Driver as the end all and be all. People have different priorities. Car and Driver ranked the TSX first in the competiton, but Automobile magazine ranked it LAST in a 10 or so car competition last year.
There was NO bias when reviewing these cars. Do you think the guys at Car and Driver are robots? Do you think they don't have personal favorites. The TSX was a favorite going into the competition. They named it one of the "Ten Best" just months ago. And one of their editors said in their first review of the TSX, if it came in a wagon form, he'd buy it. So you don't think there was bias going into that competition? Like I'm sure they did, I went in with a clean slate. I haven't bought the LGT yet, just ordered it. I could pull out of that order at ANY time....I didn't have to put a cent down, and I signed no agreement!
The Subaru surpassed the Volvo in my review, because I just didn't agree with nearly anything the Car and Driver said about it. It was the largest area that baffled me about their review. It just isn't that great.

I do find it a bit humorous that you are accusing me of bias, taking the word of a group of magazine editors that you don't even know, but you obviously haven't driven any of the other cars, other than your TSX. Yet you are defending it like if your life depended on it.
That's called bias.***




C/D is arguably the most unbiased, objective car magazine here in the states. They spent mucho deniro comparing those four cars, followed a strict scoring structure, and when the dust settled, the TSX was on top. Since C/D gets top billing, they can afford to employ some of the brightest minds in th
e automotive world, which lends to their credibility.


*** Arguably by whom? Obviously you. You obviously hold the word of the C & D editors as ultimate and supreme in all the auto kingdom. I for one, use a bit more neutrality and open mindedness. I subscribe to 5 different auto magazines ( Car and Driver, Road and Track, MotorTrend, AutoWeek, and Automobile)
I look at what EACH has to say, than based on my own EXPERIENCE decide which one on any given car had the closest views I had. And for the record, C & D probably spent next to nothing doing this comparo. What part would make you think it would cost "mucho dinero" to do a week long comparison? Even renting out a race track for the day is pennies to them. The Streets of Willow Springs can be yours to rent ALL DAY for $2,000
Or you can rent the big track for $2,500. Or you can rent the whole facility and all the tracks, including the Kart and dirt, for $10,000.
So, $2,500 for one track day is nothing to a major publication.
The cars are GIVEN to them to evaluate by the manufacturers, and other than carrying a large insurance policy to cover any damages, they pay for gas.
These comparo are CHEAP to do.
You say they can hire some of the brightest minds in the automotive world.
You do know that a couple months ago, two of their veteran senior editors left to go to two different magazines right? One went to MotorTrend, the other I can't remember.
C & D obviously doesn't pay the highest.
Oh, and they replaced them with a couple 20 something "kids" with very little experience.
The Editor in Chief (Csaba Ceasroearaaalllaaa) admited in their interview process that he hasn't even SEEN either of them ACTUALLY drive a car! That was appauling to me for an auto magazine. He hired them because of their mechanical and technical engineering degrees and experience, and as he said, he was "told" they drive pretty well.
I guess that wipes out your theory about Car and Driver huh?***




While you were careful not to upset the TSX's reign on top, you nevertheless deny its complete, and utter superiority over the competition by placing it within one point of the suburu.

***Again, you need to question yourself when it comes to who has bias. Your upset that I even considered the Subaru close to the TSX...yet you've not only never driven the LGT, but probably haven't even been inside it. I wasn't "denying" the "utter superiority" of the TSX? Why? Because I didn't feel that same way. I clearly explained that in my review.***




Had the score been a little closer, maybe I would not feel compelled to challenge your 'review.' But like the article in C/D said, the TSX was equal or better in 17 out of 22 categories, which to me spells - landslide victory!!

*** Due yourself a favor, before you ooze more bias out of your pores, go drive the other cars in this test. Car and Driver obviously puts a lot more weight on luxury and amenities than me and many other enthusiasts and magazines. The TSX won in my comparison as well, partly because of it's stellar interior, high end fit and finish, many amentities, it also scored really high for it's driving, it's precision, and it's fun factor.
But as "drivers" go, theirs more to just feel. There's walking the walk. The TSX is underpowered to ANY person who puts high priority on sport! Four years ago, the TSX would of been considered fast in it's class, but it lags behind now. I think "Automobile" magazine was WAY too harsh in rating it last. They obviously put more emphasis on power and sport than even I. I clearly like a fine balance of the two, but put about 65% more into power and such than interiors and amenities.
To YOU the TSX spells a "landslide victory" but you are biased, and it's more than obvious.

Lastly let me say this: to show that you have no clue as to what you car talking about and accusing me of bias is completely unfounded. Not only did I order and am getting the Legacy GT Limited, but I am replacing our 2002 Maxima as well.
Test driving these cars served two purposes for me. Not only to compare to what Car and Driver had to say, but to see which if any I was ALSO going to get to replace the Maxima.
If you'd of read any other of my posts you'd of noticed that I'm taking my fiance back to the Acura dealership this week to see if she likes the TSX as much as I do. If so, we may have a new TSX as well!
Now that is as unbiased as it comes. Good day my young biased, haven't driven any of the compared cars, forum friend.***



im so stoked i bought a tsx, hehe.

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by masmole

I respect the fact that you're defending your upcoming purchase decision... but I'm just keeping it real. Aside from the interior, the Legacy is a very good car.

Man, some of you guys are pretty biased. You seem to think what you think is correct and if anybody else feels differently they are wrong.
I'm wasn't defending my purchases decision. I told you, of the cars in that comparo I ranked the Subaru's interior the lowest. But, I've been in MANY cars. I just drove the Honda Accord EX V6 sedan today for the first time.
It's interior also doesn't compare to the Acura TSX, but I have got to say, the Legacy GT Limited interior is just as good as the Accord's.
The Accord used harder plastics than the TSX too.
The door on the center console storage bin felt flimsy and cheaper thant he one on the Legacy's. The Accord's leather interior was no better than the Legacy's.
They are VERY comparable.

If I don't like an interior and it feels cheap to me, I would say so.
The base WRX's interior is CHEAP for a $24K car...though improved for 2005.

Everybody is going to feel differently. I agree that Nissan is on the lower side for interior when it comes to Japanese cars...yet they sell quite of few cars.
Infiniti's interior is also on the lower side of the "premium" scale, but it was good enough for MANY car magazines to rate the car better than the BMW 3 series, Acura TL, and even Jaguar X-Type.
You can nickel and dime interiors to death, but what it comes down to is that unless it's horribly bad, it's all personally subjective. And the Infiniti G35 is one D@MN fine sport sedans, even though it might not have BMW level of interiors, NO ONE is going to condemn it for that, like some of you are doing to the Legacy GT. The LGT is a D@MN fine sport sedan too, and regardless of your bias or view, if you haven't taken one on a test drive, it's worth doing so.

The fact I rated the TSX first and the Audi last though both have stellar interiors should of told you that there was no bias there. The TSX is that much more pleasingly than the Audi A4 1.8T in the way it drives and handles. The Volvo just gets lost in between them all and other than it's great brakes and stiff structure, nothing shines overly bright.

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by VeniceBeachTSX

Tend to agree, particularly when talking about the MT version, and when considering it as a "sport" rather than a "luxury" vehicle. My impression of the two can be summed up by saying that Acura spends more money on the "luxury" (which includes such factors as the better sound, navigation, etc), while Subaru spends more of it on the "sport" aspect.

I suspect that in the general marketplace, the Accura will be more successful, and the opposite will be true among "enthusiasts."

Very true, though I think of the TSX an "enthusiast" car to, just for those who put more emphasis on feel rather than all out performance.


Thanks guys for all the feedback and thanks you've given, I appreciate it.
Keep your thoughts coming, but please unless you've driven all these cars, enough of the "bias" comments. Those of you who've called me bias, are the ones who've truly shown the bias. Let that go.

[masmole]

Originally Posted by Driver72

Man, some of you guys are pretty biased. You seem to think what you think is correct and if anybody else feels differently they are wrong.
I'm wasn't defending my purchases decision. I told you, of the cars in that comparo I ranked the Subaru's interior the lowest. But, I've been in MANY cars. I just drove the Honda Accord EX V6 sedan today for the first time.
It's interior also doesn't compare to the Acura TSX, but I have got to say, the Legacy GT Limited interior is just as good as the Accord's.
The Accord used harder plastics than the TSX too.
The door on the center console storage bin felt flimsy and cheaper thant he one on the Legacy's. The Accord's leather interior was no better than the Legacy's.
They are VERY comparable.

If I don't like an interior and it feels cheap to me, I would say so.
The base WRX's interior is CHEAP for a $24K car...though improved for 2005.

Everybody is going to feel differently. I agree that Nissan is on the lower side for interior when it comes to Japanese cars...yet they sell quite of few cars.
Infiniti's interior is also on the lower side of the "premium" scale, but it was good enough for MANY car magazines to rate the car better than the BMW 3 series, Acura TL, and even Jaguar X-Type.
You can nickel and dime interiors to death, but what it comes down to is that unless it's horribly bad, it's all personally subjective. And the Infiniti G35 is one D@MN fine sport sedans, even though it might not have BMW level of interiors, NO ONE is going to condemn it for that, like some of you are doing to the Legacy GT. The LGT is a D@MN fine sport sedan too, and regardless of your bias or view, if you haven't taken one on a test drive, it's worth doing so.

The fact I rated the TSX first and the Audi last though both have stellar interiors should of told you that there was no bias there. The TSX is that much more pleasingly than the Audi A4 1.8T in the way it drives and handles. The Volvo just gets lost in between them all and other than it's great brakes and stiff structure, nothing shines overly bright.

Though I love my TSX, I am far from biased. I buy at least one new car every year which means I test drive just about everything out there including everything Subaru makes (I even convinced my sister to buy a Forrester 2.5XT Turbo). And although I also own an Audi S4, I agree with the Audi 1.8T's placement in C&D's comparo. No car is perfect so I make it my main objective to recognize their faults and find the one that's best for me in terms of quality, performance, and overall attributes. No bias there, just personal preference and the sincere recognition of what is good and what is crap. I said the Legacy is a very good car aside from the interior -- it's true -- what's so biased about that? I'm comparing it to other cars I would cross-shop with the Subaru if I were to get one. For me, the interior was a dealbreaker, not just quality, but overall design and layout - just feels and looks cheap. I felt the same about the interior in the Forrester my sister just bought... but I encouraged it anyway since I knew she could care less about interiors but more about how much crap she can stow in rear.

[jcg878]

Originally Posted by Driver72

Man, some of you guys are pretty biased. You seem to think what you think is correct and if anybody else feels differently they are wrong.

What do you expect? For somebody who states s/he has a lot of experience with car forums, you don't sound like you do. I think they all follow the same general formula - 85% proud (and usually defensive) owners vs 15% 'other'.

I think the Legacy GT is a great car. I was surprised to see its relatively low ranking in C&D. However, I don't think the interior is very nice, based on the (admittedly) pre-production models I saw at the Philly and NYC auto shows. It's ok, but not close to the same level as its C&D comparators. I haven't driven it so I can't comment on that, but I could see a Legacy wagon or Outback in our future so maybe I'll check it out.

[VeniceBeachTSX]

Originally Posted by Driver72

Very true, though I think of the TSX an "enthusiast" car to, just for those who put more emphasis on feel rather than all out performance.

I think Accura tries to position the car somewhere in between, which I believe is part of the reason that they made some compromises on the driving side of it. They adjust for this to some degree by gearing the MT TSXs differently from the AT. The AT is geared for quiet, efficient operation. The MT is geared for better performance but worse economy. The Subarus don't show this distinction.

Keep in mind that Acura sells this car mostly with the AT. Most of their customers are probably NOT looking for max performance. Some of them may not care at all, others are probably like me: guys who need a nice, practical sedan mostly for driving in traffic where performance isn' really an issue, but who prefer that their cars have some zip when compared to the more basic competition.

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by jcg878

What do you expect? For somebody who states s/he has a lot of experience with car forums, you don't sound like you do. I think they all follow the same general formula - 85% proud (and usually defensive) owners vs 15% 'other'.

I think the Legacy GT is a great car. I was surprised to see its relatively low ranking in C&D. However, I don't think the interior is very nice, based on the (admittedly) pre-production models I saw at the Philly and NYC auto shows. It's ok, but not close to the same level as its C&D comparators. I haven't driven it so I can't comment on that, but I could see a Legacy wagon or Outback in our future so maybe I'll check it out.

A lot of my car forum times have been spent on general car forums like C & D's own forum.
I only really recently started spending time on car specific forums in the past few months, and then mostly on the Subaru site, because even before the Legacy GT came out, I was interested in this car. Then after it came out, I spent a couple months at the Legacy site to ask questions and see what owners thought before I took the car out and ultimately ordered one.

I used to spend a decent amount of time over at the VWVortex when I owned my GTI 1.8T
But sadly, I learned that a lot of the people (kids really) over their are immature and just like to argue. It became a very unpleasant place to spend some time and read people's thoughts.
I find the Subaru people are mostly great. They share info, talk openly and discuss all things automotive. And the vast majority have great respect for all sporty, sports, or fun cars.

I came to this site only after I test drove the TSX and thought you all would be pleased to know that even though this guy ordered the LGT for my daily driver, that I thought highly enough of the TSX that it also "won" first place in my similiar comparo that C & D did.
It just happened to be that I scored the cars very close together, obviously because I put more emphasis on performance and power than did C & D.

Though the Volvo has good power and performance it scored really low for me in ergonomics, interior feel, and comfort. The materials were nice, they just looked like crap and it was DULL, DULL, DULL in that grey "tomb". Reading the dials were really hard, yet C & D gave them high points. C & D said one thing, but scored vastly differently with the Volvo. Look at those pictures of that interior...it's nearly gross to look at. And since that's what a owner and driver has to look at everytime they drive the car, it's important to at least have a nice looking interior, even if the materials aren't top notch.

Thanks again guys, talk to you later.

[members78]

haha im glad i came back to this thread, cuz a lot was written in response to my comment.
driver72, i like how to picked apart my statements, but one fact remains, C/D is the #1 magazine for cars in the U.S., and is backed by numerous (read more than 1 person) testers, who tested the car over many many miles, more than 8 miles for sure.

Is there anything else I should say? Yes, you're entitled to your opinions, but like I said, I trust Csaba and his cohorts way more than one person's opinions (fine I won't used bias).

P.S. i never claimed I wasn't biased.

[louzer]

Originally Posted by masmoleHell

even their premium Infinity division is subpar in its class. A "non-premium" Honda Accord has a far better interior in terms of fit and finish and quality of materials when compared to a "premium" Infinity G35.

Uhhhh huh. Well, my G35:

Has wayyyyy better leather, and more of it vs vinyl than my TSX.
Has a sunroof that doesn't sound like it's about to fall in on my head (rattle, clunk, clunk).
Has a center console surround that doesn't buzz and rattle even over glass smooth roads because it picks up harmonics from the engine.
Doesn't have a passenger a pillar that emits sounds like a wooden sailing vessel (creek).
Doesn't have a drivers door that buzzes and cracks.

The plastic may be shinnier, and of a lower grade, but damn it the cabin is quiet which is way more than I can say about my TSX, and to me is an ultimate assessment of interior quality.

[ric]

Thoughtful review, Driver72, interesting to see how the same four cars viewed through a slightly different lense rank differently. My own "analysis" was farm more subjective and less analytic, but did include driving, as it happened, all of the C & D "test cars' before I leased the TSX (plus a few others). For my own metrics, the visual quality of the exterior and interior were an important factor, and the Subaru, with its blunt box/box exterior and somewhat fussy interior didn't do it for me - recognize that is a subjective statement, but I think the TSX interiors are more thoroughally integrated in the way the interior componenst are composed - the Legacy certainly had authority, but I am forced to drive an automatic (company car) and I was not thrilled with the Legacy auto. Had I had the choice of a manual, the power might have been seductive....... I had initially started to select the TL, drove the TSX for the heck of it and left with a lease for that - the fun factor in the context of everyday living was very convincing for me, combined with an understated interior and a cleanly packaged exterior. The Volvo was really disappointing for me as it was for you, apparently; I had waited to replace my lease car until one of the new Volvo S40's was available, and concluded after driving it that it had the classic Volvo tanklike qualities; felt surprisingly heavy with limited road feel. The interior console has a stylish component to it, but I felt it was a bit too Jetson-set for my own taste and I suspect it may "date" the car visually. The Audi A4 is a pretty package, pretty classic German monolithic thoughtfulness and fitout, but I would have had to option up the baseline price to the point where it wasn't worth it to me - and the base v4 was less exciting in terms of my subjective sense, for both power and handling. Felt I would feel stupid driving a pretty package with less handling competency than the TSX.

I've had the TSX for two months and over 5,000 miles, and have not been disappointed - provides me with a measure of fun during the dumbest parts of my various commutes to clients, leaves me feeling comfortable and rested in great seats, and if the road has any fun to it, I can squeeze it out in this package. There are times, primarily when accelerating to gain freeway access, that I miss the powerpunch, but for the rest of the kind of driving that I have to do, the car has adquate punch.

[Chris_F]

Just found/read this thread. I think driver 72's review was a good read, and i agree with most of what he said. Obviously bias is unavoidable in any form of text and, in appreciating this, the review IMO countered this bias with some insightful and honest opinions. I agree with driver 72 also when he said some people on this forum are pretty biased; i've read a number of threads which indicate this, arguments can be immature and stem from a "fan boy" mind set generally associated with game consoles!. The acura TSX (honda accord euro as i know it) is a great car, and i will be picking mine up on wednesday. At the same time i think members of forums such as these, in general (and from what i've read) should try to keep a more open mind in relation to peoples opinions, car choices, and values. As for the C&D review... i generally don't like the idea of numbers and/or points being awarded, i prefer reading articles that acknowledge bias whilst offering as honest as possible opinions. This, a ramble i know, but even as a hormone driven 17 year old, i do notice the large amounts of testosterone which fly around these forums at times. I for one appreciate the review and hope to read more of the same

[mykytsx]

I too looked hard at the subaru LGT. it is truly a fast car and was quite nice. In the end for me the TSX was a better all around car and deal. I paid 28.4K with my 6 speed and the NAVI. The subaru had neither. it does not need the 6 speed with the power, but I love my navi. Plus I have seen an honset 35 mpg in my TSX on the highway while driving carefully (no full trotlle romps or 90 mph crusing).

For me the tsx offered more features, less cost, lower insurance, better mileage.
But it was a tough choice, the power can be addicting. Enjoy your subie. at least you did not buy a saturn.

[rmjjensen]

i was going to get a legacy before the TSX but the price was too much.

Gorgeous car though - Legacy GT spec B and they wanted something like $530 a month for a 66month finance with 5k down and a low interest rate ....just sounded too high.

I'm sure you'll enjoy the legacy.

[jcbridges]

Driver72 you ARE posting in a TSX forum.....don't you think most of the people here have decided the TSX is best? I mean come one, if you post this in a Subaru forum you will get a bias that way too. Subaru makes a GOOD car IMHO, but Acura makes a GREAT car. Your comparison also did not factor some of the greatest selling points of all: 1) Acura has the highest residual values of any US automaker and the TSX has the highest residuals in the Acura lineup. 2) TSX is a very limited production vehicle 3) The TSX is timing chain driven and only needs it's oil changed every 10,000 miles, first tune-up at 105,000 = a 5 year cost of less than $1 a day!

That Subaru gets crushed on depreciation and maintenance/repair costs compared to the TSX!!!!

[5o9]

Leg GT is a nice car. I've been pwnd by them and expect it. Auto or MT, dosn't matter.

LGT is a low cost alternative to a TL. The tsx is not in competition except price.

As previously mentioned, used turbo cars = large depreciation.

WRX for adults. They got numerous aftermarket products, just like us.

[jlukja]

Originally Posted by jcbridges

Driver72 you ARE posting in a TSX forum.....don't you think most of the people here have decided the TSX is best? I mean come one, if you post this in a Subaru forum you will get a bias that way too. Subaru makes a GOOD car IMHO, but Acura makes a GREAT car. Your comparison also did not factor some of the greatest selling points of all: 1) Acura has the highest residual values of any US automaker and the TSX has the highest residuals in the Acura lineup. 2) TSX is a very limited production vehicle 3) The TSX is timing chain driven and only needs it's oil changed every 10,000 miles, first tune-up at 105,000 = a 5 year cost of less than $1 a day!

That Subaru gets crushed on depreciation and maintenance/repair costs compared to the TSX!!!!

^^ You DO realize that Driver72 posted that back in 2004?

[rb1]

Originally Posted by jlukja

^^ You DO realize that Driver72 posted that back in 2004?

We need a good smiley for thread resurrections like this.