Acura TSX vs Legacy GT in Road and Track too.

[Driver72]

This time unlike Car and Driver, Road and Track ranked the Legacy GT first place and the Acura TSX second. LGT = 585.1 points TSX = 578.7 points Obviously, unlike Car and Driver, Road and Track put more emphasis on the performance. As I stated in my "review" of the cars Car and Driver tested...to each their own and it would all come down to what's more important to you. Oh, by the way in the performance stats ............TSX.......LGT 0-20......1.7 sec.....0.9 sec 0-60......7.8 sec.....5.6 sec. 1/4 mi...15.9 @ 90.4.....14.3 @ 96.2 0-100....19.5 sec....15.5 sec. 60-0......133 ft......135 feet 80-0.......237 ft.....238 ft skidpad....0.78g.....0.79g slalom.....64.0 mph...64.9 mph

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

[bigbadboss101]

Are those good skidpad #? I thought the Mazda 3 and TL have # like .85-.87. BTW, what is a good measurement for handling? Skidpad or slalom speed? If those are the #s, I don't know if I want either. I like a car to be .84 and up. Any idea what the 02 Max SE's # were?

[Dan Martin]

Originally Posted by bigbadboss101

Are those good skidpad #? I thought the Mazda 3 and TL have # like .85-.87. BTW, what is a good measurement for handling? Skidpad or slalom speed? If those are the #s, I don't know if I want either. I like a car to be .84 and up. Any idea what the 02 Max SE's # were?

Slalom is a better test of handling than skidpad but there are several variables that need to be considered if you want to compare results between magazines. The length of the slalom and the type of surface and environmental conditions all play a big roll in determining the speed you can cary through the slalom. Likewise for the skidpad. If it's a concrete surface it will be different than an asphalt surface. Not all concrete is equal either, the type of rocks that go into the concrete as well as the surface pattern and whether it's sealed or not make a huge difference in the available grip.

In this case, the two tests are on the same surface so they should be comparable. The higher numbers you saw for the Mazda 3 may have been under different conditions.

[Dan Martin]

Driver72, I agree it all comes down to what you value in a car.
Personally, I prefer quality and a polished interior to brute force but that's why I'm driving a TSX. Then again, a TSX even with a supercharger would have a hard time catching a stock LGT so Subaru will likely sell a ton of them.

[jcg878]

Originally Posted by Driver72

This time unlike Car and Driver, Road and Track ranked the
Legacy GT first place and the Acura TSX second.

LGT = 585.1 points
TSX = 578.7 points

Obviously, unlike Car and Driver, Road and Track put more emphasis on the performance.

As I stated in my "review" of the cars Car and Driver tested...to each their own and it would all come down to what's more important to you.

Oh, by the way in the performance stats

............TSX.......LGT

0-20......1.7 sec.....0.9 sec
0-60......7.8 sec.....5.6 sec.
1/4 mi...15.9 @ 90.4.....14.3 @ 96.2
0-100....19.5 sec....15.5 sec.

60-0......133 ft......135 feet
80-0.......237 ft.....238 ft

skidpad....0.78g.....0.79g
slalom.....64.0 mph...64.9 mph

he's fightin' the good fight

Thanks for posting the numbers... now scan!

[dom]

That Legacy moves. Whats with the slow TSX times? C&D got 5.7 from the LGT and 7.5 from the TSX. Seems like they had trouble launching?

[dom]

Just priced out a Legacy at Subaru.ca. Prices for the GT sedan start at $36,495 and a similary eqipped car starts at $40,295. Sure you get way more power but again, IMO and at least in Canada these cars are NOT really direct competitors.

And add 1K for Automatic.

[Dan Martin]

Originally Posted by domn

Just priced out a Legacy at Subaru.ca. Prices for the GT sedan start at $36,495 and a similary eqipped car starts at $40,295. Sure you get way more power but again, IMO and at least in Canada these cars are NOT really direct competitors.

And add 1K for Automatic.

Ouch.

A TL with the dynamic package is in that range. Guess which one I would pick?

[dom]

Is all that power worth 2 to 7K CAD (depending on trim) To some it may be (Like me 18 months ago) but faced with that decesion today? It would be the TSX.

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by bigbadboss101

Are those good skidpad #? I thought the Mazda 3 and TL have # like .85-.87. BTW, what is a good measurement for handling? Skidpad or slalom speed? If those are the #s, I don't know if I want either. I like a car to be .84 and up. Any idea what the 02 Max SE's # were?

Skidpad's result depends HIGHLY on the surface they were testing.
Was it tarmac or rock asphalt.
Was it baby butt smooth or a bit rough and gritty.

As long as they tested the two cars on the same surface, the outcome is fair, it's just relative to the surface.

Same goes with slalom really.

Both cars have pretty crappy stock tires, owners of both have said their cars get drastically better by just changing the crap all season tires to sport summer tires.



Doh? I should of just read what the other guy said...I just pretty much ended up repeating the same thing.

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by domn

That Legacy moves. Whats with the slow TSX times? C&D got 5.7 from the LGT and 7.5 from the TSX. Seems like they had trouble launching?

This was a different TSX than what C & D tested. Different colors.
However, this was the VERY same LGT that C & D tested, hence similiar numbers.
I think both cars are capable of better.

The Legacy GT that both these mags used has over 5000 miles on it.
You can be sure this is a test mule being sent around by Subaru to many car mags and test auto journalists. Therefore it has 5000+ ABUSED miles on it.
There is no doubt, with a nicely broken in car that's not abused in nearly every mile the LGT will post even better times. Why do I say this?

Because, these times are on par with a stock WRX. And anybody who has driven the WRX then driven the LGT knows, without a doubt the LGT is faster.
The guys over at the Subaru boards confirm this where, MANY WRX owners have sold their WRX's and bought the Legacy GT. EVERYONE of them say the LGT is faster!

So expect better times from the LGT when one that's NOT an abused test mule finally gets tested in the future.


Oh, and sorry about not scanning, I recently got a new computer and my d@mn scanner isn't recognizing the new computer, it just keeps saying, "can't find HP blah blah blah."
Wierd thing is, this is also my printer/copier and it prints fines.
Sorry.

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by domn

Just priced out a Legacy at Subaru.ca. Prices for the GT sedan start at $36,495 and a similary eqipped car starts at $40,295. Sure you get way more power but again, IMO and at least in Canada these cars are NOT really direct competitors.

And add 1K for Automatic.

Obviously that's Canadian dollars.
What does the TSX with NAV price out at in Canada?

Even if it's several thousand Canadian less, I'd think Canadians would pay more for the LGT in a heartbeat. More power, and more importantly AWD for the winters up there.

[Dan Martin]

No navi in Canadian spec TSX's...

It's about a $3000 option on the TL though (also $CDN).

The TSX lists at $35k here.

[Driver72]

So that's similiar pricing to the U.S.
5K Canadian is like $3K+ here right?

So, if a TSX with NAV here costs the same as a LGT Limited does, and you said that NAV is a $3K option on the TL up there, that means the cars are basically priced just the same as they are here.

Considering your cold snowy winters (or cold rainy ones on the Western Canadian coast) I'd think it would be highly desirable for you all to pay a few grand more for the traction and stability of AWD.

Again, the TSX is a VERY nice car, but if I lived in your climates, it would be an absolute no brainer as to which car I'd choose.

[Dan Martin]

$5000 CDN ~= $3900 US

Even if they were equal money I probably would have still gone with the TSX. FWD + snow tires is more than enough for our climate. On the days that FWD + snows are no good, you probably shouldn't be driving anyways.

That being said, if the TSX came with an AWD option I would jump at it. I'm not a fan of Subaru's quality as it is now and I certainly wouldn't pay the same as a TL.

[bgillette]

This is all well and good...

but who wants to drive a Subaru...LOL

They cannot touch Honda/Acura

[Dan Martin]

Originally Posted by bgillette

This is all well and good...

but who wants to drive a Subaru...LOL

They cannot touch Honda/Acura

Well they blow us away in performance. The only two things I see on our side are interior and overall quality.

[fdl]

Well, this goes to show you ... you can turbo charge any peice of junk and it will be fast.

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by bgillette

This is all well and good...

but who wants to drive a Subaru...LOL

They cannot touch Honda/Acura

well when it comes to performance, it's the other way around....sorry.

[fdl]

Originally Posted by Dan Martin

Well they blow us away in performance. The only two things I see on our side are interior and overall quality.

straight line performance only. Braking, handling are even par. Dont forget to add that sweet 6MT in the TSX. Its a gem.

[xizor]

Sounds pretty consistent with C&D's comparison, the handling numbers were close, with the LGT winning slightly this time instead of TSX in C&D. I think these reviews only prove that they're both excellent cars, and the choice is really up to want the owners want, power or quality/refinement. Sounds like the RSX/WRX arguments

And I seriously question the additional benefit for AWD in winter weather conditions. AWD would be great if you drove into a snowbank and had to get out, but for normal snow driving, like Dan said, the right equipment is all that's necessary.

[xizor]

Originally Posted by fdl

Well, this goes to show you ... you can turbo charge any peice of junk and it will be fast.

didn't the SRT4 already prove this

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by fdl

Well, this goes to show you ... you can turbo charge any peice of junk and it will be fast.

Again, in defense of the Subaru, how well do you think an Acura would fair on a rally track.
They're far from junk, and take an awful lot of abuse.

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by xizor

didn't the SRT4 already prove this

Now that's a fact, jack!

[iamhomin]

Does it really take 7.8 seconds for the TSX to reach 60mph?

[STL]

Originally Posted by fdl

straight line performance only. Braking, handling are even par. Dont forget to add that sweet 6MT in the TSX. Its a gem.

EXACTLY, I don't know why people are ignoring those obvious facts.

[bigbadboss101]

I have tested the TSX, LGT, G35C and TL. In Canada, the TSX is about $35,000 with the 6MT MSRP, no navi available in 04. The LGT is $41,800 in Ltd form, manual. TL with Dynamic package $42,800, again no Navi. G35 sedan is slightly more.

[Dan Martin]

Originally Posted by STL

EXACTLY, I don't know why people are ignoring those obvious facts.

Sorry I should have specified "straight line performance".

[iamhomin]

Originally Posted by bgillette

This is all well and good...

but who wants to drive a Subaru...LOL

They cannot touch Honda/Acura

Luxury wise, the suburu can't touch Acura, but Honda? Also keep in mind that Suburu is aiming for a different kind of group with a different kind of taste. They are in the market for speed enthusiasts.

iamhomin, who would take the STi over the S2K.

[STL]

Originally Posted by Driver72

EVERYONE of them say the LGT is faster!

What are they measuring and how? If you're going by "seat of the pants" then it doesn't mean much.

Originally Posted by Driver72

The guys over at the Subaru boards confirm this where, MANY WRX owners have sold their WRX's and bought the Legacy GT.

Sounds like guys that just want the latest and greatest. Looking and the HP, torque, and weight figures between the WRX and LGT, I don't expect the LGT to be much faster -- and only in a straight line. The shorter wheelbase and lighter WRX should out handle the LGT.

Think about it, do you really want a car that will drop in performance after beind driven hard for just 5000 miles? I know Hondas (like the S2000) typically get STRONGER after being driven hard for a few thousand miles.

[Dan Martin]

Originally Posted by xizor

Sounds pretty consistent with C&D's comparison, the handling numbers were close, with the LGT winning slightly this time instead of TSX in C&D. I think these reviews only prove that they're both excellent cars, and the choice is really up to want the owners want, power or quality/refinement. Sounds like the RSX/WRX arguments

And I seriously question the additional benefit for AWD in winter weather conditions. AWD would be great if you drove into a snowbank and had to get out, but for normal snow driving, like Dan said, the right equipment is all that's necessary.

I just checked the specs and the TSX actually has 0.3" more ground clearance than the LGT.

AWD doesn't do much if your tires are 0.3" off the ground.

[STL]

Originally Posted by iamhomin

iamhomin, who would take the STi over the S2K.

Not me!

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by STL

EXACTLY, I don't know why people are ignoring those obvious facts.

And the fact it's handling and braking are about even, but only in the dry.

[masmole]

Originally Posted by xizor

Sounds pretty consistent with C&D's comparison, the handling numbers were close, with the LGT winning slightly this time instead of TSX in C&D. I think these reviews only prove that they're both excellent cars, and the choice is really up to want the owners want, power or quality/refinement. Sounds like the RSX/WRX arguments

And I seriously question the additional benefit for AWD in winter weather conditions. AWD would be great if you drove into a snowbank and had to get out, but for normal snow driving, like Dan said, the right equipment is all that's necessary.

I've driven both cars and personally, I don't care much for the driving dynamics of the Subaru GT. For an AWD chassis, I find it lacking something and I have had much experience with high-powered AWD cars being the owner of the last two generations of the S4. If I had to get a Subaru, I might as well rough it by getting a WRX or an STi, since the Legacy offers no real advantage in the luxury department. The Legacy GT is a great car and I somewhat agree with both C&D and Road & Track's assessments. R&T has more empasis on performance... in my book, I don't buy a $30K car for raw performance... I buy one based on it's ability to function as a daily driver and how it can combine luxury, fun-to-drive aspects, performance, and reliability in one easy-to-use package. The TSX does that in spades. IMO, the Subaru doesn't. The shifter is not as rewarding as the TSX's and does not complement all the torque it can lay down the pavement. Because of it's superb turbocharged flat-4, it almost seems the legacy GT is all dressed up with no where to go. There are other aspects I've mentioned previously concering the interior and such but I think I've beat that one to death. Please understand that this is my own personal assessment of the Subaru based on my need for a car to use as a fun daily driver and runabout. If I was really worried about 0-60 times and all-out performance, then there are other cars better suited to do that job and neither a TSX nor a Legacy GT will suffice. To each his own and I'm certain that many people will fall in love with their Legacy GT's and refer to it as the best all-around jack-of-all-trades sport sedan in its price range.... which really isn't that far from the truth. Cheers.

[Helicobacter Pylori]

[Dan Martin]

Here we go again...

[TSX 'R' US]

wow...hats off to everyone... very informative thread!!!

& @ helico

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by STL

What are they measuring and how? If you're going by "seat of the pants" then it doesn't mean much.

Sounds like guys that just want the latest and greatest. Looking and the HP, torque, and weight figures between the WRX and LGT, I don't expect the LGT to be much faster -- and only in a straight line. The shorter wheelbase and lighter WRX should out handle the LGT.

Think about it, do you really want a car that will drop in performance after beind driven hard for just 5000 miles? I know Hondas (like the S2000) typically get STRONGER after being driven hard for a few thousand miles.

Well, since the LGT really hasn't been out long enough to compare, it's mostly seat of the pants. But that DOES mean much. Drive the two, it's night and day. There's NO question which is faster.

True, the amount of miles on the engine and how it was used won't affect the handling.
Nobody is going to buy the LGT over say the WRX for handling prowess.
The LGT not only has a better hp per pound ratio, but better torque per pound ratio and better final drive ratio. It's also more aerodyamic than the WRX.
On paper, and in the seat of each, the LGT is faster than the WRX.

As for cars typically increasing in performance with mileage.
That's very true, but only if those miles were put on in the correct way.

A "test mule" that was used like a rental car...actually worse from the day it was rolled out isn't going to perform better than a car that was properly broke in in the first 1000 or so miles and then driven relatively hard by it's owner after that.
I'm sure there was no love given to this LGT from early on.
It was passed along from tester to tester.

Keep in mind, often in these magazine the "early" models of all cars that are used as test mules don't produce as good as numbers as the later models do when the magazines retest them with different cars.
The WRX had a best time of high 5's to 60 and low 16's to 100 mph by MANY magazines.
And often that's still the case. I don't think I've seen a better time for the WRX than what C & D got with a model they tested 7 months after the WRX's release.
I still don't think anybody has duplicated their 0-60 in 5.4 second run.
Even so, that car took 15.5 seconds to reach 100 mph.
The same time R & T got with this test mule LGT even though they didn't launch it as hard.

Again, I wouldn't be surprised to see a few tenths come off those times with a better/different car that wasn't worked over it's entire young life.



Same goes with the TSX. The first test mules got times that were aweful.
I remember seeing times of over 8 seconds to 60. And a couple in the high 7's.
Though this one by R & T also ran high 7's, there have been others that have run as fast as 7.2 seconds to 60.
All the cars vary, based on a lot of things, including how they were treated when new.
I wouldn't put too much stock in thinking that since you've seen two different tests using the exact same Legacy GT, that others with proper treatment won't do better.

[ianS]

Originally Posted by STL

EXACTLY, I don't know why people are ignoring those obvious facts.

That make me love my TSX the most! Also spend 1G on a set of good snow tire is always a better idea than spending 3G on AWD but ride on all season in winter. Well, awd + good snow = best on the snow no doubt but we won't see snow 80% of the year! BTW, LGT wagon is look way better than sedan and I dun think their interior is that bad.

[CGTSX2004]

As impressive as the Legacy GT may be, the TSX is more than equally impressive given that it is a car designed with a luxury bent, yet still is able to pull some serious handling performance, equal to the Legacy GT for even cheaper. Plus, you get the better interior, better overall quality, better transmissions, and a slight bit of prestige factor. Sounds like a winner to me.