Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Legacy GT Limited vs. Acura TSX and TL



  • fedlawmanfedlawman Posts: 3,118
    Well, I must admit that before I read the article, I thought that the Subie would come out #1 based on it's specs and the photos I saw.

    Reading the article, it is hard to believe that the Legacy has so many flaws...especially considering all of the readers here who discount the C & D editors findings.

    I'll have to go for a test drive.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,788
    it is hard to believe that the Legacy has so many flaws

    Flaws? Yeah, I think you DO need to go drive one...

    I've driven both the TSX and a number of new GTs, and "flawed" the GT isn't. Not by a long shot.

    Craig, being the owner of both a new TSX and a new Outback XT, is telling it like it is. Both are outstanding cars. The TSX shines in some areas, as does the the GT. The results here, as has been stated, clearly shows a bias for what Acura does well. How they could have just skimmed over the benefits of the GT's AWD is a perfect example of this.

  • Junky sounding doors?The first thing my dad said was it had nice solid doors.Remember C&D has had a long running affair with Accords.

    They should have compared A4 quattro,325xi,S40 awd,g35x,Jag x,Saab 9-2x all optioned equally.
  • OK. About a month ago I wrote to this forum and stated that I was choosing the TSX after test driving a G35, TL, 325, Jetta and a Subie GT.

    I felt like the Subie supporters lamb basted me for being so stupid to like the TSX over what they felt was obviously a better car in the GT.

    I accepted the fact that perhaps I was missing something but proceeded to purchase the Acura and justified doing so by the money I was saving.

    Now I find that C&D agrees with my initial impressions that the TSX is a car that trancends the combination of its parts. It is a car that has a real character and personality. The last car that gave me that feeling was my 1991 Civic Si.

    Yet, still all the Subie supporters on this posting continue to be in denial.

    Perhaps it is still just a matter of choice and preference. I guess that is why they make Vanilla and Chocolate icecream.

    I pick up my new TSX this week. I can't wait! Wish me good luck and health with it and i will do the same for those of you that wind up with new GT's. If we see each other on the road lots hunk and wave to each other.

    Yours truly,

  • tsytsy Posts: 1,551
    Ooh, sour grapes. That's a little too much, don't you think?

    I once again was voicing my opinion- and I try to be very objective and unbiased. I am never so attatched to any of my cars to think they are perfect, but it does bother me when auto writers (or anyone in the press in general) tries to pass subjective judgment as objective data. To 'quantify' the TSX as better with a number scale was just nonsense- and true, in the end they need to give their opinion, but I'd like to think their final decision should be based mostly on fact and evidence. Isn't it odd that the car that was named 'car of the year' in Japan and has been very well received around the world get's skunked in this comparison review? With cars it's not really in competition with? (the TSX and Volvo- the A4 is appropriate, as would be a S60 or 325, maybe an x-type jag?)

    Maybe they had a flawed GT to test? But it's hard to give them the benefit of the doubt because you can tell their bias just in reading their choice of words in the article.

    Allaboutme718- I'm sorry if you feel 'lambasted' by us. I'm sure that was not our motive. You must admit, based purely on performance numbers the TSX is not in the same class as the TL and GT.

    I felt obligated to give my opinion as people annonymously read these posts and make decisions on what cars to buy, and as one who has been helped by reading from these forums I want to help others make educated decisions also.

    I'm happy you guys love your TSXs. I'm sure I could have been happy with one too. But I'm very happy with my GT LTD and have nothing to be self conscious of. Sorry if these posts make you feel insecure about your choice of car. There are times I wish I would have bought a 5 series (until I see one drive by- ooh, Bangle'd again) but I am quite happy with my GT most of the time. I certainly don't feel 'superior' because of my choice of car or every time I pass by a TSX. I do not believe 'I am what I drive'- that's just propaganda made up by advertising agencies. There are too many important things in life than to worry about what I drive!

    Please don't resort to name calling- I'd like to think as mature adults we left that behind on the playground.


    ps. Sorry for the long post
  • designmandesignman Posts: 2,129
    I don't care much about qualitative aspects because Subie AWD, economy and reliability are my number one preferences in this category. But I did find the interior to be attractive and liked the new multi-mode automatic transmission. Even though the manual shift transitions could be quicker, having direct access to the gears is a major plus. Also, the sport mode is indeed sportier than drive mode, noticeably decreasing the turbo lag.

    That said, Legacies are not performance cars. Subaru did little to make them worthy of this category and this is why it showed poorly in the C&D comparo in spite of winning some of the speed categories, testament to the fact that performance cars need balance between speed and handling. As an analogy, any idiot can fly downhill on skis, but if he can't turn and stop, he's a liability to himself.

    In addition to scoring last in both braking and skidpad, the following quote from C&D says it all:

    "The suspension rolls more than you'd expect of a performance car, and the shocks let it move. Apart from the forceful engine, there's not much sense of athletic discipline here."

    Note… lack of athletic discipline. If Subaru is truly interested in providing a performance car within the Legacy platform and dialing it in to match the power of the engine they will have to provide a stiffer suspension, stronger brakes, wider tires and increase camber/caster in my opinion. Do this and that "fun-to-drive" rating will spike. It is not fun to turn into a corner with a loose roll, then recover with a rock n' roll—not a good combination if you are tapping into the talent of that engine.

    Having read the Edmunds review and those of the fans I fully expected to be enthused and inclined to buy the GT. However I am thoroughly disappointed. Can't believe the disparity between Edmunds first road test and the C&D comparo. Reviews of my previous-generation Outback were not exactly kind but I bought it and was never disappointed. It goes to show you that, as usual, the review of the buyer is the most important. I prefer the stiffer, flatter, more confident ride of the Outback XT thanks to its heavier suspension and wider wheels. I find it to be greatly suited for the American Outback, aka New York metro area roads. Think I would have liked it better if they didn't raise the suspension but hey, there's always something now isn't there?
  • fedlawmanfedlawman Posts: 3,118
    There's no reason to get defensive about the C&D comparison test or my comments. I didn't add or subtract anything...I just reiterated what C&D had already written.

    tsy posted, "It (the TSX) won so many points based on subjective call it a 'performance sedan' winner when the LGT has significantly more performance- is hard to swallow."

    How does the Subie have "significantly more performance?" C&D tested these cars side by side and the Acura outperformed the Subie on the skidpad, lane change, and slalom, as well as in braking and fuel economy. What's so SUBJECTIVE about that?

    Now C&D also said the Subie had an uninspiring transmission, heavy clutch, excessive body roll, and insufficient rebound damping. Now these are SUBJECTIVE performance observations, so if your opinion differs, fair enough (though I highly doubt they pulled these complaints out of thin air to purposely sabotage the Subie).

    I'm looking forward to driving the Subie to see for myself if these issues are legit.
  • Deisgnman articulated my feelings about the GT better than I will ever be able to. Nice car but does not transcend the sum of it parts.

    Good performance numbers, specifically in aceleration, but that alone does not create a well balanced automobile.

    "Lack of athletic discipline". Speed yes, handling no. Sports car handling and shifting is just not what the car was design for.

    C &D is biased. They are biased towards cars that are fun to drive overall, not just in a straight line or in snow.

    Again the TSX may not excel in any single area but when consider as a whole package it is a car that seems to read your mind and responds accordingly. With the Subie I have to think, the TSX just went.

    I never called anyone a name, nor do I intend to.

    You're right about one thing, I should not let the postings on this web site effect my opinion of cars. Go with your gut and you'll have no regrets.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,788
    gets AWD, like the '05 RL, it still comes in 2nd place in my book. I like the TSX a lot, but that one factor, or lack-there-of, keeps me deep within the GT camp. That and it's much more powerful and very flexible engine (especially in terms of low & mid range torque). Remember, the TSX has 6 gears because it "needs" 6 gears due to its relatively narrow powerband. If you love to constantly shift, and keep the engine in the upper portion of the rev band, then the TSX is your car. For me, having to drop a gear at 60 just to pass someone on the interstate, gets old after a while.

    Again, I've driven both the TSX and GT—and I drove three different GTs at Las Vegas Raceway back in May (2 manuals & 1 auto) through the infield as fast as I could. Believe me the GT handles just fine. It's not lacking at all in that respect. What ever edge the TSX has in this area, it's very minor.

    Bottom line: It basically comes down to what you feel is most important. For me, AWD is an absolute, must-have. Everything else is secondary and/or frosting. My advice is to drive both cars back-to-back, and then decide for yourself.

  • I gave my kudos to the TSX for winning the C&D comparo. That being said, I would still prefer to have the Legacy GT. Here are my reasons:

    1. A new set of rubber when the RE92's die will completely change the braking and slalom numbers to the advantage of the Legacy.

    2. Grip, Balance and Speed Stability

    3. Modifiable.

    I have a colleague at work who has a TSX and it is nice. Despite the Nav and Bluetooth I personally don't think it has as nice an interior as the new Legacy but that is my subjective viewpoint. Plus Nav is coming to the Legacy. I have no problem with TSX FWD in terms of handling, Acura is at the top of the game with this. For most of us on the streets, canyons, 2 lane backroads this is all the handling prowess we will need.

    Although this is one review that goes to the TSX there will be others. Note the Legacy GT was named car of the year in Japan over the TSX and a bunch of ohter 2004/5 cars.

    Now to write off the Legacy GT as not a performance car is a bit hasty. Take a nother perspective on this. If the Legacy wasn't considered a performance car, why has it been included in Gran Turisimo from the very begining. The Euro Accord aka Acura TSX wasn't there until GT2 I believe. ;-) In Japan and Europe since the 1997 "BD" generation the Legacy was considered a performance vehicle. It's US version has been a chassis in search of an engine for quite while.
  • tsytsy Posts: 1,551
    I can see we're not really communicating here. I am not trying to be offensive, or defensive. Just trying to state the facts.

    Let's look at the hard numbers. fedlawman said "the Acura outperformed the Subie on the skidpad, lane change, and slalom, as well as in braking and fuel economy"

    skidpad- .83 vs .81 (TSX vs LGT)
    lane change-62.3 vs 61.5
    slalom- what slalom? Not tested
    braking-194 vs 196

    These are hardly stellar differences, especially if you consider basic standard error in measurement, the numbers here are not appreciably different. So with such similar numbers, why is one car 'rolling about' and the other 'fleet footed', but then they also stated about the TSX (direct quote) "handling responses are somewhat softer than the others" So what is it, sharper or softer?

    Craig owns both cars, and he even feels some of C&Ds conclusions were just plain backwards. There's clearly something not right here, if you're willing to look. If there is discrepancy or contradiction in anything anyone says, I tend to discount the source.

    Let's look at some more hard numbers.

    0-60: 5.7 vs 7.5 (LGT vs TSX)
    0-100: 16.0 vs 19.9
    1/4 mi: 14.2@96 vs 15.7@90
    rolling 5-60:7.6 vs 7.9 (something's not right about this one- should be more ike 6.6- maybe a typo)
    Fuel economy? Who cares- buy a Prius.

    Even with error in measurement these are significant differences.

    So, the TSX has a small advantage in handling, but the LGT stomps it in a straight line. By the numbers alone. Even an Automatic LGT is faster than the TSX. Put a better set of tires on the LGT, and the numbers, skidpad, lane change, and breaking will all significantly improve. (braking is highly dependent upon tires, not just the breaks- which are vented front and rear on the LGT, only the fronts are on the TSX)

    Let's talk about AWD, something you can't just add to the TSX. Push a FWD car hard into a turn, it understeers. Push a good AWD car hard into a turn, you can control understeer and oversteer with the throttle (if it has enough power). It's nice and balanced. AWD has a signifiant control advantage over FWD. Ask anyone who knows anything about cars- just a basic fact. (if I'm missing something here please pitch in)

    Is the car missing some 'athleticism'? It depends what you're looking for. It's no STi or Evo, but it' not meant to be. It does handle safely and stably, and the suspension is nicely tuned between comfort and handling. Sure, it could use a stiffer suspension, but even in the stock setup the tires give out far before the suspension does. I have pushed the car hard into turns and do not find the car rolls a lot. In fact, I was surprised at how level the car remained. Maybe I got a different car than was tested?

    allaboutme- I did not mean to imply you were calling anyone names, that comment was not directed at you. I apologize if this upset you. I do not like being labelled 'sour grapes'.

    For anyone else, drive them both (at least before commenting) and decide. They're both great cars and appeal in different ways. I must be able to get anywhere at anytime, so like Bob, AWD is a must. If I were in CA, maybe my choice would have been different. . .

    If you still think C&D is a totally unbiased publication (or anything written by any press for that matter), you're free to believe in anything you want, even if it's misleading. ;-)

    Peace? Goodwill towards all men and women? (even if they drive a Subaru?)

  • Peace & Goodwill to all my Subaru friends. Two great cars, with passionate people to back them up.

    Go Redsox!!
  • I felt compelled to offer my 2 cents.

    First, I am a huge fan of the Honda/Acura product. I have owned 4 of them over the years and feel that the TSX is an outstanding car most deserving of it's glowing reviews.

    My issue is not so much with the TSX as with the misinformation presented on the LGT. For the record, I own an 05 LGT. Before my purchase, I did extensive research like most of you I'm sure. I read far too many positive reviews/tests of the LGT to believe that C&D was totally unbiased in their report. It's hard to believe 2 teams testing the same car could come to such different conclusions. I am not a big conspiracy theorist but C&D's report strikes me as very suspect. The assertion that the LGT is not a performance car is ludicrous. It's power by now is well known. It's handling seems to be disputed. If it had better tires, it would handle every bit as well as a TSX or the other 2 subjects. Throw in a little rain and it has no equal. To just gloss over AWD as a minor "convenience" like memory seats or garage door openers, is ridiculous. To some buyers, AWD is of primary importance. The claim of "junky" feeling doors is as outrageous as the other claims. The doors are very tight sounding. The interior, while not as nice as an A4, is *vastly* refined, very well organized and quite comfortable - certainly comparable to a TSX which itself has it's share of plastic.

    Again, the TSX certainly deserves it's high rating - nobody can dispute that. However, to elevate it in the rankings, liberties were definitely taken against the LGT. There are just too many glowing reviews of the LGT by credible sources such as Edmunds and AutoWeek. Something stinks here.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Wow, the Legacy actually got the top score for Powertrain. You'd think the sky was falling. It only missed 2nd place by 3 points. ;-)

    Any how, what I noticed, from a speed-read, is that AWD wasn't really taken into consideration. I don't just mean it didn't rain or snow during the test, but if you look at the Features/Amenities scores the Subie lost 3 points to the Acura.

    So Nav earned the Acura kudos but AWD did nothing for the Soob, yet it's the most "valuable" feature of the Legacy (not the turbo engine IMO).

    Any how, they raved about the Volvo interior, which I found downright cheap, not even belonging in the same class as the Audi, Acura, and Subaru. That was strange. The Legacy has much nicer materials, go sit in both.

    I don't know where NVH scores are accounted for but again the Subie should have earned some kudos there.

    The S40's rear seat is inhospitable, I didn't understand those scores at all.

    Basically I have no qualms with the TSX' score, but the S40 should have scored a lot lower, and the Subie a bit higher.

    OK that's not true. TSX should have lost a point in Features for not offering an AWD option.

    Maybe two for not coming to the US as a wagon. ;-)

  • c_hunterc_hunter Posts: 4,487
    Actually, you bring up a good point -- comparing the interior of my wife's TSX to my Subaru, you'd be hard pressed to choose one over the other or to conclude one is more or less plasticky than the other. In fact, when we were test driving cars for my wife, she thought the hard sheen on the TSX interior made it look cheaper than the rubberized/matte finish in much of the Legacy's plastics (she chose the TSX nonetheless). Anyway, this is just one more category where C&D seems to arbitrarily endorse the TSX more than the Legacy.

    Same goes for the door closing sound. Maybe they prefer the metallic "tink" of the TSX doors over the muffled "thunk" of the Legacy doors, but I have a hard time criticizing or choosing one or the other.

    My feeling is that these two cars are very close in many categories, and C&D probably used their longstanding Honda bias to skew it in favor of the TSX. If it was me voting, there would be ties in a lot of these same categories.

    When I finally get my C&D and can read a paper copy, I will post back with my own scorings. With two of these cars in the garage and a lot of test drive time, my own opinions ought to carry at least some weight compared to C&D!!

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    In defense of C&D, try slamming the door of the Legacy with the windows half way down. That's when you notice a difference. Not when it's fully closed.

    I'm not sure about the whole Honda bias claim, either. For instance, the Forester has gone head-to-head with the CR-V twice in C&D, and it finished ahead both times (winning the first comparo in 1998).

    Thing is, AWD was considered important in that segment, but not here.

    They say rain is the ultimate equalizer in racing, if so then AWD is the ultimate unequalizer.

  • To my point posted earlier (post #198), Motor Trend published a review that was quite complimentary of the LGT - illustrating how two well known publications can render widely differing opinions. They even mentioned the word "athleticism" ("...but once rpm climbs past 3000, the torque approaches its peak and the car scoots with unexpected athleticism"). The article can be found at:

    - Faceoffking
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Just out of curiosity, how do its numbers compare to MT's tests of the TSX?

  • designmandesignman Posts: 2,129
    That Motor Trend review by Jeff Bartlett was less-than-thorough as it made no mention of handling. The “athleticism” that he refers to concerns the engine. No argument there.

    “Power off the line is spirited, but once rpm climbs past 3000, the torque approaches its peak and the car scoots with unexpected athleticism.”

    But the Motor Trend review by Todd Lassa was both complimentary and critical regarding Legacy GT handling, calling the Outback steering more confident and clearly preferring the latter.

    “The 250-horsepower Legacy 2.5 GT's claim to sport-sedan prowess is legit. With its turbo-pancake engine and slick-shifting five-speed, it's an adult's WRX that handles twisty mountain roads offering good, quick transitions and slight roll at turn-in giving way to flat, hard cornering. But its steering feels darty and overboosted, with more quickness than feel and feedback, making us tentative in fast sweepers on the outside lane of the mountain road. We had no such complaints with Japanese-spec 2.0-liter turbo Legacy GTs last year at the Fuji racetrack ("First Drive," October 2003). Subaru says the only difference is all-season tires in place of the Japanese version's 17-inch summer tires, but on this side of the Pacific, the slower-ratio Outback steering (16:1 versus 15:1 for Legacy GT) feels better.”

    “We initially predicted the new Legacy was poised to take a bigger share than the current 20/80 Legacy/Outback sales split. After driving the Outback, with its more confident steering and amateur rally-car demeanor, we see no reason to switch--except out of an SUV.”
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Well, it's just one opinion.

    I drove them back-to-back, the GT's steering is head-and-shoulders above the Outback's without a doubt. On the track it allowed you to make turns without ever taking both hands off the wheel, for instance.

    In fact you can even shift manually and still keep both hands there because of the buttons.

    Outback has a lot more isolation and much less steering feel/feedback. I'd choose the Outback if I were going to drive over a lot of pot holes or gravel and dirt roads.

    Todd's prediction was wrong, by the way, there has been a shift towards more Legacy sales as a % of the total.

  • designmandesignman Posts: 2,129
    Three opinions... MT's Lassa, the C&D review, and mine.

  • According to Motor Trend, the TSX had a 0-60 time of 7.5. Next to the LGT's 5.8 (official), there's not much comparison. That was the only performance comparison figure I could find in Motor Trend but I didn't look very thoroughly.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I was talking about Lassa's, but yes, three. Four if you include mine. :-)

    What about skidpad, slalom, and braking? I do think you have to look at the whole package.

  • kenskens Posts: 5,869
    On some other owners' forums, I've been reading rumors of the October issue of R&T that compares just the GT and TSX. Apparently, in this comparo the GT comes out on top.

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Let's give the TSX camp a couple of days of glory, though. LOL

    No surprise, different strokes for different folks...

  • If thats true why is the Legacy always compared to the TSX?I think the AudiA4 and the BMW330XI and the VOLVO S40 AWD would be great comparisons.Although they all pricier than the subaru,they are all AWD sedans geared towards sporty driving.
  • kenskens Posts: 5,869
    C&D and R&T probably compared the TSX to the Legacy because they are owned by the same publisher. They probably just share test drive vehicles to save money.

  • wait until next month. Consumer reports will compare the legacy to the Acura TSX, Audi A4 Volvo S40. Let's see how this exact same comparison comes out. One glaring ommision in the C&D comparison was the fact that neither the Audi nor the Volvo had their AWD options. This would increase the price and weight. Their acceleration and braking would suffer the weight. The subie would trounce it even more.
  • Never really seems to appreciate cars that I call exciting.They always had a love affair with the camry and cars like that.I bet they will love the TSX gas mileage.And the 200hp will be more than adequit for them.I can just almost see that comparison already.The legacy might score high on value with them though.
    The car and driver review seems to put alot of merit on gas mileage.I was thinking maybe acura customers would agree and prefer the civic motor as an option.
  • I am traveling and came across the new R&T last night and read the GT versus the TSX comparison.

    The GT won but by a very close margin. I believe it was 585 points to 580 points (but don't hold me to that).

    The GT took top honors on HP and ride.

    The Acura took top honors on handling and transmission.

    The only thing I question is the Acura was equipped with a NAV (a $2,000 option). My guess is that with that removed from the pricing comparison, it would have been an absolute dead heat.

    After reading C&D and R&T I am willing to concede to a draw.

    Either way my Volvo S60 lease goes back tomorrow and my new TSX comes home on Saturday.


    Go Red Sox!!
This discussion has been closed.