Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Legacy GT Limited vs. Acura TSX and TL

12467…10

Comments

  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    He probably paid a bet less, though, right?

    Keep us posted on his impressions/comparisons.

    -juice
  • bigbadboss101bigbadboss101 Member Posts: 54
    I have test driven the TSX 3 times, the TL twice, and the GT 3 times (one was an auto wagon). It depends what you want. The TSX is quite a bit less expensive. The TL is higher than the GT, but in Canada they are almost equal.

    Luxury wise the TL is awesome. Lot of toys, comfy inside, tough looking outside. TSX cost the least, and is a nice look, quick car with nice interior. The GT doesn't have HID, homelink, steering wheel controls for stereo, etc. It's not as nice looking inside. It is fast, nimble, and has AWD. The Acuras might be more of a passenger car, while the GT a drivers' car. I mean the GT will not impress your passengers as much as the Acuras. But guys who like to push their cars would like the GT, even without all the toys.

    I owned a 99 and 02 Maxima. Looked hard at all 3 and am leaning toward the Ru.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Nav is a rumored mid-year addition for the 2005s. If not then, by 2006 for sure.

    Subaru typically adds 2-3 toys/features (sometimes minor) per year on each model.

    -juice
  • weathershipweathership Member Posts: 1
    Loving the GT's engine response. No lag at all. Fast. Nimble. and AWD. Move over Quattro and 4motion....whats not to like?....It wants premium fuel..Oh well...Its a great car. Fit and finish are grade A...Oh..did I mention FAST.....love the looks of other drivers as this car out-accelerates then all...
  • nowakj66nowakj66 Member Posts: 709
    Well I test drove all three of these cars this week and the surprise winner for me was the TSX.

    I only drove automatic versions.

    Both the Legacy GT and TSX have a great nimble and sporty feel. Handling is great and they do not have the heavy car feel the TL does.

    I found myself taking corners faster in the TSX because it felt so nimble.

    The automatics in the Honda I found to work better with their motors. The Turbo in the Subaru with auto does give a rush that was great but not so predictable on the highway.

    With manuals, I bet the GT would be the winner.

    For me, the Subaru does not fit as well as the Acuras because it lacks a telescoping steering wheel and my long legs get in its way. And I am coming to realize at this price, I want a perfect fit - not to "sort of fit one way if I really try".

    The TL is what I thought I would like best. It is the most relaxed of the 3. My current car is 4 cylinder Accord so perhaps the TSX just seemed the most familiar.

    The TL felt heavy and big. I did like the thrust the V6 provided but it had a few more dash creaks than the TSX (it was a demo with a few thousand miles).

    For fun - I also test drove the Accord V6 which I liked about as well as the TSX. Again so similar to my car but with extra thrust. But the TSX had the edge for me in handling, refinement and the fact you do not see so many on the road.

    If I fit better in the legacy - it well could have been the winner so those without my ergonomics limitations might prefer that car.
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    Yeah, my wife has one and it is a really slick car. I am really impressed in all the equipment/features you get for the price. We paid about $24800 for our auto/no-Nav TSX, and I felt like it was a bargain at that price.

    Personally, I feel like the Legacy GT is a little quieter and smoother, the AWD is more stable, and it accelerates more briskly. But it's also a lot more expensive with fewer features than the TSX. So, they are serving different ends of the market in that $25K-31K price range.

    My only main gripe about the TSX is that it's a tad loud on the highway with a lot of tire and road noise. But the overall car is really comfortable and there's not a lot else to complain about.

    We got a silver TSX with the gray interior and it looks great.

    Craig
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Yeah, Subaru ought to work on a telescoping steering wheel. Some really tall folks (6'4" plus) have complained about that.

    It's funny, though, because Ramana Lagemann (he's their US SCCA Rally driver) fit in it nicely, I even took a picture, and the guy towers over me. He must have a long torso and short legs.

    Go with the TSX, it should have the lowest TCO of the three, most likely, and you liked it best.

    -juice
  • buddhabmanbuddhabman Member Posts: 252
    C&D just compared the Audi A4 1.8T, Acura TSX, Volvo S40 and Legacy GT Limited Sedan. Results

    TSX #1
    S40 #2
    GT #3
    A4 #4

    TSX won on handling, interior features. S40 had nice interior, best brakes. Legacy had best acceleration.

    Now I am disappointed as a big Legacy proponent. I have been popping my mouth off for the comparos to begin. So hats off to the TSX.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    TSX won on handling, interior features.

    Well, I haven't read the article, but if this is true, then it's just another blow at the urban legend that FWD cars don't handle. I've said for some time that Acura makes some very fine handling FWD cars. This just proves my point.

    Bob
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    Bob,

    Honestly, C&D would have to prefer underpowered understeer to pick the TSX. It it not nearly as good as the Legacy GT in my experience. My wife's TSX is nice and certainly handles well in everyday driving. If you really push it, however, the FWD limitations are very apparent. The Legacy merely switches behaviors when you push it where the TSX starts to hit a wall.

    Craig
  • akkerakker Member Posts: 5
    I am shopping around for a new car at the moment and the TSX is catching my eye. Priced well, low TCO and all those gizmos are really useful commuting in LA. I do about 25,000 miles a year.
    I have noticed that most TSX's on the road are driven by women.
    Is the TSX a "chick" car?
  • buddhabmanbuddhabman Member Posts: 252
    I was re-reviewing the article. One thing I noticed is the stock tires on the Legacy are pretty mediocre. I think better rubber will improve handling and braking.
  • allaboutme1allaboutme1 Member Posts: 23
    Finally the review and vindication I've been waiting for!!! I had given up on this forum because i thought i was the only person that thought the TSX a better (read more fun) car to drive then the TL and the Subaru. I was hoping for C&D to do an under $30K sports sedan comparison, and they must have read my mind. My only frustration is I haven't received my copy yet. I'll go camp out by my mail box today and hope for it to arrive before the holiday weekend. I am scheduled to pick up my TSX on Tuesday ($25K even) and I am more excited then ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    I'm not sure I would call it a chick car, though my wife really loves her TSX!! I had a Prelude a few years ago, and I consider the TSX to be the closest "replacement" to the cancelled Prelude. I think some condsidered the Prelude a chick car, but not me (if it attracted chicks, all the better!).

    If you look at our mix -- the TSX for her and an Outback XT for me -- the TSX is definitely the more feminine of the two.

    Craig
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    Congrats on your TSX -- what color did you get?

    The one thing I will say about the TSX is that it is a tremendous value -- we got ours around $25K too, and at that price it is hard to beat. The is also very nimble and has great handling for a FWD vehicle.

    But having experience with AWD cars and many test drives in the Legacy, I feel that the Legacy offers better all around handling. That is what surprised me most about the C&D test.

    Honestly, part of me has been in love with the TSX since C&D did their first article back in early 2003, and I was pretty excited when my wife got one. But I just don't think it handles better than the Legacy GT.

    I'm also anxiously awaiting my new C&D....

    CRaig
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Craig

    I'm not saying that FWD is the best handling layout, or that it doesn't have its limits, only that there are good FWD handling cars, and that Acura makes some of the best of that variety. What I'm disputing is that there is a widely held belief out there that FWD cars can't handle, period. I'm just saying that is flat out wrong.

    Bob
  • kenskens Member Posts: 5,869
    I read through some scanned images of the C&D article on other forums. Given the criteria and weighting C&D gave for their comparo, I'm not suprised the TSX took first place. Kudos to Honda for creating a great all-around performer at such a great value, even two years after it's introduction.

    The Legacy not suprisingly took top honors in the power department. Where it lost points was in the suspension and handling area. I suspect that the GT is tuned a bit softer than some of the other models and combined with Subaru's long travel suspension and the RE92s, it would diminish any hard-core driving.

    However, the GT was the quietest of the bunch. That combined with a slighlty more compliant ride and ample power hints to me that Subaru may have been trying to emphasize "touring".

    Ken
  • akkerakker Member Posts: 5
    c-hunter:

    You mentioned earlier that you got a very good price on your TSX, somnething like less than $25,000. Where was that? IIRC you are located on the west coast in San Francisco area?
    Thanks.
  • ryanl1ryanl1 Member Posts: 55
    Yes the TSX is a great car if you want to save money.I chose the GT over it because of the power,awd and needed a change from Honda.

    I can't believe the S40 beat the GT because of a nice interior as I hated the center stack and cramped back seat.

    We're not allowed to talk about Subaru's in the entry level luxury performance category but it's good that C&D compared it and ranked it ahead of A4.
  • tsytsy Member Posts: 1,551
    I think you would have to say the C&D article is biased to favor the Honda. It won so many points based on subjective opinion which I'm sure a lot of people would disagree with. I'm not saying the TSX is not a great car- but to call it a 'performance sedan' winner when the LGT has significantly more performance- is hard to swallow. Coming in second to the Volvo is even worse. But when you read the article you can tell they don't like some of the quirks that Subaru is known for, and totally ignore that it has the very big advantage of AWD.

    I think of the TSX as the replacement for the Integra sedan, which I saw mostly driven by women. Is it a 'chick' car? I suppose if mostly women drive it it is. I don't see it equal to the VW bug though or Chrysler Sebring (chick cars).

    tom
  • fedlawmanfedlawman Member Posts: 3,118
    "...the stock tires on the Legacy are pretty mediocre. I think better rubber will improve handling and braking."

    The TSX suffers from this same problem. On the track, the stock all-season Michelins roll onto their sidewalls and scream and spin in their attempt to grip. I see a set of 225/45-17 Yoko ES100's in my future.

    On the street however, none of the TSX's FWD vices ever really come to light. It is such a fine handling car that to do on the street what I have done on the track with my TSX would be extremely reckless and irresponsible.
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    I think we paid $24700-24800 or so, auto with no nav, in silver with gray interior. We bought at Hall Acura in Newport News, Virginia. It was the end of the month and they were very desperate to sell us the car. I probably would have had to haggle quite a bit just a couple days later, into the new month. I ended up negotiationg the deal over the phone while I was on official travel (on a high-pressure project no less) and we picked up the car on the last day of June!

    Craig
  • corvettecorvette Member Posts: 10,257
    The one I drove had Pilot MXM4's, I've driven the same ones on my mom's S80, and IMO they are not worthy of the Pilot name, they're too much like Energy MXV4's (i.e., short in the handling department).

    Is this a new issue of C&D? I don't think I've gotten it yet.
  • allaboutme1allaboutme1 Member Posts: 23
    Silver with ebony.

    The Subaru is faster and may very well handle better (with awd it should).

    What I love about the TSX is the six speed, buttery smooth, the interior amenities, the fit and finish and overall quality.

    I tried to push my self to the GT, which I consider amuch more practicle car, but the TSX is just what jazzes me.

    C&D didn't show today, oh well.
  • datndatn Member Posts: 1
    Hi everyone. I hope someone can shed some light on the subject of trailer hitches and Acuras. I'm interested in the GT, TSX, and TL. I'm also an avid cyclist. I like to haul my bicycle on a rack that is mounted to a trailer hitch. I can not find a hitch for either the TSX or TL. Hidden Hitch has a hitch for the 05 GT already. I would rather not have a roof rack or trunk rack on any of these babies. If no hitch is available to mount to the Acuras, it narrows my comparison. Thanks
  • tsytsy Member Posts: 1,551
    but this seems like a better place for this.

    Well, I read the article and can't say I was impressed.

    The final C&D point standings were:
    1. TSX- 212
    2. S40- 196
    3. LGT- 193
    4. A4- 178

    so the LGT was close to the Volvo, but far behind the TSX despite being the fastest.

    The LGT lost points to the TSX:
    2 for driver comfort
    1 for the trunk (how different can the trunk be?)
    3 for features/amenities
    2 for fit and finish
    1 for styling
    2 for the tranny
    1 for handling and 2 for ride
    3 for "gotta have it factor"
    2 for "fun to drive"

    plus a few other points lost here and there.
    I think you could easily argue 10 points as quite biased, I mean, "gotta have it?" the TSX is nowhere near the top of my list.
    It's also interesting that despite the far more powerful engine, the LGT only beat out the TSX by 1 point. Hmmmm.

    BTW, the Volvo gained 2 points on the trunk alone.

    They clearly didn't like the "plasticky" interior, the frameless doors, and the 'heavy clutch'. They thought the suspension was a little soft, but docked it points for the ride. It sounds like they were looking for a luxo cruiser, not a sports sedan.

    It's too bad it lost out to the Volvo by such a small margin. 2nd and 3rd sounds like a much bigger difference than it was.

    Oh well, I was hoping for a good review but instead got a bunch of complaints. One good thing about the article is that it's clear the GT needs better tires. The volvo killed the 3 other cars in breaking from 70.

    Something to add to my wish list. ;-)

    tom
  • fedlawmanfedlawman Member Posts: 3,118
    Let me get this straight...

    You have an issue with C & D because they chose the car that has better engine response, better transmission, better fit and finish, better comfort, better brakes, better handling, better steering, better ride, more features, better fuel economy, and is more fun to drive...

    - instead of -

    the car that lacks steering feel, has a heavy clutch, "uninspiring" transmission, too much body roll, weaker roadholding, turbo lag, "junky" sounding doors, and a plasticky interior?

    How are those sour grapes tasting right now?
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    I think Tom has a problem with the ratings for the two cars, which led to the questionable "choice". I have intimate experience with both of these cars, and I also question the C&D ratings. For instance, it is clear to both me and my wife that the Legacy GT is quieter and rides smoother than the TSX -- it is a noticeable difference between the two cars (we have a 70 mile commute each day over crappy highways and believe me, we notice the stiff ride, tire noise, and road noise in the TSX). How C&D rated the two cars the opposite way is beyond me. I could pick a couple other scoring categories that seem odd like this -- like engine NVH. While the TSX engine sounds great (like any inline Honda 4-cylinder) I prefer the muffled rumble of the Legacy's boxer engine myself. I guess this is a subjective thing.

    As a TSX owner, I hope it's obvious that it's not sour grapes on my part (nor do I think it was sour grapes in Tom's case). Both my wife and I really love the car. I just happen to think C&D had an obvious bias towards the TSX. They overlooked several obvious flaws when ranking it better than the Legacy GT and the other two cars in the test.

    Craig
  • grove4grove4 Member Posts: 95
    I also hate to sound like sour grapes but it sure seems odd to me that the TSX could be rated first in this class.The TSX driving experiece is imho weak simply b/c it just does not accelerate hard enough to be fun.Which probobly explains why I see so many woman driving the car.I will admit that I do like the interior along with everyone else but the Legacy is not that bad to call cheap.Just today I had to shut my door to see what the hell the editor was talking about and I just dont hear what the "junky sound is."And I still dont have one rattle in it.And believe me I know new hondas rattle b/c I have a Pilot that does or you could check out the TSX boards along with my 03 Accord before that.It seemed like the writer had it out for the legacy from the start when he said something like calling the legacy a "wheenie looking box going across an intersection."I hear nothing but praises about the looks even from non subaru people.And the biggest thing that really annoyed me was that all the cars except the TSX cost more and the subaru gives you the most power and Awd on top.Sure, they could leave it with only 200hp and no torque and wrong wheel drive but maybe only spruce up the interior and sell it for only 1,000 less.Im sure subaru wishes they could do that.It will be interesting to see if all the other magazines come with the same result.Oh and the volvo would not have the smidge more top end up to 120mph they say it has if they would use the AWD model, and that would also push it way past the 30k mark,same as the audi already was but used anyway.I do like the TSX and it looks cool but car and driver is an enthusiest magazine so I thought.
  • rob_mrob_m Member Posts: 820
    I have to agree with Tom, Craig and Chad. No sour grapes here - I haven't purchased yet.

    I test drove the TSX and GT back to back. I was almost set on the TSX - just based on looks. I really wanted to like the TSX. I was not at all impressed with the acceleration and handling of the TSX. I did not care for the interior. I just could not get myself comfortable in it. This was before I tried the GT. An hour in the Legacy made it clear to me that this was a better handling and accelerating car. Based on merit, the GT sold itself.
  • fedlawmanfedlawman Member 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 Member 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.

    Bob
  • ryanl1ryanl1 Member Posts: 55
    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.
  • allaboutme1allaboutme1 Member Posts: 23
    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,

    Allaboutme718
  • tsytsy Member 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.

    tom

    ps. Sorry for the long post
  • designmandesignman Member 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 Member 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 opinion...to 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.
  • allaboutme1allaboutme1 Member Posts: 23
    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 Member 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.

    Bob
  • buddhabmanbuddhabman Member Posts: 252
    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 Member 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?)

    tom
  • allaboutme1allaboutme1 Member Posts: 23
    Peace & Goodwill to all my Subaru friends. Two great cars, with passionate people to back them up.

    Go Redsox!!
  • faceoffkingfaceoffking Member Posts: 9
    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 Member 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. ;-)

    -juice
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member 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!!

    Craig
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member 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.

    -juice
  • faceoffkingfaceoffking Member Posts: 9
    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:

    http://motortrend.com/roadtests/wagon/112_0408_subaru/index.html

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

    -juice
  • designmandesignman Member 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.”

    http://motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0408_first_subaru/
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member 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.

    -juice
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles