kanoswrx Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 I could see the tires keeping the LGT from the top spot as well. when braking and handling are brought into the equation, although the legacy is good at both of these the tires really do hold back its true potential. Its amazing what a good set of tires can do. I still think the LGT should win, just such a great all around touring car that just happens to be faster then a WRX :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JessterCPA Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 I am missing something here? Maybe it's just the crazy NJ pavement, but I have no problems with the RE92's. In fact, they actually seem better than the TSX's Michelin's. Am I crazy? Or maybe I just haven't pushed them that hard yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deer Killer Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 [quote name='JessterCPA']I am missing something here? Maybe it's just the crazy NJ pavement, but I have no problems with the RE92's. In fact, they actually seem better than the TSX's Michelin's. Am I crazy? Or maybe I just haven't pushed them that hard yet.[/quote] It's a lot better than my old car with one wheel drive and 185/70-13 $25 michelins :p So I couldn't tell you. The only time I got abs kicking in is when entering an onramp at 60 and I hit a crack in the pavement. Also there's a lot of new pavement around my area that has the rubber in it. Lots of traction compared to the vanilla stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miko Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 I’d guess that Car and Driver would put more weight on driver’s car and performance, rather than nice interior and looks. I’m actually thinking that Volvo might score high. Drove the T5 sport package yesterday and it was great! Feels quite nimble, quiet and power is there when asked for it without lag. Not sure about the US, but TSX is the cheapest of the bunch here in Canada at $34.800. It feels just like my Prelude, just quieter and less nimble. Still gutless! Volvo S40 T5 starts at $34,995 and after adding sport, climate and stereo package it reaches $38,795. I think that it’s definitely worth $4,000 more than TSX. Legacy GT Limited is priced at $40.295 and it is the powerhouse of the bunch. GT would be picked by anybody seeking the driver’s machine. Audi 1.8T Quatro 6 speed manual starts at $38.295 (add $1,400 for sports package) and it wins only as the best looking car of the bunch. Coming from Honda family, I’m kinda sick and tired of gutless high revving engines. They are nice on the track, but pain in the ass in daily commuting. My prognosis: Subaru Legacy GT Volvo S40 T5 Acura TSX Audi A4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguy Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 We could wait for the show to air, then discuss it. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnSub Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 gtguy, is your last post code speak for you are all waisting your precious brain power that could be sent to retarded kids in Africa. Are you saying that the previous posts discuss things we have no way of knowing so what is the point? Your still pi..ed huh. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguy Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 [quote name='MtnSub']gtguy, is your last post code speak for you are all waisting your precious brain power that could be sent to retarded kids in Africa. Are you saying that the previous posts discuss things we have no way of knowing so what is the point? Your still pi..ed huh. :lol:[/quote] Yeah? So? :lol: And I think there are plenty of people on these shores that could use that brain power. We wouldn't need to go overseas at all. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scubie02 Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 [quote name='JessterCPA']I am missing something here? Maybe it's just the crazy NJ pavement, but I have no problems with the RE92's. In fact, they actually seem better than the TSX's Michelin's. Am I crazy? Or maybe I just haven't pushed them that hard yet.[/quote] Id the tires on the TSX are the same as on the rsx, then the re-92's compete just fine. RE-92's are going to be ok for most folks driving re-92's. They are not up to snuff, though, for folks in heavy snow areas--occasional light snow only is best with these. And if you REALLY push your vehicle, there are certainly better choices too. I think Subaru continues to use them because A) most likely they get a good deal from Bridgestone, and; B) they are an ok compromise for for most people in the country as a whole. If you live in a less snowy clime and don't drive the car to its limits, the the re-92 is relatively quiet, smooth riding and delivers decent fuel economy, and it'll do for most driving conditions short of much snow. If they went with stickier more performance oriented tires, then bunches of people would be ticked because they had to buy other tires for the winter, mileage would suffer, ride quality might suffer, etc. Subaru tends to everything to satisfy the average buyer. Even with the STi its not tuned as sharply as it COULD be (the ride isn't as punishing as the evo, the steering isn't as fast, etc) but that seems to work for subaru. I'm guessing more STi's are selling than evo's? Or will in the long run anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAckhouse1 Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 [quote name='tallguylehigh']a TSX is about $4000 [b]less[/b] that the Legacy GT Ltd. [/quote] Legacy GT Ltd. MSRP = $28,495 Acura TSX (no navi, 5eat) = $26,490 So its about $2000 less, for a car 50 less hp, 84 more lb/ft Torque, AWD, ect.... I think the drivetrain alone is worth the $2g's extra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAckhouse1 Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 [quote name='D-2.5-GT'] The volvo again was slightly overpriced in my opinion, and i didn't perticularly like the center console. [/quote] I agree, that Center Console is to busy IMO. [quote name='D-2.5-GT'] I really liked the tsx, but still couldn't get it out of my mind that it was a renamed accord. The interior was awesome, and the 6MT is by far one of the smoothest i have ever driven. My only downside was that it wasn't powerful enough. The low torque numbers just really killed it for me. This car doesn't need to be the fastest in the group, but acura really should have beefed it up a little. That seems like its been the biggest complaint about that car...[/quote] I have still felt that Acura should of made the Accord 3.0 V6 and optional engine in the TSX. Just about all the other competitors have an optional engine, and the Accord V6 would fit well. 240hp 212lb/ft and the 6spd, would be easy to drop in, and would allow a little extra grunt for those who wanted it. -Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAckhouse1 Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 [quote name='Wa-gone']They should have left that one out and thrown in the Saab 9-2X. [/quote] One of them compared the 9-2X and the Volvo V50, and they hated the 9-2X. Ill have to see if I can find a link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver72 Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Well here's the standing on the comparo: 1. Acura TSX 2. Volvo S40 T5 3. Legacy GT 4. Audi A4 What a crock...Car and Driver are a bunch of old ladies! They pick the smallest, slowest, FWD only car as first place. Then they give the not much larger, still slower than Legacy GT, FWD, way more expensive car second place. What the heck is C and D's problem. Oh, performance wise for the LGT: 0-60 in 5.7 1/4 in 14.2 @ 96 0-120 in 26.2 ***(on a side note) Even though Car and Driver somehow managed to get the FXT they tested to 60 in 5.3 seconds and 1/4 in 13.8 @ 97, the Legacy GT gets to 120 mph faster. Again, personally I think the FXT C & D tested was a "ringer" because NO other FXT tested ANYWHERE has come close to that time on a stock FXT. Most are getting high 5's and low 6's 0-60. But even so, with heavier wheels, less acceleration friendly gearing, the LGT got to 120 mph faster. I'm sure the LGT's better aerodynamics helped too, but it probably was mostly due to it's (realistically) 15 or so extra horsepower. I personally don't think Car and Driver or any magazine for that matter, will duplicate the times they got for the FXT, but I'd be interested to see what Car and Driver could get from any other FXT.(side note end)*** :) I'm gonna have to write C & D a letter about this comparo though...putting the fastest, third cheapest, AWD equipped, brand new Legacy GT in third place and giving the "win" to the car that's the slowest, smallest, FWD only, couple year old Acura TSX in first place. Foolish of me, but I though Car and Driver was "masculine" oriented driving enthusiast magazine, not a women's magazine...guess I was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLS Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 So the show already aired then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver72 Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 No, like I said before, the TV show ALWAYS airs after the magazine is released...they want to get magazine sales you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLS Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 So, the magazine is out then I take? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver72 Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Well, I haven't gotten mine, sometimes I get mine near the end of each month, but usually I get it in the first week of the month. I haven't confirmed this result, but a friend of mine's friend told me the result and those times. And, by the time I got home, somebody else beat me to posting the "results" at the NASOIC boards...so some people must have gotten their magazines today! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accord Lover Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 WTF...i understand that Acura won since CandD is in love with honda but Volvo? That things same thing as Mazda 3 and Ford Focus with different engine isn't it? i can kinda see that CandD got some "helping" from Ford..... Ford can never win !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xee Posted September 2, 2004 Author Share Posted September 2, 2004 Man, that sucks. Next time I'm at the store I'm going to pick it up (if it's out). Can't wait to see what half-assed, monkey-logic they used to reach that result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver72 Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Yeah, it's a bummer they didn't give the LGT it's due. I think they also had one with a green engine too. It's performance numbers...though good, aren't the best. I think the car is capable of better. As it stands, Car and Driver got better times in the 0-60, 1/4 mile, and 0-100 with BOTH the Forester XT and the standard WRX sedan. And Motor Trend also got the WRX sedan to hit 60 faster (5.6 seconds). Most tests (with the exception of that...again...ONE Car and Driver test, get the WRX sedan to 60 in the upper 5's and 1/4 in about 14.4 seconds at 94 mph! And anyone whose driven the LGT and WRX knows the WRX is NOT faster. Even on paper it's slower. It's power to weight (both horsepower per pound and combined horsepower/torque per pound) are LESS in the Legacy GT Limited even. The LGT even has better (for acceleration) gearing than the WRX. And even if you figure the FXT has 235 hp and 235 tq, the LGT Limited has better power to weight than it too. Though the FXT has better gearing, and lighter wheels/tires, but worse aerodynamics. So, as I've said before, the manual FXT and LGT Limited should accelerate about the same through the 1/4 mile, and after that it's all Legacy GT Limited. The manual FXT should get the hole shot though. So, I can only assume the engine in the LGT Limited Car and Driver just tested was within the break in period, or something. Once I get my LGT Limited on September 20th and get at least the 1000 mile break in miles on, I'm going to find someone in my area (So. Cal) that owns a stock FXT manual, and a stock WRX sedan. Find a deserted road and do several rolling acceleration runs at different speeds and gears to see how they really stack up!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurpman Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Those times look pretty good to me. I think most people were predicting low 14's. With those times, I'm assuming the GT was by far the quickest of the bunch. Handling should go to the GT as well, don't you think? Unless those darned RE92's ruined the slalom, skidpad, and braking. If that's the case, Subaru is going to shoot themselves for not puting on better tires. GT's fuel economy probably ranked low. And I can see how the TSX would beat it on interior and exterior styling. Oh well, different strokes, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crapy Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 it does not matter who wins. as soon as all of us know which is the best in group, it is more than enough. but it does affect the sales of GT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitestar Pilot Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 14.2 :o :D I'm very pleased with that time for a stock LGT. Very impressive. Just a cat-back exhaust and an STi up-pipe should put the car into the high 13s, which for a 4-door sedan priced under $30k, is plenty strong. Forget who C&D says won the comparo, the Legacy GT is one fast Subaru. I'm going to do some research on these other 3 cars and see what I come up with. Anyone get the performance numbers for the others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GT Ski Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 So what was the reasoning behind the ranking? Did they even bother to give an explanation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunderkind Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 why no IS300? g35? The S40 is so small! The interior is no larger than an Impreza. How can it be in the same class? Price wise for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rao Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 None of this should suprise anyone. Look for even better deals on Legacys in a few months...... At least there are now some some performance numbers for the Legacy GT which seem to be right on the money. Rob IF YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR CAR YOU SHOULD NEVER DRIVE IT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.