October 2004 Car & Driver Comparo - 3RD Place?!?!

[AreEyeSeeKay]

[quote name='TAckhouse1']To those who asked, they deffinitely marked down the LGT for the RE92's.[/quote] I didn't get that impression. It seemed to me like they felt the tires were a good compromise. About the Subaru they said "Roadholding....was weakest of the group by a slim margin. We think thats a small price to pay for year-round rubber. The...Potenzas are soft in their response but happily predictable." The TSX's tires, by contrast, were not well received... "responses are somewhat softer then in the others, primary becuase of the all-season Michelin Pilot HXs are chosen for ride smotheness and silence more than athletic feats" It seems to me that they are attributing the handling difference predominately to the suspension design and not the tires.

[bigbadboss101]

At TSX.com someone scanned in part of the article and ratings: [url]http://www.acura-tsx.com/forums/showthread.php?p=251786#post251786[/url]

[STi Boy]

[quote name='crapy']how old are those editors?[/quote] lol...its funny how im 17 but i prefer the Legacy over anything car around 30k right now... but ive been a subaru fan since i was 13 so :P

[BoxerGT2.5]

Considering C&D rated the 350Z's interior superb doesn't give them alot of credibility in my eyes. That is one of the cheapest insides I have ever seen. Not to mention their rave reviews of the cars handling and balance.....ya when the front end isn't feathering...lol. They can be comical at times. I'd wait for Road & Track.

[icehousewvu]

Well, I'd be lying if I said I wasnt dissapointed. Of note, is the all of postings on the tsx forum that show surprise at the legacy's ranking, it seems many of the tsxr's expected a higher rating.

[Driver72]

[quote name='TAckhouse1'] I was surprised that the S40 kept up as well as it did with the LGT. By 120mph the S40 passed the LGT. They did comment on the gas mileage. But had the A4 or Volvo been AWD, I believe the gas mileage would of been similar. I still disagree with this article. The LGT was easily the most bang for the buck. I mean the Mag is called "Car and DRIVER" not "car and casual passenger" <<Though I may start refering to it as such.... -Nick[/quote] So you know, the reason the Volvo reaches 120 mph faster than the LGT is because of the AWD in the LGT. If it had been an AWD Volvo T5 (not only would it of been $2000+ more) it would have had slightly better 0-60 and 1/4 mile times, but would have had significantly slower times to say the 120 mph mark. Probably a second behind the LGT. Also, so you know, just because the Volvo reached 120 mph in a shorter time than the LGT, does NOT mean it "passed" the LGT by that point. It could of still been behind the LGT but just gaining on it, therefore it reaches the 120 mph speed in less time, but takes still hasn't passed the LGT. That's why when they list these time to speed, they should list the distance to speed. Most mags just list the 1/4 mile distance, but the 1/2 mile or even 1 mile times would sort out which one was ahead.

[TurboAddikt]

[quote name='Driver72'][quote name='TAckhouse1'] I was surprised that the S40 kept up as well as it did with the LGT. By 120mph the S40 passed the LGT. They did comment on the gas mileage. But had the A4 or Volvo been AWD, I believe the gas mileage would of been similar. I still disagree with this article. The LGT was easily the most bang for the buck. I mean the Mag is called "Car and DRIVER" not "car and casual passenger" <<Though I may start refering to it as such.... -Nick[/quote] So you know, the reason the Volvo reaches 120 mph faster than the LGT is because of the AWD in the LGT. If it had been an AWD Volvo T5 (not only would it of been $2000+ more) it would have had slightly better 0-60 and 1/4 mile times, but would have had significantly slower times to say the 120 mph mark. Probably a second behind the LGT. Also, so you know, just because the Volvo reached 120 mph in a shorter time than the LGT, does NOT mean it "passed" the LGT by that point. It could of still been behind the LGT but just gaining on it, therefore it reaches the 120 mph speed in less time, but takes still hasn't passed the LGT. That's why when they list these time to speed, they should list the distance to speed. Most mags just list the 1/4 mile distance, but the 1/2 mile or even 1 mile times would sort out which one was ahead.[/quote] Well, I HOPE most people don't get into these kind of races on the street anyway. Even on a open,, safe stretch of road I think racing to 120mph is kind of asking for trouble. The Volvo is ugly anyway.

[Driver72]

Well of course, but I was just pointing out and correcting him when he said the Volvo passed the LGT by 120 mph. He didn't take into account time to distance...like a 1/4 mile time of 14.0 @ 97 mph compared to another car with a 14.1 @ 100 mph. If one were to look at the 0-100 times of these cars, they would say, "car B passes car A by the time it hits 100 mph" When, of course, that would NOT be the case, since car A gets to the 1/4 mile stripe .1 second sooner, it's still ahead of car B, even though car B is travelling faster. I would hope nobody would race to 120 mph on the street too.

[Limeydriver]

Being the owner of both an Outback XT and a TSX I think there is no question that the TSX has a far superior interior and is dynamically pretty good. It has strong brakes, good handling and is much quieter than the Outback. However the Outback is dynamically much better except for handling (those tires again). The TSX has great seats, and a superb auto transmission. Yes it is not super quick and has a peaky engine but as a overall package it is very impressive and it does 25-30mpg. The outback is very fast but just doesn't have that solid feel to it the TSX has. My wife loves the TSX and thinks the Outback is OK. I love the Outback and think the TSX is Ok. Go figure.

[gurpman]

Damn, last place (or tied for last) in: chassis performance steering feel brake feel handling I thought those were supposed to be the GT's strong suits. Paul/apexjapan always saying how tossable it is and how it can catch more powerful cars on the track. What gives? Can't blame it all on the tires.

[BoxerGT2.5]

This brings me to my next point.... Do not smoke crack!!! :)

[Driver72]

[quote name='gurpman']Damn, last place (or tied for last) in: chassis performance steering feel brake feel handling What gives? Can't blame it all on the tires.[/quote] In a large part yes you can. Had it had stickier rubber, the steering response would most likely be crisper, it would have better braking times, and it would have handled significantly better. How they rate "chassis" performance, I don't know? But funny how the Japanese make it their Car of the Year, but with C & D it's all "lacking" in those areas. Not sure, but does the Japanese LGT have our crappy tires?

[BoxerGT2.5]

I don't know if you can blame the tires....the Rx-8 has similar Potenza's and they rate everything awesome.

[Mines]

I am really disappointed by C&D i have always respected them for a great magazine, but honestly to rate the LGT so low is shocking. I personaly lovvvee my car and during the time i waited for my car for 2 months, the thought of changing my order for a Tsx or even a S40!?? didn't even pass my mind.

[IwantaLGTsti]

AS others have hinted or stated bluntly, Acura and Volvo likely provide more advertising dollars than Subaru. It does seem like repeating the tests with identical tires would make sense because consumers can readily replace them and will have to within a few years. But I can see the need to perform tests with stock equipment. It's unfathomable why they would test the 2WD Volvo when an AWD S40 exists. For that matter, the whole idea of mixing 2WD and AWD drive vehicles in a comparison is borderline ludicrous. Typically a buyer either needs AWD or they don't. For those who need AWD, 2WD vehicles are useless. Of course most people do not need AWD and it becomes a liability in matchups like these -- extra weight, additional drive train power loss, poorer fuel economy. Unless they include similar tests (0-60, 1/4 mi, 60-0, slalom) completed in the rain and in the snow, they are not reporting the whole picture. They should also penalize 2WD vehicles 15 minutes for the time it takes to pull over for chain control and chain up :)

[Whitestar Pilot]

This finer points of this article aren't even worth consideration, IMO. I agree with the other poster who said that its all about the advertising dollars. I'll be buying this issue though just because it has a road test on the Subaru (and a rather impressive one at that). And as a side note, before I bought my LGT Limited 5-Manual, I test drove none of the other cars in this test. I was unaware they were even in the same class as the Subaru. I wouldn't pay the extra cash for the glorified honda, and I don't even know what an Audi or a Saab is, for God's Sake! :oops: Never driven one, or known anyone who knew anyone who has even ridden in any either of these other two cars. I did have some punk in one of those VW Beetle-shaped Audi TT things try to race my Trans Am on the street once. :wink: It was good for a laugh. --- Proud new owner of a Pearl White Legacy GT Limited 5-Speed!

[Boostjunkie]

[quote name='BoxerGT2.5']I don't know if you can blame the tires....the Rx-8 has similar Potenza's and they rate everything awesome.[/quote] While both the LGT and RX-8 have Bridgestone tires, they are most certainly not even remotely the same tires. The RX-8 uses an ultra-high performance summer tire, the LGT uses a middle of the road all-season tire. The only similarity if the name of the company that makes them. Tires have a huge impact on the overall performance and feel of a car. The RE92 clearly do not bring out the best the LGT has to offer.

[racerdave]

Yeah, the RX-8 tires are *pure* performance tires, not all seasons. They are the same tire (I think) on the S2000 and NSX. They are NOT RE-92s... [img]http://www.tirerack.com/images/tires/bridgestone/bs_potenza_re040_ci2_l.jpg[/img]

[Wa-gone]

I am really perplexed by the Volve in 2nd. One thing that stood out in my mind about the S40 was what I read in R&T about the manual tranny: ...this 6-speed manual is the one glaring fault of the S40 T5. We could put up with its rubbery nature, but not the imprecise 4th to 5th shift. "The gear linkage is an embarrassment to the good engineers of Volvo," commented Engineering Editor Dennis Simanaitis. "The blind gate on overshooting 5th is unacceptable." That begs the next question in my mind, did they test the LGT with the short-shifter? And about the plastic comment, what are the other companies using in their car interiors. Again, the S40 struck me as lesser quality materials than the LGT. I don't agree with the order of the sedan rankings, but I am still confident that the LGT Wagon would rank higher than anything Honda, Volvo, Audi or anyone else can throw at it.

[GTCanada]

[quote]Paul/apexjapan always saying how tossable it is and how it can catch more powerful cars on the track. What gives? Can't blame it all on the tires.[/quote] Chalk it up to the sportier Japanese spec suspension tuning. Tom

[jk]

:roll: I'm tired of reading comments about C&D's advertising income from different makers. The mag LOVED the wrx and the forester xt. Has Subaru cut its ad budget lately? These ratings reflect the perceptions and values of the editors who produced them. We should note that in the wrx, 330xi, s4 comparo two of the editors ranked the wrx first irrespective of price, but the third editor ranked it LAST because of its interior. It takes all kinds. I agree with the comment that the tighter JDM suspension likely helped the legacy become Japanese car of the year. I also think better tires would help here. Coming from a wrx I must say that I haven't been happy with the body roll on the LGT. It's liveable, but I felt better with less roll. Maybe I'll do something about that and maybe not. Fact is, I ONLY buy AWD. That's been my policy for about 20 years. So those other cars don't even come onto my list of possibilities. I suppose an awd volvo might, but really?? Anyway, get over it!

[sti_lust]

I own a 2000 TL and have driven the new TSX for extended periods as a loaner car. The TSX is definitely tight and has a much crisper transmission than my TL, but it doesn't, in any way, compare to the LGT. I just put a deposit down on my LGT and can safely say that it's a much better ride and better performer than the TSX. Regarding the interior, the Legacy is actually more tasteful in my opinion. I liked the TSX but the LGT makes my heart race.

[powbmps]

For the TSX "0-60 rolls up in 7.5 seconds". Wow, that's speedy! Irrelevant, but it's slower 0-60 than a '92 Sentra SE-R (7.4 seconds). Chris S.

[D-2.5-GT]

TSX is nice, and i think that it won mostly for its interior. Its a nice car, but no way to do i get where some of those ranking came from. Looking at that post of the article, seeing how they rated those cars is ridiculous!... It was on my list to buy, but i decided i wanted a car with some balls!...in order for me to have taken it over the LGT, it would need to be 0-60 somewhere mid 6 s. Which isn't too hard, thats where most of the competition is...just a little more power would do it... I still however look at it like an accord. Its certainly nicer, but too close.

[kanoswrx]

Maybe we lost track of what this comparision was of. It seems like it was a Comparison of just mid range 4 door sedans. Not sport sedans, where I think the LGT would have gotten extra points and would have won. But even still the LGT should have been atleast 2nd, above the volvo. Someone has one of those at my appartment, its not all that great, looks old already.