LGT vs. TSX vs. Volvo T5...my driving impressions!

[Driver72]

***This is a VERY long post. But please read. I think you'll find it a good read and worth your time. You may even find a few surprises in there as well.*** Okay all, today I decided to test drive the cars that Car and Driver just compared in the "sport sedan" comparo and judge for myself how I'd score the cars. I want to say up front, I did NOT drive the Audi A4 1.8T 5 speed manual. I have THREE, yes three friends with this car (one a 3.0 Quattro auto and other a 1.8T Quattro auto, and the third a 1.8T quattro manual) So, I've been in this car enough and know how it will stack up against the other three without needing an immediate test drive. I made a list of all the categories Car and Driver's uses in their "scoring" section on a note pad. Giving a value of each section the same points they do, and after the 3 test drives I listed my scores. I then looked at their scoring to compare. I, of cousre, already knew their scoring outcome and already ordered my Legacy GT sedan manual. I have not yet picked up my Legacy GT and have NO binding contractual agreements forcing me to get this car, so I could pull out of the deal at anytime. So, I went into this comparison with an open mind, and was as neutral as I could honestly be, if any of the other cars wowed me as much as the TSX did Car and Driver, I very well could change my order and get that car instead. I obviously don't recieve ANY compensation or benefits from my views, so I figure it will be as honest and forthright as possible. So here are my final scores/standings and explanations afterward: 1. Acura TSX (206 points) 2. Legacy GT (205 points) 3. Volvo S40 T5 (186 points) 4 Audi A4 1.8T (185 points) Now this is purely coincidence that the first and second place cars are only one point apart and the 3rd and 4th place cars are only one point apart. Yet the fact the first two and last two scored so far apart are not a coincidence. The Acura TSX and Subaru LGT were just that good, but for mostly different reasons all together, and the other two trailed so far back for two different reasons as well. Based on my scoring outcome I'm now not so upset at Car and Driver for their outcome, with the exception of the Volvo! I just CANNOT fathom how they gave that car 2nd place in their testing. Sure they drove each car for 800 miles, I drove each not even 8 miles (maybe 6). But let's be honest. 95% of the car buying public buys cars with based on only about a few miles test drive experience, and from what they read in reviews. So I feel this "review" is legitimate based on if I were doing what most car buyers would do. It's kinda like a first date, you USUALLY know in the first 15 minutes whether you like the person and if he/she is for you or not. This applied here with these cars! First Place = Acura TSX Absolutely stunning interior. They got it right. From the minute I climbed into the car, I thought, "wow, this car fits like a glove" Like the LGT the gauge cluster is spot on. They light up fantastically, very easy to read. Everything about the interior of this car is nearly perfect. I gave it a perfect 10 in Driver Comfort and Fit and Finish. Solid as a rock, feels like it should! I also gave it a perfect 5 out of 5 for Rear Seat Comfort and Rear Seat Space. It's surprisingly roomy back there, more so than the others. The TSX engine is a gem. Smooth, rev happy to a degree, and pulls nicely. I gave it a perfect 10 in Engine NVH. But what it comes down to is lack o' heavyweight punch. It feels more like a middleweight. I'm surprised how well it pulls from low rpm, but it just doesn't have a big hit of power. Acceptable yes, thrilling, no. 20-30 more ponies, and just as important 20-30 more ft-lbs of torque (can we say small V6 anyone?) and this car would be rippin! Hello Honda, make this car the Honda Accord here too, and give it that 3.0 V6. It would sell like Google stock! I also gave a perfect score for the tranny. What can I say...like the mag guys and Honda drivers everywhere already know, D@MN that's a nice 6 speed. The only thing I don't like is having reverse to the lower right, right next to 6th gear. It should be in the upper left by first gear, like many of the German cars. Since the car lacks a bit of punch, especially in 5th and 6th gears, you have to row that shifter quite a bit. But it's a pleasure on the curvy back road I test drove the car on (same road as I did the Volvo S40 T5 by the way) but in Los Angeles traffic, it would get tiresome. No wonder the sales guy told me that was the ONLY 6 speed car they had, and it's been sitting there for over a month. He said they've only sold a few manuals since the car came out. Second Place = Legacy GT I drove the car before, and so this was my second time. I honestly don't see why it's interior got such low marks from Car and Driver. Another auto site online lists it's "highs" as "top quality interior." It's a VERY nice place to spend your time. True, not up to TSX or A4 standard, but those two are also from a "premium" maker, the Subaru is on par with Honda's Accord and Toyota's Camry and Nissan's Altima, there true competitors I believe. And the doors shut pretty good too. Sure not as vault like as the Acura or Audi, but surely not like a rattling Saturn does. They're up to par with most sedans in that price range. I gave the LGT perfect scores in Driver Comfort and Front Seat Space. It felt perfect in there, with a bit of space to spare. Slightly more roomy than the TSX. Everything was where it should be and felt (and smelt) very nice. It had the best "new car smell" of all the cars too. The rear seats were not quite as comfortable or roomy as the TSX however. Unlike C & D I gave the LGT 9 out of 10 in the Features and Amenities category, just like I gave the TSX. True the TSX actually had MORE amenities (like homelink, sunglass holder, sliding armrest, etc) but the LGT has All Wheel Drive. A "FEATURE" that I did NOT overlook, unlike Car and Driver. That balanced out the Features and Amenities between the two cars. Of course, I gave the LGT perfect 10 points in both Engine Output and Powertrain Performance. It was by FAR the quickest car, felt the strongest, and the AWD let me go FULL BOOST making the corner onto the freeway on ramp. In the others, it would of just spun the inside tire, like it did the TSX. That engine and powertrain just ROCK. Definately a heavyweight slugger! However, I did have to knock it down a few points on the chassis performance just like Car and Driver did. I was amazed to find, after scoring the LGT's chassis performance section, then looking at how C & D scored it, that I scored it EXACTLY THE SAME!! The car is a bit soft compared to the others. It's as it says, a GT car. 10-15% stiffer suspension would do this car wonders in the handling department. But I suspect they figure the people buying the LGT don't want that. Or they'll save that for an STI version in a couple years if the LGT does well, and I can't imagine why it wouldn't. Of course, the tires need to take a large part of the blame in the handling department too. With proper high performance sport tires, the suspension may very well not need to be tuned much, if at all. It's just the tires are a bit mushy. The brakes are also slightly subpar. I didn't realize it in the first test drive, but jumping on the brakes in this test drive, I had wished it scrubbed off speed a bit better, I almost stopped IN the crosswalk on one hard stopping event. Subaru should definately consider offering a "sport package" that includes sport summer tires and upgraded brakes for those who don't drive in rain or snow filled climates. Steering was fine too, but not quite as sharp as the others. Third Place = Volvo S40 T5 I am baffled how several editors at Car and Driver could of scored this car the way they did. I actually looked forward to this car. I thought, "wouldn't it be a surprise if this car was the David, that slayed the Goliath's" It was the last car I drove, so I had ALL the others to compare it too. Car and Driver gave the Volvo an 8 out of 10 in Driver Comfort, same as the LGT. And for the life of me, I CANNOT understand HOW. The front seat is absolutely SKINNY. Now I'm not a large man, I rise above the earth just 5 feet 10 1/2 inches and push the scale down 165 pounds. But I was sitting in the Volvo's seat all of 2 minutes when I was looking for a way to move the side bolsters out away from my butt cheeks! I asked the sales lady, how do I do this, her reply, " yeah they made the seats small, so it craddles you for spirited driving." Well that's great and all, but I'm not a large man, what would a 6 footer weighing 200+ pounds do? In short, there's no way to adjust those lower seat side bolsters. In there write up, Car and Driver mentioned that this car is good for "average" and "small" drivers, then made a special mention to their feet size. I wear a 10.5 extra wide shoe and didn't find that NEARLY as much of a problem as I did the seat. Again, baffled by C & D's lack of comment on this and their subsequent scoring. It was just plain uncomfortable. After my 15-20 minute drive, I got out and could still "feel" the side bolsters pushing in on my bum, kind of like they left an impression, it just wasn't a good one. Same goes for the Rear Seat Space. C & D gave it a perfect 5 out of 5, but it's the ONLY car where when sitting in the rear seat this man's head was skimming the roof. I had about an inch or so space in the TSX and LGT. Even stretching my neck up, I couldn't touch the roof of the TSX or LGT. Yet C & D gave the Volvo higher scores here than both those two! Sure it had decent leg space, but you had to drop your feet down into a deep hole. All three had plenty of leg space, my knees didn't touch the seat backs on any of them. Onto the test drive of the Volvo. I told the sales guy I heard this car had pretty good performance, he said, "oh it would run circles around your Maxima (2002)" Circles? Maybe. Straightline...no way! The engine is peppy out of the gate, when the turbo hits, it's not as hard as the Legacy GT. It feels more like a Crusierweight...a hard punch for sure, but the Heavyweight punch of the LGT would floor it in return. The engine is not as smooth as the TSX and very similiar to the LGT. I thought the LGT's boxer engine had charm, in the Porsche kind of way. Car and Driver described the boxer engine as having a "thrum"and seemed to mark it down in points for that, it may not the smoothest, but it is nice sounding and charmigly different, similiar to a Porsche. The Volvo's lacked that charm however, it just felt a bit ackward in operation. You could also hear the boost more in the Volvo, but since it doesn't hit as hard, it didn't leave the same enthusiastic impression. In Car and Driver's test, they got the Volvo S40 T5 to run to 120 mph faster than the Legacy GT. The only acceleration test it won. Personally, I think the Legacy GT C & D had must have been a low mileage unit. There is NO question it's the fastest of these 4 cars. AWD cars DO however lose speed when they are run up to high velocities. Obviously it takes more power to turn 4 wheels than it does just 2. So, when approaching higher speeds, it's harder for a car with AWD to continue charging hard, due to the additional drivetrain losses. This for sure played a hand in the Volvo's high speed ability, and reaching 120 mph sooner. But had the S40 been the AWD version (which would of priced it out of this comparison) it would of been a couple seconds behind the Legacy GT by 120 mph. As it stands, the fastest I took all three of these cars were about 75 mph. The Legacy GT would run away from all the rest in this test with ease to well above our legal highway limits.. The Volvo did get more points in the Chassis department than the Legacy GT though. Certainly not as much as the TSX though. The Volvo's steering was precise, but a bit heavy. It's brake pedal felt firm and the brakes stopped VERY good. It might be the only area the Volvo matched the TSX in feel, well save for the performance. It IS a nimble car, but taking the curvy road at about 40-50 mph I felt the steering was a touch heavy so it kind of made the chassis feel heavy. Not as light on it's feet as the TSX, but VERY solid nonetheless. But where the Volvo dropped in popularity as fast as Vanilla Ice, was the interior and the fun factor. The fit and finish fell soldly between the Acura and the Legacy GT, but there was ZERO flavor there. Where the Acura is Chocolate Fudge, and the Legacy GT is Mint Chocolate Chip, the Volvo was Vanilla Sherbet. It's GREY in there. Sure the center "flooting" console is cool and all the buttons on it are cool, but like the sales lady said, it took her 100 times to figure out what all the buttons do and which you need to push to do different things. Here again, Car and Driver gave it high scores here and even commented it has a "stylish dash." I again, just can't comprehend how they think that. It's by far the most uninspiring. Another online auto site commented the Volvo has, "IKEA ready interior." I think they were alluding to it's plain, dull look. I couldn't agree more. The grey background on the speedo dials is atrocious. And they are set WAY deep. I swear there's a foot between the front of the dash and where the dials sit. Have a look around you'll become bored...all grey with touches of aluminum, only the center console stands out. This Volvo was a $30K car without leather, but had the sport package and sunroof. Equip this car like the LGT (with AWD and the same options), and it's easily $33K maybe more. Car and Driver gave it a 8 out of 10 on value, gave the Audi 1.8T a 7 out of 10. How they could of possibly figured the Volvo had better value is beyond me. I gave it a 7 out of 10 along with the Audi, and gave the TSX 8 out of 10 and the LGT 9 out of 10. The Acura is expensive... $27,035 without NAV. If it had AWD, it would be at least $29K plus. Right where the LGT is, but still lack in the VERY important power department. Car and Driver also gave the Volvo nearly as much "Gotta Have It" points as they did the Legacy GT. I just don't see it. It's a quick car and feels decent, but other than it being brand new, I can't see anybody longing for this car. Unless they are Volvo faithful or super concerned with safety. On a side note too. Car and Driver does a 5-60 mph rolling start on their cars. I also did this with every one of these cars, at least twice each. Three times in the Legacy GT. They got a 7.6 second time on the Legacy GT. I have to say, I think this is a typo on their part, or again the result of a low mileage, not running well car. Each time I tried this in the Legacy, I got the car started by releasing the clutch in first gear and just giving it a touch of throttle, then actually lifting my foot OFF the gas until the car was just creeping along, below 1000 rpms. Then floored the gas. The car bogged for a second as their was significant turbolag, but then it boosted and just shot off. I hit second gear and then released. I've done this in a standard WRX before, and there's no question, the Legacy GT did it in JUST as fast, if NOT faster. Yet, Car and Driver got a 5-60 mph time in 6.6 seconds with the standard WRX. Furthermore, I even tried this in a Forester XT today as well. Car and Driver got the FXT to do it in 6.3 seconds. Both the Subaru sales guy (who owns a new WRX STI) and myself couldn't tell a difference between the Forester XT and the Legacy GT in this "street start." They both did the exact same thing and felt nearly identical. If you were blindfolded, you wouldn't of known which of the two you were in during this acceleration test. It was that close. I'm thinking Car and Driver's time of 7.6 seconds was a typo and should of been 6.6 seconds. Had it truly been 7.6 seconds, we would of noticed a BIG difference between it and the Forester XT, and there just wasn't any. As stated, I also did this with the other cars, the TSX bogged a bit then accelerated out smoothly and swiftly, but again, lacking any major power. In C & D's test, they got the TSX to do this 5-60 time a tenth of a second faster than the Legacy GT. I'll say it right now with conviction, this would NOT happen. The TSX would lose that acceleration competition too. It just doesn't have the burst of speed the Legacy GT has, even though the TSX might pull a car length while the Legacy GT's turbo is desperately trying to spool up, once it does, it would quickly catch then shoot right past the TSX. The Volvo falls in between those two, the Audi, of course, the slowest. I also don't know why Car and Driver does this test. I couldn't find a SINGLE reason or time when someone driving on the "street" would "start" off like this. Nobody who drives a stick, let's out the clutch get's rolling to 5 mph then floors it. It is by NO means an accurate way to test a "street start" on a car. More aptly a street start would consist of, giving the car a bit of gas while letting the clutch out, then if desired floor the accelerator as soon as the clutch is fully engaged. This would be what you would do say... if you needed to suddenly merge into traffic and get in front of the other car. Fourth Place = Audi A4 Since I didn't drive the Audi A4 at the same time as I did the others, I won't comment on it in depth. We all know the Audi has top notch interiors and vault like build quality. Many are familiar with VW/Audi's VERY GOOD 1.8T engine. I think it's safe to say in the Audi A4, the 1.8T is just overwhelmed when tuned with it's 170 hp and 166 ft-lbs of torque. That, along with it's price, and the fact it's the oldest car in this comparo ultimately relegated it in last place. It need the 3.0 V6 to compete, but then it would of easily been priced out of the $30K arena. So there you have it. The Acura TSX narrowly comes in first place in my scoring too. Does that mean I'm going to pull out on my order of the Legacy GT? No way! I have a new found respect for the TSX. It is a GREAT little (actually it's larger than it seems) car and a sweet DRIVER's car. But performance and AWD stability and traction is MORE important to me. If I want perfect fit and finish and a perfect interior, I'd be looking at a Lexus. The Acura though a blast to drive, doesn't have the engine wallop, or the great traction of the AWD. Plus it's not like the interior of the Legacy GT is comparable to a base Honda Civic. It's quite nice as well. The Volvo just would never be a consideration for me, and the Audi though great and great looking, is too slow, and too expensive. Even the 3.0 V6 doesn't match the Legacy GT's power. Thanks all....Driver72

[gurpman]

Thanks for taking the time to write all of that up. Did the S40 you drove have the 6 speed? How was the shifter? Street start eliminates the launch factor. I think it's a good test, since I'm not going to be doing 5k+ clutch drops like C&D uses on the 0-60. Regarding funky scores in individual categories... FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised if the C&D writers picked the finishing order first and then backed into scores to support their choice. They probably liked the Volvo better than the GT overall and had to skew the scores a little to have it come out ahead. My .02.

[racerdave]

Good to hear the TSX still gets props. For an FWD car, it sounds nice indeed. But if Subaru would've gave us a JDM-tuned GT much like Acura gave us a JDM-tuned Accord in the TSX, the GT might've fared even better. So I definitely give Subaru NA some dings for "dumbing down" the GT's suspension. The JDM GT suspension would've been more fitting in the USDM GT, and provided more differentiation between the 2.5i and GT. Like I said in another post, Subaru could fix this by offering a "Sport Package" consisting of "summer" tires and the JDM GT suspension much like BMW does with it's Sport Package. That said, those minor quibbles should be easily remedied in the aftermarket.

[Stef]

Moving to Other Cars. Thanks!

[outahere]

[quote name='Driver72']........As stated, I also did this with the other cars, the TSX bogged a bit then accelerated out smoothly and swiftly, but again, lacking any major power. In C & D's test, they got the TSX to do this 5-60 time a tenth of a second faster than the Legacy GT. I'll say it right now with conviction, this would NOT happen. The TSX would lose that acceleration competition too. Thanks all....Driver72[/quote] C&D made the surprising statement that the TSX 4 cylinder motor was comfortable at 800rpm in 5th gear. I can believe this for a large displacement V12, but from an inline 4 it's hard to believe. What was your impression?

[racerdave]

I mean, define comfortable? The RX-8's motor felt "comfortable" to me at 800 RPM, and it pulled smoothly and without complaint in higher gears at that RPM. But it felt much better at 8000 RPM. :D I haven't driven the TSX, so while I can imagine it was "comfortable" at that RPM, I can't imagine much forward thrust was being generated at 800.

[Driver72]

[quote name='outahere'][quote name='Driver72']........As stated, I also did this with the other cars, the TSX bogged a bit then accelerated out smoothly and swiftly, but again, lacking any major power. In C & D's test, they got the TSX to do this 5-60 time a tenth of a second faster than the Legacy GT. I'll say it right now with conviction, this would NOT happen. The TSX would lose that acceleration competition too. Thanks all....Driver72[/quote] C&D made the surprising statement that the TSX 4 cylinder motor was comfortable at 800rpm in 5th gear. I can believe this for a large displacement V12, but from an inline 4 it's hard to believe. What was your impression?[/quote] I wouldn't quite say "comfortable" like C & D did. But if you compare it to the LGT at 800 rpm's then yes it is. The LGT bogs and nearly stalls at that point, where the TSX accepts it, but didn't feel like it was going to stall either. I didn't try 800 rpm's in top gear or anything...but again, seems foolish for C & D to even comment on that. Who's going to drive their car around at 800 rpm's in any gear. Pointless observation.

[Driver72]

Oh, and too the poster asking about the street start? It does more than eliminate the launch factor. You said, you wouldn't be doing any 5K+ launches, but this test is the EXACT opposite. I don't think you'll be doing any near stalling launches either. It just doesn't make any sense. Most people, basically everyone really, who drives a stick in "normal" street start driving, will give the car a little bit of gas AS they release the clutch, then push the pedal down for more acceleration. This "street start" of theirs in literally bogging a car down then FLOORING it. Would you ever do that either? No way. Each car I did it too, didn't really like it. The TSX minded it the least, and bogged the least, but it's also the only NON-turbocharged car. That gives it the inherent advantage their. Oh, and it's nearly impossible to find the Volvo with a manual at this point. The sales lady said, like 2% will be manuals, at least here in the traffic filled LA area. And there was none in this allocation and it would be until late November to get one on order. One of the Volvo dealerships I went to didn't even have a manual, and the sales guy didn't even think they came in manuals. He said, I think early next year the manuals will be released. The other dealership had just the one, it's the one they used at their ride and drive for the sales crew. Oh and thanks for your reply, it was no problem, I'm glad to give my views. Let me know if you have any other questions. I'm no expert in these cars, but I paid rapt attention to them, just like a reviewer would, during my test drives.

[racerdave]

So is that what the 5-60 start winds up being? The "launch" begins at <1000 RPM? I always liked that test because I thought it showed real-world driveability. I guess it still does, but the odds of me stepping off hard at full throttle at that low of revs also seems unlikely. Maybe C&D should update their street-start test to be 10-70? ;)

[Driver72]

Yeah, in the Legacy GT, like MOST cars, there is NO 5 mph marking on the speedo. So my guess is, Car and Driver just let's out the clutch and gives the car basically NO gas, just letting it sputter around at less than 1000 rpm's (in the Legacy GT 5 mph would be about 910 rpm's) as close to 5 mph as possible. Then they floor it. The computer graphs the time the car takes to go from this barely moving 5 mph crawl to 60 mph. Anyway, I'm almost hijacking my own thread he taking the talk from the comparison between these cars to the 5-60 time. I (we) should try to keep it on topic. What did you think of my "review" I'm curious to know what others who have driven all these cars think. I'm also curious if others who haven't driven these cars have any thoughts on my impressions. But it's 2:17 am here in LA. Can't sleep and I guess I'll just have to wait until morning.

[Ken S]

Driver72: Awesome write up! That was some fine reading. Ken

[jk]

thanks for the write-up, driver72. most interesting.

[bigbadboss101]

I have not driven the A4 or the T5. I tested the TSX 3 times, and LGT MT twice, AT once. I thought the LGT handled better, but the routes used were different. Interior of the TSX is very nice, where as the LGT is decent. More toys on the TSX. Acceleration wise, the TSX is nice. Smooth, nice revving, nimble. The LGT is more powerful, and with the turbo it's more sudden. Steering seem to be comparable. Precise on the LGT, tight on the TSX. Not too sure about the ride. Didn't drive hard enough to test the tires. I would like the TSX if it had 30 more hp and ft/lbs. It's popular here, so that is a down fall. I like the AWD, and the relatively unknowness of the LGT.

[crapy]

very nice review :D actually can u also post ur opion on the A4 too?

[Deer Killer]

[quote name='Driver72']Most people, basically everyone really, who drives a stick in "normal" street start driving, will give the car a little bit of gas AS they release the clutch, then push the pedal down for more acceleration. [/quote] Unless you're in highway traffic.. Which means you can be in first/second gear near idle

[Driver72]

Do you mean heavy traffic? And I don't know about you, but I at NO time lug any car of mine around IN GEAR at or near idle. If my speed drops that low, I push in the clutch. If I need to move out again, I release the clutch and give it gas. It's too hard on the engine to bog it around near idle. And again, if you were in heavy traffic and needed a burst of speed, you wouldn't just let the clutch out rolling at near idle, bogging your car then floor it. Most would push the clutch in, bring the revs up a bit then release the clutch for a quick get away.

[Driver72]

[quote name='crapy']very nice review :D actually can u also post ur opion on the A4 too?[/quote] LOL, does that mean you want me too? :D As you can see, I didn't even give my impressions of the Audi A4. It's been around for 3 years now. The 1.8T has been in the US since 1999, so I didn't feel it necessary to comment on it. Pretty much everyone knows about this car. It's interior is of course still stellar, but calling this car a "sport" sedan when it's equipped with the 1.8T is stretching it quite a bit. It's sporty, and handles just fine. But it's just not a stand out for it's price anymore. Now the S4 is a whole different story.

[Deer Killer]

[quote name='Driver72']Do you mean heavy traffic? And I don't know about you, but I at NO time lug any car of mine around IN GEAR at or near idle. If my speed drops that low, I push in the clutch. If I need to move out again, I release the clutch and give it gas. It's too hard on the engine to bog it around near idle. And again, if you were in heavy traffic and needed a burst of speed, you wouldn't just let the clutch out rolling at near idle, bogging your car then floor it. Most would push the clutch in, bring the revs up a bit then release the clutch for a quick get away.[/quote] You're going 75mph. then all of a sudden you're stopped.. then you go. and stop.. and go.. and stop. Makes little sense to keep changing gears and declutching. Just put it in first or second or third and use engine braking, don't downshift unless you're going to go less than idle speed. Driving in traffic isn't so bad anymore. However if you have no power and no throttle response off idle, it sucks.

[Deer Killer]

[quote name='Driver72'] It's interior is of course still stellar, but calling this car a "sport" sedan when it's equipped with the 1.8T is stretching it quite a bit. It's sporty, and handles just fine. But it's just not a stand out for it's price anymore. Now the S4 is a whole different story.[/quote] Eh if you mean by handles just fine it can take a curve, but feels like it weighs 6000 pounds, then ok. The LGT is much lighter on it's feet. The feeling of a flat torque "curve" is quite nice though.

[Driver72]

[quote name='Deer Killer'] You're going 75mph. then all of a sudden you're stopped.. then you go. and stop.. and go.. and stop. Makes little sense to keep changing gears and declutching. Just put it in first or second or third and use engine braking, don't downshift unless you're going to go less than idle speed. Driving in traffic isn't so bad anymore. However if you have no power and no throttle response off idle, it sucks.[/quote] Well, I live in LA and rarely are we going 75 then suddenly stop then go again then stop. We're either going or we're crawling along. I don't use engine braking, unless it's a panic situation or I need to stop really fast. It's too hard on the engine and unecessarily creates too much wear and tear on parts. Brakes are cheap, engines/transmissions driveline parts are not! Plus, you'll get a lot better gas mileage by not using your engine to slow the car down. It gives your left leg a bit more of a workout, but pushing in the clutch and using the brakes to stop you in stop and go traffic is the best for the car and your wallet. I don't worry about not having throttle response below 1500 rpm's because as I said, I won't drive my car in gear below that. If the rpm's drop below 1500, I shift down a gear, unless I'm cruising in 5th at a consistent lower speed. But again, if I need power to accelerate out, I'd shift down to third then. To each there own, but if having lots of power RIGHT above idle is important to ANYONE, they better get: 1. A non turbocharged car 2. V8 or large V6 3. A preferable an automatic...even large V6's can bog in any gear at 1000 rpm's

[Driver72]

[quote name='Deer Killer'][quote name='Driver72'] It's interior is of course still stellar, but calling this car a "sport" sedan when it's equipped with the 1.8T is stretching it quite a bit. It's sporty, and handles just fine. But it's just not a stand out for it's price anymore. Now the S4 is a whole different story.[/quote] Eh if you mean by handles just fine it can take a curve, but feels like it weighs 6000 pounds, then ok. The LGT is much lighter on it's feet. The feeling of a flat torque "curve" is quite nice though.[/quote] I've driven many Audi A4's and have thrown them into quite a few corners. Yeah, they feel on the heavy side, but they still do a pretty good job, especially if they're in Quattro form. Sure they're not as light on their feet as the LGT, but they weigh a couple hundred pounds more too...at least the 3.0 V6 Quattro version does. In this test, the Audi was also out of place. The 1.8T in the Audi is kind of a joke. The car is too heavy for it. And why VW/Audi gives the GTI, the Jetta and the New Beetle 180 hp with this engine, but give the top of the line VW (the Passat) and the biggest selling Audi (the A4) only 170 hp is beyond me. Sure it's only 10 hp and 9ft-lbs of torque. But with that much weight, it would surely help. For the Audi A4 to have competed in this comparo, it would of needed the 3.0 V6. But then it would of been priced too high and not fit within the $30K range they were going for. So being that it had the worst performance and the highest price, the oldest car in the test, it really couldn't of been in any other position but last.

[crapy]

thanks for you opinion, Driver72. Actually i am an owner of A4 1.8T :D when the time comes, i will be switching to GT!

[Mindflayer]

Nice comparison, Driver72. Good to see you stick with the LGT. I found the Acura seemed to "try" too hard to be high-tech and classy. Hard to define exactly what I mean, but it was just a general feeling. I don't get it on the Volvo, either. I do like the styling, but that's about it. The Audi - well, I think you covered it. Throw in the reliability issues, and it was a no go. Now, if my wife's truck was not also 6 years old, the S4 may have been an option.... but truth be told, I think I was sold on the Legacy the moment I drove the new one. (BTW, hope your buying experience was better than mine initially :D)

[Smada]

Am I the only one who doesn't like the TSX interior?? I was initially comparing the TSX and TL and the TSX just seemed cheapy. Too much plastic or something, just not that nice. I even thought the V6 Accord EX had a nicer interior than the TSX! I must be crazy!

[Driver72]

you are! LOL Kidding. Well, of course comparing the TL to the TSX and the TSX is going to feel a bit down. But I have to say, the TSX definitely has a better interior than the Accord EX V6. I looked at the Accord right after the TSX. You can obviously tell they are from the same lineage. Both have the same arm rest, both have the same placement of some controls, both have the same storage compartment. But a closer inspection of the Honda's plastics and you'd of seen they were not quite as nice. But again, it's a give and take. Both the Accord EX V6 and the TSX are priced about exactly the same...with one you get the nicer interior, but lesser engine, with the other you get the better engine but lesser interior. And the sales have spoken...appears more people will give up a bit in interior class to have a stronger engine. I'm sure the sales on the EX V6 Accord are many times what the sales of the TSX are...even though the TSX has a better warranty and offers the higher "prestige" factor as well. Funny, Car and Driver didn't seem to notice that when they rated these cars. Will the LGT sell as well as the TSX, probably not, but it won't be because of the features/amenities and interior...but because of the brand name and all that comes with buying a Honda based product.