Driver72 Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 ****Article now scanned on page two of this thread*** Guess what all. Just got my new Road and Track They also tested the Acura TSX vs. Legacy GT They rated the Legacy GT FIRST. 585.1 points to 578.7 points Now THAT's what I'm talking about. Performance......TSX..........LGT 0-20 mph..........1.7 sec......0.9 sec 0-60 mph..........7.8 sec......5.6 sec. 1/4 m..............15.9 at 90.4...14.3 at 96.2 0-100 mph........19.5 sec.....15.5 sec. 60-0 braking.....133 feet....135 feet 80-0 braking.....237 feet....238 feet skidpad g's........78 g.........0.79 g slalom mph........64.0 mph....64.9 mph Unlike the old ladies at C & D who seemed to care most about interior comfort and fit and finish....the Dudes at Road and Track put the emphasis where it should be on DRIVING and performance!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devobuzz Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 I just don't get it - why are the skidpad number so low??? The tires can't be that bad. The cars seems to have good grip in the corners. Are they doing the skidpad measurement differently then they did it in the past? Like in water or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flat4fantasy Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Good to hear. I'm surprised at the considerable closeness in the braking, slalom and skidpad measurement. The TSX is no joke. However, I bet your through some REAL tires on it, and it the gap widens. Driver, do the mention anything about that. The OEM tires on the GT being crappy? Peace, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver72 Posted September 8, 2004 Author Share Posted September 8, 2004 skidpad depends on surface. They might have done the skidpad on a slippery surface whereas Car and Driver might have done it on a parking lot or grippier surface. Point being, in this apparently more slippery surface, the LGT out did the TSX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inthedeck Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 welcome to a little earlier... [url]http://www.legacygt.com/viewtopic.php?t=2856&start=0[/url] later, i. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver72 Posted September 8, 2004 Author Share Posted September 8, 2004 On another note, I have a feeling this was the VERY same car Car and Driver tested? Why, because it's also black and in one picture you can see the speedo says it has 5056 miles on the car. You can bet those were hard driven test miles in the test mule car. I still think the LGT is capable of better times, even though both C & D and R & T got very similiar 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. R & T did get it too 100 mph .5 seconds quicker, but that could be because there was a slight head wind in the C & D test...who knows. But I'd bet money on the fact they were the SAME car tested by both magazines...which is often the case, and that this car is making the rounds of the test circuit. It's been beat in it's first 5000 miles I'm sure, and probably not broken in nicely. I still think the LGT is capable of 5.5 or under to 60 and 13.9 @ 98 mph in the 1/4 stock. Oh, and both of the guys that tested these cars for Road and Track are Fat-asses. Both weigh at least 225 pounds. :) We'll have to see what other tests come up with later when they AREN'T using this abused test mule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver72 Posted September 8, 2004 Author Share Posted September 8, 2004 [quote name='inthedeck']welcome to a little earlier... [url]http://www.legacygt.com/viewtopic.php?t=2856&start=0[/url] later, i.[/quote] Ahh, I did a brief search and didn't see it. Oh, well, I'm guessing like the C & D one there'll be a couple posts as others do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver72 Posted September 8, 2004 Author Share Posted September 8, 2004 I don't know what the h3ll is wrong with my scanner. Ever since I got a new computer, I can't get the d@mn thing to work, otherwise I'd scan the article in. Sorry all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
450Thumper Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 Cool!!! I am on my way to the store now!! Gotta get a look at the article! Thanks John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninjapimp Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 Someone get this scanned! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver72 Posted September 9, 2004 Author Share Posted September 9, 2004 [quote name='flat4fantasy'] Driver, do the mention anything about that. The OEM tires on the GT being crappy? Peace, Dave[/quote] Actually, these guys thought the tires on the Legacy were better than the TSX's. Funny, the one guy that "preferred" the TSX said of the Legacy GT's advantage in the slalom and skidpad, that the LGT did better, "largely because of it's tires." Does he even know that the tires the LGT wears sucks arse? Did he even look to see that the owners of these tires on Tirerack rate them at the bottom of their class? Know how he came to that conclusion? Becauee on the TSX it's treadwear rating was 300 while on the LGT's it was 160. So he figured the LGT must have softer compound tires and therefore perform better. I got a laugh out of that one. The treadWEAR has nothing to do with adhesion and performance. They also mentioned that the TSX's tires squealed very easily around the twisty canyon roads, where apparently the Subaru's didn't. What I did notice is the guy who picked the TSX over the LGT seemed to whine like a little girl quite a bit. He starts his comments off like this, "Out of respect to the good Doctor Simanaitis, I won't go out of my way to bash his pick, the Subaru Legacy GT Limited, which admittedly has a pretty persuasive mix of power, personality, and rally heritiage. Rather, I'll take the high road in championing the TSX..." Hmmm, so what does he think that sarcastic comment is. He took the "low road" in his first sentence by insinuating he wasn't going to "bash" the LGT, but just by saying that, that's what he did." Moron. Then he goes and makes excuses for the TSX...like the tires, and implying like the LGT's are so much better, when in fact they are worse. And pretty much his whole write up was about how nice the TSX was and how little respect it gets compared to the TL. How great the NAV system is, and how the LGT doesn't have it. And saying things like he'll, "delight in knowing that I have a compact 5 seat sports sedan that, even with NAV is less expensive than the Subaru that doesn't have it." Ahh, hello Mr. Bornhop, the Acura was $35 bucks less. Oh, and the LGT has AWD and a turbocharged engine instead of the NAV. Have fun looking at your NAV screen, us drivers will be out enjoying the truck loads more power and the AWD system the LGT has that the TSX doesn't. He was also too busy complimenting the TSX for how crisp the shifter is, and how smooth the engine is. In the end, he did exactly what he said he wasn't. He based the LGT, and the concentrated only on how good the Acura's interior amentities were. Meanwhile the other tester picked the LGT and in the process never dissed the TSX, just pointed out the facts. That the LGT had better performance, out ran the TSX (or in his case, kept up without even running the LGT hard), DNA from the STI, more aggressive looking, fun powertrain, flatter cornering (no pushing understeer), etc etc. He even complimented the TSX in many areas (shifter, gas mileage, etc.) So it ended up the guy who picked the TSX who said he was going to take the "higher road" ended up taking the dirt road, and the guy who picked the LGT took the "higher road" without so much as dirtying the fender wells. Put the numbers spoke for themselves, so even though the editors split on which car they'd prefer, the LGT just outguns the TSX...so it "won" this comparo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver72 Posted September 9, 2004 Author Share Posted September 9, 2004 [quote name='Ninjapimp']Someone get this scanned![/quote] Sorry, my scanner isn't reading my new computer. Maybe this will tie you over for a bit until someone else does. Here's the scoring: Category--------------TSX...........LGT 0-60-------------------21.5--------30.0 1/4 mile---------------27.0--------30.0 Slalom-----------------29.6--------30.0 skidpad----------------29.6--------30.0 60-0 braking----------30.0--------29.6 80-0 braking----------30.0--------29.6 Fuel econ.-------------30.0--------17.9 Driving excitement----18.8-------20.0 Engine------------------16.5--------20.0 Gearbox----------------20.0-------14.1 (non STI short throw) Steering----------------20.0-------17.6 Brakes------------------20.0-------18.8 Ride---------------------18.8-------20.0 Handling----------------20.0-------20.0 Exterior style-----------13.1-------15.0 Interior style-----------15.0-------13.2 Seats--------------------8.8--------10.0 Ergos/controls----------10.0--------9.4 Luggage space----------10.0-------10.0 Price---------------------200.0------199.9 Total---------------------578.7-------585.1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drift Monkey Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 [quote name='inthedeck']welcome to a little earlier... [url]http://www.legacygt.com/viewtopic.php?t=2856&start=0[/url] later, i.[/quote] Yeah, this thread totally needs to be locked and/or merged with the other thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver72 Posted September 9, 2004 Author Share Posted September 9, 2004 You know what interesting too. In C & D sound test, they list both equal quiet at idle, the Subaru quieter at full throttle, but the TSX quieter at a constant 70 mph. By contrast, in Road and Tracks sound test, the TSX was slightly quieter at idle, they were equal at full throttle, and the LGT was quieter at 70 mph cruise. Just one of those things that make you go...hmmm? Guess it's all in the placement of the sound meter. Ahh, another point that this Legacy GT was probably the same C & D used, other than the fact they both are black, and both got VERY similiar test numbers? Both has an "as tested" price of $29,070. 5000 miles of abusive testing...I'm now even more confident this car will perform better in a "normal" non-test mule version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver72 Posted September 9, 2004 Author Share Posted September 9, 2004 [quote name='Drift Monkey'][quote name='inthedeck']welcome to a little earlier... [url]http://www.legacygt.com/viewtopic.php?t=2856&start=0[/url] later, i.[/quote] Yeah, this thread totally needs to be locked and/or merged with the other thread.[/quote] Yeah, but DM, the other thread is a bunch of speculation and people not believing the article. There was 3 pages of debate before someone actually posted some of the test results. Lock that one moderators, not just because I started this one, but because this ones got the facts on the front page, post one. Not a bunch of speculative talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drift Monkey Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 [quote name='Driver72'][quote name='Drift Monkey'][quote name='inthedeck']welcome to a little earlier... [url]http://www.legacygt.com/viewtopic.php?t=2856&start=0[/url] later, i.[/quote] Yeah, this thread totally needs to be locked and/or merged with the other thread.[/quote] Yeah, but DM, the other thread is a bunch of speculation and people not believing the article. There was 3 pages of debate before someone actually posted some of the test results. Lock that one moderators, not just because I started this one, but because this ones got the facts on the front page, post one. Not a bunch of speculative talk.[/quote] Well they could always clean the other thread and merge them. WTLW threads should die. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC GT Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 Which one's the thread with people talking about reading magazines on the crapper? That's the one that should be locked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drift Monkey Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 [quote name='SC GT']Which one's the thread with people talking about reading magazines on the crapper? That's the one that should be locked.[/quote] nevAr! that's the reason I read that thread! :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver72 Posted September 9, 2004 Author Share Posted September 9, 2004 Guys wanna get a good laugh. The guy who "prefered" the TSX in the R & T test was complimenting the rack and pinion steering of the TSX and the feedback it provides....then he goes on to say, "Torque steer is not a problem." Bahh, ha ha haaaaa. Didn't he realize there's only 166 ft-lbs of torque in the TSX? And that you have to rev it up to 4500 just to get that? Of course there's no torque steer. That was a good one Mr. Bornhop, thanks for the laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drift Monkey Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 [quote name='Driver72']Guys wanna get a good laugh. The guy who "prefered" the TSX in the R & T test was complimenting the rack and pinion steering of the TSX and the feedback it provides....then he goes on to say, "Torque steer is not a problem." Bahh, ha ha haaaaa. Didn't he realize there's only 166 ft-lbs of torque in the TSX? And that's you have to rev it up to 4500 just to get that? Of course there's no torque steer. That was a good one Mr. Bornhop, thanks for the laugh.[/quote] :lol: :lol: :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAckhouse1 Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 [quote name='Driver72']Guys wanna get a good laugh. The guy who "prefered" the TSX in the R & T test was complimenting the rack and pinion steering of the TSX and the feedback it provides....then he goes on to say, "Torque steer is not a problem." Bahh, ha ha haaaaa. Didn't he realize there's only 166 ft-lbs of torque in the TSX? And that you have to rev it up to 4500 just to get that? Of course there's no torque steer. That was a good one Mr. Bornhop, thanks for the laugh.[/quote] That is exactly what crossed my mind, when I read the article this afternoon. "Torque steer is not a problem." well no sh*t shirlock, you need torque to have torque streer.... :lol: :lol: :lol: -Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerdave Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 [quote name='devobuzz']I just don't get it - why are the skidpad number so low??? The tires can't be that bad. [/quote] The tires *are* that bad for skidpad and braking numbers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver72 Posted September 9, 2004 Author Share Posted September 9, 2004 and obviously R & T tested the skidpad on a slicker surface than did C & D. Just goes to show you that skidpad numbers are more about tires and the surface they're tested on than actual handling/suspension of the car. It also goes to show that on this more slippery surface, the FWD TSX didn't fair as well as the AWD LGT, irregardless of tires. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outahere Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 What tires are on the TSX? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drift Monkey Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 [quote name='outahere']What tires are on the TSX?[/quote] Michelin Pilot HX MXM4 I believe. On another note? What (month) issue is it you guys are reading this article from? I went to the magazine rack and flipped through the Nov. issue only to find nothing about this comparo.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.