Finally Test Drove A Legacy GT - NOT IMPRESSED

[dolesun]

I actually was waiting for the Mazdaspeed 6 to come out before I made my final decision. However, the fact that production of the vehicle was pushed back from April to May to June....to whenever the hell it is going to come out now made me nervous. What kind of issues are they having to make them push the release of the back 6-7 months, ridiculous I tell you. Plus, reading the early reviews on the vehicle, noting the price (lots of extra crap that I don't need, which is why I got the unlimited LGT), noting the fake wheel drive, weight, performance, it just seemed like I would have been waiting for a disappointment. Knowing that Subaru has been turbocharging for quite some time, and their build quality I pulled the trigger. I know that Mazda has turboed in the past, but nothing recently. My sister also has a mazda 6 since it was introduced into the market, so I can see how that car has held up after 2 years. She doesn't drive it hard, but the interior is just going to pieces, I knew similar build quality would be present in the MS6. So, yes, I will go test drive it, arriving at the dealership in my LGT, and I will probably be grinning on my drive back home.

 

 

Maybe they are having issues with a top mount I/C without a scoop.

 

http://www.fast-autos.net/mazda/speed611.jpg

[stewthebassman]

Hogmeat, I found the steering heavy too (especially coming from a 325i), but I jacked up my tire pressures to 44-42, and it is much better now. Also, you get used to using the throttle to aid the steering in tight and slow spots (and everywhere else, really).

 

And the steering wheel mounted thumbshifters are a blast too!

 

Great thread everybody!

[IwannaSportSedan]

Trying to re-direct flow like that seems troublesome at best. Air goes in above the split in the grille, and is ducted by the underside of the hood, to a top mount intercooler over the engine, where the airflow has to make a 90-degree turn and go through the intercooler core.

 

At least the Subaru design takes laminar flow from the topside of the hood (where there is a bit of air pressure an velocity, and bends it down through the intercooler directly.

 

With the huge maw on the front of the mazda, one would think they would have just put a FMIC on it. They did on the Mazdaspeed Miata. It is about the size of a postage stamp, but it is technically a FMIC.

 

I have always wondered why they didn't try to fit a few more circular lenses into those headlights, while they were at it.

[TSiWRX]

I honestly like the look of the current Mazda 6s.

 

The MazdaSpeed 6 just looks - to me - either pregnant or simply fat.

 

And not fat in the right places, either!

[psucaptainkickass]

suckas

[Mr. CentralOhioSubarus]

Mazda Speed 6 is too heavy....

[Beanboy]

MS6 is gonna be faster...but not as fast as the SRT-4.

[Mblock66]

MS6 is gonna be faster...but not as fast as the SRT-4.

 

I think the MS6 will be = to LGT not faster. There isn't enough extra power for the extra weight to be much faster if any. But the SRT4 on the otherhand pffft forgetaboutit.....that thing is breaking land speed records

[psucaptainkickass]

hmmm....probably not:

http://modernracer.com/mazdaspeed6.html

[Mblock66]

Well I think that 6.2 0-60 is conservative and probably not a high RPM launch. I am sure that if you dump at 5k it is like 5.5 0-60

[tantal]

I've driven all of these cars, and the haldex performance is not as good as my 98 quattro, or the subaru (even my 95). It is a fwd car until you need torque to the rears. The weakness of the GT is in the suspension and tires, easily fixed.

 

Subarus are fwd platform - the platform was designed for fwd cars, awd used to be an option in the US. Even the wagon has a 55/45 distribution at best, and while it's far better tahn the new fat A4 (60/40), and slightly better than our B5 A4's (57/43), it's not as good as teh 50/50 of the RX8 or 330.

 

It's all personal preference and how you interact with your car. I thought my 98 A4 handled every bit as good as a 323 of the time, until I bought my miata and drove it for a few months. Now, while I still prefer the A4 over the 323, it's unquestionable to me that the 3 series is a better handling car.

 

Drive what you love

 

Huh? The Mazdaspeed 6 is going to be Haldex like a TT or a Volvo. I've driven Haldex equipped cars like a TT and an S60r. I'd suggest you drive them before passing judgement.

 

As for Subaru platform being FWD, what makes it so? I can only think of one thing and that's that the engine hangs in front of the front axle. The EVO is a FWD platform and nobody can fault it for its handling.

[pdw]

Well I think that 6.2 0-60 is conservative and probably not a high RPM launch. I am sure that if you dump at 5k it is like 5.5 0-60

 

I'd wait to drive it before I assumed anything. They rate it at 270hp but that doesn't mean it really has that much. Similarly, Subaru seems to underrate the LGT.

[hogmeat]

thought you all might appriciate this:

 

 

Grand Prix GTP CompG vs a Legacy GT 5sp; this time, from the GTP owner's perspective!!!

 

http://www.clubgp.com/newforum/tm.asp?m=2433612&appid=30&p=&mpage=1&key=&language=&tmode=&smode=&s=#2436846

 

 

Cliff notes: Legacy GT beats/ties with modded CompG.

 

 

Now I'm all but convinced that the 5spd LGT is much faster than my GTP....grrrr...I gotta test drive one soon....

[eles1]

thought you all might appriciate this:

 

 

Grand Prix GTP CompG vs a Legacy GT 5sp; this time, from the GTP owner's perspective!!!

 

http://www.clubgp.com/newforum/tm.asp?m=2433612&appid=30&p=&mpage=1&key=&language=&tmode=&smode=&s=#2436846

 

 

Cliff notes: Legacy GT beats/ties with modded CompG.

 

 

Now I'm all but convinced that the 5spd LGT is much faster than my GTP....grrrr...I gotta test drive one soon....

 

Meh - sounds about right. I would think with that trap speed the GTP should have pulled at least a little on the big end - 3.4" pulley is a pretty effective mod for those cars (as you well know). However, I'm also surprised the race from dig wasn't a little worse for the GTP. The LGT has a serious gearing advantage + AWD, of course.

 

The best published 1/4 I've ever seen for a stock LGT was 13.95 @ 97.5 mph by Autoweek. That was a 5mt but it was also a limited, about 50 lbs. heavier than an unlimited LGT.

[IwannaSportSedan]

Subarus used to be FWD, with some AWD, and perhaps some of their japanese market micro-cars are still FWD.

 

Their main-line cars are pretty much all designed to be AWD only now. Impreza, Legacy/Outback, and B9, and even the older XT and SVX coupes are all designed from the ground up for AWD.

 

Subaru cars might be able to handle FWD by simply leaving off the aft section of the drivetrain. But most FWD cars are transverse engine with a transaxle along the side (usually the back side) of the engine block, all very closely packed above the front axle line. The tall inline engine transversely mounted "over" a transaxle usually results in a higher center of gravity, and one half-shaft being longer than the other, and that setup generating torque-steer, and understeer characteristics.

 

Subaru would be one of the very few FWD cars with a longitudinal engine arrangement, if they so equipped their cars, which they dont, for the most part. The Audi A4 (maybe A6) would be the only others I know of, if they were not equipped with Quattro AWD, which is possible to buy.

 

Subaru avoids most of that with a flat boxer engine arrangment, and a longitudinal transmission, with equal-length half shafts to the front wheels. The drivetrain sits lower, and the weight of the transmission is behind the front axle, while the engine is over and ahead of the front axle line. Even if one did remove the rear drive, it would probably be a pretty decent FWD car. Thankfully they don't, because AWD is better.

[pdw]

Exactly. The A4, A6 and Passat (all basically the same platform) all have longitudinal engines. The reason for this is similar to Subaru in that they're all designed for AWD. They sell FWD versions because their main market (Europe) demands it.

 

Besides, execution matters alot. The Porsche 911's layout is really pretty bad but I'm willing to bet most people here would love to own one because Porsche engineers make it work well.

[ShadowImg]

I don't understand how anyone wanting a performance car is interested in a turbo motor with an auto transmission. It's just a terrible combination, and highlights all of the weaknesses of a turbo and an automatic, and none of the strengths of either one.

 

Uh, what? You mean like the fact you don't lose boost between gears? Or perhaps how with the right torque converter you don't engage the driveline until you're into peak boost? An automatic is a beautiful companion to a turbo. It's all in how the auto is built and the tcu behaves.

 

That said, production automatics are tuned more to commuting, not to racing. Your statements are horrible, though.

[tantal]

You said it yourself - if you want an auto, it's because you're commuting, the car's an appliance. I love to drive, I look for longer twister routes to work. driving an automatic is like being a passenger. You can't get the response control out of a turbo with an automatic. A lot of the arguments in favor of the auto say things like you do below - dont lose boost between shifts LOL man, how often are you accelerating for a significant time period? Have you ever driven a manual? Say your doing 40 in top gear cruising behind a slow guy and suddenly you have your oppy to pass? Man in my manual car I'll be even with the guy before you've even got boost. clutch out, rev, clutch in lower gear, Im gone before you have a chance to say "is the boost ready yet dear?"

 

Drive a manual before you say my statements are horrbile and boast about a 5 sec 0-60 like some other guy. Who gives a shit about 0-60 in a road car? It's all about being able to flip the switch for the best acceleration your car can give you under the conditions. It takes knowledge and skill for that. meanwhile you're drinking your latte letting the car develop the skill.

 

Uh, what? You mean like the fact you don't lose boost between gears? Or perhaps how with the right torque converter you don't engage the driveline until you're into peak boost? An automatic is a beautiful companion to a turbo. It's all in how the auto is built and the tcu behaves.

 

That said, production automatics are tuned more to commuting, not to racing. Your statements are horrible, though.

[tantal]

Yea, you said it the way I should have said it. My whine is about the weight dist. The legacy might as well be a fwd car given it's weight distribution. They need to move those front wheels forward. However, the platform is still fwd. Like you said they could leave out the rear drive and still have a good car. I'm convinced, actually, that their current cars are designed with exactly that contingency in mind, in case times get tough and they should cut costs.

 

Actually, out here in the middle of nowhere albuquerque, my dealer said they wish they had the fwd impreza to compete against the cheaper imports, and they'd double their volumes selling cars to ppl who dont give a rat's about performance (i.e, 99% of american drivers) LOL

 

Subarus used to be FWD, with some AWD, and perhaps some of their japanese market micro-cars are still FWD.

 

Their main-line cars are pretty much all designed to be AWD only now. Impreza, Legacy/Outback, and B9, and even the older XT and SVX coupes are all designed from the ground up for AWD.

 

Subaru cars might be able to handle FWD by simply leaving off the aft section of the drivetrain. But most FWD cars are transverse engine with a transaxle along the side (usually the back side) of the engine block, all very closely packed above the front axle line. The tall inline engine transversely mounted "over" a transaxle usually results in a higher center of gravity, and one half-shaft being longer than the other, and that setup generating torque-steer, and understeer characteristics.

 

Subaru would be one of the very few FWD cars with a longitudinal engine arrangement, if they so equipped their cars, which they dont, for the most part. The Audi A4 (maybe A6) would be the only others I know of, if they were not equipped with Quattro AWD, which is possible to buy.

 

Subaru avoids most of that with a flat boxer engine arrangment, and a longitudinal transmission, with equal-length half shafts to the front wheels. The drivetrain sits lower, and the weight of the transmission is behind the front axle, while the engine is over and ahead of the front axle line. Even if one did remove the rear drive, it would probably be a pretty decent FWD car. Thankfully they don't, because AWD is better.

[ShadowImg]

You said it yourself - if you want an auto, it's because you're commuting, the car's an appliance. I love to drive, I look for longer twister routes to work. driving an automatic is like being a passenger. You can't get the response control out of a turbo with an automatic. A lot of the arguments in favor of the auto say things like you do below - dont lose boost between shifts LOL man, how often are you accelerating for a significant time period? Have you ever driven a manual? Say your doing 40 in top gear cruising behind a slow guy and suddenly you have your oppy to pass? Man in my manual car I'll be even with the guy before you've even got boost. clutch out, rev, clutch in lower gear, Im gone before you have a chance to say "is the boost ready yet dear?"

 

Drive a manual before you say my statements are horrbile and boast about a 5 sec 0-60 like some other guy. Who gives a shit about 0-60 in a road car? It's all about being able to flip the switch for the best acceleration your car can give you under the conditions. It takes knowledge and skill for that. meanwhile you're drinking your latte letting the car develop the skill.

 

I actually drive both. How often are you accelerating for a significant period of time? Often if you drive in traffic. Top gear cruising behind a slow guy and suddenly you have your oppy to pass? Man in an auto car you push down on the gas, it down shifts, and you're so high on the boost you don't have time to say "is the boost".

 

I definitely won't argue that a manual is the faster of the two -- i'm not foolish. I'm simply stating that your argument of an automatic transmission not mating up well with a turbo is bogus and ignorant. Go talk to Jorge (RiftsWRX) on nasioc and ask him about autos and boost. I believe he's running 12.xx with a 4EAT WRX. Let me know when your 5MT LGT is doing that.

 

The point is, to get performance results, you must know how to drive either transmission. The person who thinks an automatic is just pushing the pedal to the floor all the time is a fool. The person who thinks an automatic is as efficient as a manual is also a fool.

 

There are many subtleties to either transmission. Controlling your engine speed with either one takes knowledge and experience. An auto's engine speed can be controlled 98% of as well as a manual -- i'll give you 2% for the sake of argument. The auto definitely has more drivetrain loss, it slows you down. That's a given. An automatic in a turbo has a *definite* advantage of holding boost between shifts during acceleration. This phenomenon actually works quite well in downshifting as well, you just have to learn to control it.

[richip]

I don't understand how anyone wanting a performance car is interested in a turbo motor with an auto transmission. It's just a terrible combination, and highlights all of the weaknesses of a turbo and an automatic, and none of the strengths of either one. I hate automatics, but a turbo automatic, well, I just can't understand buying one if you like a responsive car.

Uh, what? You mean like the fact you don't lose boost between gears? Or perhaps how with the right torque converter you don't engage the driveline until you're into peak boost? An automatic is a beautiful companion to a turbo. It's all in how the auto is built and the tcu behaves.

 

That said, production automatics are tuned more to commuting, not to racing. Your statements are horrible, though.

Drive a manual before you say my statements are horrbile and boast about a 5 sec 0-60 like some other guy. Who gives a shit about 0-60 in a road car? It's all about being able to flip the switch for the best acceleration your car can give you under the conditions. It takes knowledge and skill for that. meanwhile you're drinking your latte letting the car develop the skill.

I have to agree with ShadowImg and say tantal's statement is fallacious. To say that automatics will always mean slower, less efficient or less optimal than manual driving may not always be true. It may be true in the stock Legacy's case, but it may not be true with other transmissions or future replacements for it. It's quite possible that in the future, on-board computers will be able to determine based on all the inputs from the car that computer has what the optimal gear selection is. Couple that with a quick-shift system or even Audi's Direct Shift Gearbox (DSG) and a computer's lightning-quick capacity to analyze the situation, and you've an automatic that's better than manual. (Personally, I still prefer a high-performance, computer-controlled CVT.)

 

Remember the days when computers couldn't beat human grandmasters? Things won't always be like that.

 

Perhaps a little clarification would improve tantal's statement.

[Mblock66]

Well said ShadowImg....

 

By the time you do all your rev matching and all that on the highway the auto can be probably higher in boost. It shifts FAST on downshifts. It is an upshift lag that takes timing.

 

MT is faster, no argument, but thinking that you can walk an auto all day long blah blah blah is ignorance too.

 

People buy what they want. If they regret their choice well then take the hit and sell and buy the trans you want.

[IwannaSportSedan]

People do buy what they want, until it isn't available.

 

A torque converter is still a torque converter, and an automatic shifter is not an H-gate. And a computer is not a human brain, even if it is faster.

 

An automatic may not be as slow as they once were, but "as fast" doesn't mean same.

 

The thing of it is, that automatics are getting better *at the expense of manual transmissions* and that is not right.

Case-in-point: 2006 Legacy GT Wagon. No Manual, but sedan and OBXT wagon get it...

Second Case: Chrysler LX platform. HemiC/RT and SRT cars, not a manual available anywhere. I am sure there are many more examples.

 

Luckily Audi has been working on things like DSG, BMW with their SMG, Ferrari F1, and Lambo's E-gear. Porsche's version of DSG is likely being put into the upcoming 997 Turbo, and theoretically across the lineup. That will be nice.

 

But none of those cars are any more affordable than a loaded TT 3.2. Cars in John Q. Public's normal realm are loosing manual transmissions to the point that they are getting very rare in anything besides a live-axle Mustang, roadsters like the Miata, Sport Compact tuner-mobile, or econo-miser.

[tantal]

Um, I'm running a stock car, not shooting for a drag racing trophy, like I said many times. A manual is more controllable under any conditions than an auto coupled to the same engine. I dont give a shit what some guy modded his car to to go faster - I'm talking about the transmission. Who gives a rat's about Jorge's car? so what. I'd rather drive my slowass 95 legacy than the fastest rice rocket you can find on the net with an auto trans.

 

WTF, anyway, I've said many times I'm not trying to convert anyone, to each his own, and all that, and you guys tell me about doing 0-60 runs and quarter miles compared to some dude's car, i mean, wtf, I guess your dad can kick my dad's ass too, huh?

 

Also, anyone who doesn't know how to keep boost up in his MT car shifting gears has no idea how to drive the car, again, wtf.

 

We're talking about personal preferences, I love to drive, not be a passenger. If driving doesn't get your rocks off like it does me, that's cool, i'm not putting you down. I don't give a rat's. I drive quickly and with as much finesse as I can most of the time. I enjoy controlling the car, and I don't care what the engine is, I want the manual. Don't care what you want.

 

I was answering the original post, which pointed out what a dog this car is with an auto. So is the A6 turbo with an auto. Under almost all conditions, when you want to get acceleration, the manual will be faster. don't tell me the auto's downshift is going to build boost faster than clutching the manual - it can't, it wont rev up until its in the lower gear. A good driver driving the manual will build revs prior to gear engagement, and the boost will already be there. I don't care if you don't understand this. If you really want to get the car to respond, you build revs above where you need them to be, and you will have more boost up to the max at that point.

 

Again, I'm not putting you down if you like your auto, but you're telling me the auto is faster/better/whatever, and if in your hands, the auto is equal to or better than the manual in performance (uh, with the same motor, not yer unlces modded so and so), then, um, you suck driving a manual.

 

 

 

Go talk to Jorge (RiftsWRX) on nasioc and ask him about autos and boost. I believe he's running 12.xx with a 4EAT WRX. Let me know when your 5MT LGT is doing that.

[tantal]

Oh, come on, now we're not talking about legacys, and better, we're talking about what might be in the future? wtf, who cares?

 

like I said, I don't car if I'm a lot slower than you, I'm driving the manual because its fun. enjoy your stupid 1/4 mi times, I'm looking for curves. My miata is my favorite car, and it's slow as shit compared to my A4 and GT. Why cant you guys understand that? I never said you should be like me, but you're telling me how I should kiss your automatic ass.

 

Sorry if I pissed you guys off, I'm done.

 

I have to agree with ShadowImg and say tantal's statement is fallacious. To say that automatics will always mean slower, less efficient or less optimal than manual driving may not always be true. It may be true in the stock Legacy's case, but it may not be true with other transmissions or future replacements for it. It's quite possible that in the future, on-board computers will be able to determine based on all the inputs from the car that computer has what the optimal gear selection is. Couple that with a quick-shift system or even Audi's Direct Shift Gearbox (DSG) and a computer's lightning-quick capacity to analyze the situation, and you've an automatic that's better than manual. (Personally, I still prefer a high-performance, computer-controlled CVT.)

 

Remember the days when computers couldn't beat human grandmasters? Things won't always be like that.

 

Perhaps a little clarification would improve tantal's statement.