Latest issue of Road and Track came today with a comparo of the Acura TSX and the Lagacy GT....this mag picked Subaru as the winner.

A couple stats:

Subaru 0-60 5.6
1/4 mile: 14.3 @ 96.2

Acura 0-60 7.8
1/4 mile: 15.9 @ 90.4

Latest issue of Road and Track came today with a comparo of the Acura TSX and the Lagacy GT....this mag picked Subaru as the winner.

A couple stats:

Subaru 0-60 5.6
1/4 mile: 14.3 @ 96.2

Acura 0-60 7.8
1/4 mile: 15.9 @ 90.4

Yeah, but it was very close, and I'm not talking about accelleration, but the total vehicle score. If you judge the worth of a vehicle just by 1/4 mile times, you're not getting the complete picture of what the vehicle is about. There's far more to a vehicle than just that. At least in my book there is...

The point is: The TSX and L-GT are both excellent cars. Either one could be "the" winner depending on what your priorities are.

Bob

Of course...........that's my point. Depending on the mag, driver, tests etc. the results can go either way. There is no loser here.

Yeah, but it was very close, and I'm not talking about accelleration, but the total vehicle score. If you judge the worth of a vehicle just by 1/4 mile times, you're not getting the complete picture of what the vehicle is about. There's far more to a vehicle than just that. At least in my book there is...

The point is: The TSX and L-GT are both excellent cars. Either one could be "the" winner depending on what your priorities are.

Bob

yes, but with those numbers, it would probably be more appropriate to compare the TSX to a well equipped NA legacy. And, the pricing would look pretty attractive there for the Subaru, I'd think.

yes, but with those numbers, it would probably be more appropriate to compare the TSX to a well equipped NA legacy. And, the pricing would look pretty attractive there for the Subaru, I'd think.

Actually, I think the TSX, accelleration-wise, falls in between the 2.5i and the 2.5GT. The TSX has better tires, and quicker steering than the 2.5i.

Bottom line: The TSX is a very "balanced" and very "refined" sports sedan for the money, whereas the 2.5GT impresses you most with its power.

Bob

Interesting.... Gonna have to read this one for sure.

i think it would be better to just take a day out to your local dealers and test drives the cars in person. why take someone else's opinion over your own

I'm sure the TSX is a nice car, but I'm skeptical it's as good as C&D says it is (like it was way better than the Legacy). And I would hardly classify the TSX motor as "wicked" like they did. :lol:

I'm looking forward to reading the R&T comparo, at least it doesn't seem like it was a one-sided, landslide victory for one car.

The TSX could do 9 second quarter miles and come with free parking everywhere and it would still be a ****ty front-wheel drive grocery cart. Sure, the inside is all nice and soft and makes the right sounds, kind of like the girl you bring home to meet your parents, but not satisfying when push gets to shove.

The TSX could do 9 second quarter miles and come with free parking everywhere and it would still be a ****ty front-wheel drive grocery cart. Sure, the inside is all nice and soft and makes the right sounds, kind of like the girl you bring home to meet your parents, but not satisfying when push gets to shove.

so what's the difference between that and the same car that puts a little torque to the rear wheels too?

if the TSX ran 9 second quarters, made all the right sounds and was nice inside, and handled as well as they say it does in the article, nobody would care if the spare tire was the only powered wheel.

so what's the difference between that and the same car that puts a little torque to the rear wheels too?

if the TSX ran 9 second quarters, made all the right sounds and was nice inside, and handled as well as they say it does in the article, nobody would care if the spare tire was the only powered wheel.

This is a Subie forum - you're suppose to trash FWD. Didn't you read the fine print when you signed up? :lol:

I am glad R&T has different opinions than C&D. Like I said before. Legacy has more performance than TSX.

so what's the difference between that and the same car that puts a little torque to the rear wheels too?

if the TSX ran 9 second quarters, made all the right sounds and was nice inside, and handled as well as they say it does in the article, nobody would care if the spare tire was the only powered wheel.


Its full time awd buddy. 50/50 power split. Volvo awd is mostly fwd

I scanned the article for those of you who haven't read it. Enjoy.

http://home.comcast.net/~kaisander/other/rt_leg_gt_vs_tsx_1.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~kaisander/other/rt_leg_gt_vs_tsx_2.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~kaisander/other/rt_leg_gt_vs_tsx_3.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~kaisander/other/rt_leg_gt_vs_tsx_4.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~kaisander/other/rt_leg_gt_vs_tsx_5.jpg

The Subaru auto is mostly fwd too until things start slipping when in Drive.

Wrong wheel drive TSX. Yea, I'd probably look at it if I was in the market for a car for my spoiled 16 year old daughter. That is if I was rich, and had a daughter.

Oh and btw: it's difficult to see in the scan, but the LGT they tested had 5056 miles on the clock. If you compare the 0-60, 0-100 and 1/4 miles times that R&T got vs. C&D, it pretty much refutes the idea that C&D's Legacy was still "green" and therefore under-performing.

R&T:
0-60 mph: 5.6 sec
0-100 mph: 15.5 sec
1/4 mile: 14.3@96.2

C&D:
0-60 mph: 5.7 sec
0-100 mph: 16 sec
1/4 mile: 14.2@96

If anything, it's quite likely they tested the exact same car.

The TXS is a great car. But it need a bunch more horse power (but more power will also brings more issues with the front drive plat-form.) I just hate reving the engine to 7K everytime just to get some decent acceleration, it may be fun at first but get old and tiring real fast.

The Subaru auto is mostly fwd too until things start slipping when in Drive.

Wrong wheel drive TSX. Yea, I'd probably look at it if I was in the market for a car for my spoiled 16 year old daughter. That is if I was rich, and had a daughter.
Actually the 5EAT Legacy GT has a Rear-wheel-biased torque distribution normally configured at 45/55-split front-to-rear.

I wasn't specifically talking about the GT's auto. Just responding to WRXMasters post who said Subaru's are 50/50 split and that Volvo's AWD is mostly FWD most of the time(like the majority of the auto's Subaru makes).

I heard that Honda was taking the European Accord (TSX) and out fitting with the American CRV's Real Time Four wheel drive and Next year it will OWN ALLL!!!!!!!!!! :lol:

They have that already in Japan. With a 2.0 engine putting down a voracious 155 hp to all four Real-Time driven wheels, Subaru really needs to reconsider their marketing strategy if American Honda would bring such a beast over.

The Legacy already got pWn3Zd by the new $30,000 Altima SE-R ;) and now they're about to get owned again with this thing :lol:

I heard that Honda was taking the European Accord (TSX) and out fitting with the American CRV's Real Time Four wheel drive and Next year it will OWN ALLL!!!!!!!!!! :lol:

Car and Driver rated the TSX above the Legacy GT. Their test, the order was...

4) Audi A4
3) Legacy GT
2) Volvo S50 (or whatever it was...S somthin')
1) TSX

TSX won out on refinement - they actually mentioned that it was sort of nice that the TSX wasn't as fast as the others because then you got to hear the pleasent sound of the engine. :/

I wasn't specifically talking about the GT's auto. Just responding to WRXMasters post who said Subaru's are 50/50 split and that Volvo's AWD is mostly FWD most of the time(like the majority of the auto's Subaru makes).


Subaru all wheel drive is a full time all wheel drive. Even though most of automatic split more torque to the front wheel, the rear wheels are still driven. That is why subaru is different honda crv or volvo. Volvo s40 T5 awd is a front wheel drive until the front wheel turns 15 degrees faster than the rear wheel... Cheers.




:)

I wasn't specifically talking about the GT's auto. Just responding to WRXMasters post who said Subaru's are 50/50 split and that Volvo's AWD is mostly FWD most of the time(like the majority of the auto's Subaru makes).


I was talking about Gt with a stick................. the car they tested had a stick. The auto is rearwheel drive bias.

In the grand scheme of things, for sporty cars of any sort, RWD > AWD > FWD. I find it hard to believe any true car fan would disagree. And if you ever have to factor in snow/mud/heavy rain, AWD is equal to if not better than RWD.

Not to automatically knock FWD, but there just not as fun.

that in *tiny fine print* that the Volvo was a Euro-spec model, with some options not available to US-spec models?

Bob

In the grand scheme of things, for sporty cars of any sort, RWD > AWD > FWD. I find it hard to believe any true car fan would disagree. And I find it hard to believe that any true car fan can still believe that in general RWD > AWD. Besides the point that a blanket statement like this is just plain misleading, perhaps you haven't been watching much in the way of motor sports lately. For instance the AWD cars in the Touring series being imposed weight penalties because they were too competitive. Or AWD being banned outright in other road sports because it makes the cars "too fast" (for example F1, and possibly INDY as well). Or BMW threatening to void the warrantees of owners in South Africa for racing in a challenge with a WRX club to the rights of “fastest production sedan in the world” (BMW had claimed this honour in a TV commercial). And all this was more than a few years ago with AWD not as advances as it is today!

[QUOTE=brandon]And I find it hard to believe that any true car fan can still believe that in general RWD > AWD. [QUOTE]

I was speaking more towards "fun to drive" than pure performance. Also, as far as street cars go, the most desirable ones are still RWD.

[QUOTE=brandon]And I find it hard to believe that any true car fan can still believe that in general RWD > AWD. [QUOTE]

I was speaking more towards "fun to drive" than pure performance. Also, as far as street cars go, the most desirable ones are still RWD.

Um...

Porsche 911series Turbo >> AWD
Lambrogini Diablo >> AWD
Nissan Skyline >> AWD

plus our Subarus, Misubishis, all the GM specials (Typhoon etc.) etc., etc., etc.

Of all the cars I've ever driven, my 2.5RS was one of the MOST fun. And that includes Nissan 240s, BMWs, Miatas, Corvettes, a 911 (RWD), Mercur XR4ti and others I've just plain forgotten. Although my ultimate comparison will have to wait until I finish the restoration of my Lotus Elan. I understand that will be hard to beat "fun" wise.

Sorry for the diversion, now back on topic.

Um...

Porsche 911series Turbo >> AWD
Lambrogini Diablo >> AWD
Nissan Skyline >> AWD


Yet the GT2 is RWD, Lamborghini takes a back seat to Ferrari, and for every AWD Skyline that made it to America, 100 Supras and RX-7s came too. ;)

Don't get me wrong, I prefer AWD cars, and there's a clear trend towards making more cars (and more sports cars) AWD, but until cars start hovering, I think most sports cars will be RWD.

But back on topic, let's all agree FWD is the worst :lol:

I won't dissagree that FWD is the worst.. but it's not as bad as it's often made out to be.

Even Lotus made a FWD sportscar... it was the public that decided FWD wasn't Lotus-worthy.

While there are some obvious limitations to a FWD's dynamics as power output increases, most street cars do not have sufficient power to render FWD as the worst choice.

In dirt rally, the order is usually: AWD > FWD > RWD
------------------

That article just shows that today is a good day to be in the market for a new sport sedan. I believe both vehicles got good representation and hopefully Acura buyers will give Subarus a second thought.

In the grand scheme of things, for sporty cars of any sort, RWD > AWD > FWD. I find it hard to believe any true car fan would disagree. And if you ever have to factor in snow/mud/heavy rain, AWD is equal to if not better than RWD.



Sorry to disagree, but I think it should be AWD > RWD > FWD.
Especially when the computer can shift the all the power to any wheel
at any time to address any situition! RWD is just a subset of AWD! :D

I won't dissagree that FWD is the worst.. but it's not as bad as it's often made out to be.


Yeah, not all FWD are made to be equal... just like not AWD are... blah blah blah. Some stock FWD sports cars are tuned with a touch of oversteer at certain situation to counter the understeering effects. With the correct driving technique, FWD can be fun too.

Back on topic, the TSX's tires are just as bad as (if not worse) than what's on the L-GT... It is frustrating that tires are the limiting factors in comparison tests but I agree that they should be tested on them...

Back on topic, the TSX's tires are just as bad as (if not worse) than what’s on the L-GT... It is frustrating that tires are the limiting factors in comparison tests but I agree that they should be tested on them...

I'm not so sure. Though I agree with the idea that most drivers will never swap tires merely for performance, I think there is just cause to swap tires when "performance testing" vehicles for comparison.

There are a number of reasons to do same-tire testing, and its acceptance is shown primarily in the various motorcycle magazines when they run their "sportbike shootout" comparisons *only* after all the bikes are fitted with the same tires (or at least the same tire type and compound where the exact tire can't be fitted eg: 180/55 for bike #1, 190/55 for bike #2 due to rim variations).

The argument is that tires *are* a major component in performance tests (as they are truly the only thing in contact with the road) and by equaling them to the same standard you get a truer picture of the vehicle’s overall performance characteristics. A car is free of poor-quality OEM tire limitations and can give a more accurate picture of what it can “really do” given its stock suspension arrangement and chassis design, etc.

The cost to the magazines for swapping on a set of matched tires is negligible to their bottom line profit (even if they had to pay for it themselves, which is unlikely since they could probably get manufacturers to simply donate their tires for the test as a means to show off their latest tire technology) yet the information would be very valuable to many of their “enthusiast” readers.

As to page space, all they’d need as an extra column of results within their existing tables, and if they cut some of the style in the presentation of information, it’d all fit in the same they already dedicate to their results.

And if the great auto journalists can’t swap out a set of tires between tests, should they really have their jobs? I’m sure there’s any number of readers who’d be more than willing to replace them, tire-swapping duties included… ;)

perhaps it is a good idea to have results for OEM tires AND aftermarket tires just for comparison purpose.

fully agree with the tire issue. Test on the stock tires and then on the same tires.

Back on topic, the TSX's tires are just as bad as (if not worse) than what's on the L-GT... It is frustrating that tires are the limiting factors in comparison tests but I agree that they should be tested on them...

They pretty much say the TSX tires are crap, and the LGTs are better in the R&T article.

mostly FWD most of the time(like the majority of the auto's Subaru makes).
Not anymore. Many of the autos are now 45f/65r initial split, it depends on the type, standard 4EAT vs. vs 4EAT Sportshift vs. 5EAT (sportshift) vs. VDC 4EAT vs. VDC 5EAT vs. VTD type (WRX).

They have that already in Japan. With a 2.0 engine putting down a voracious 155 hp to all four Real-Time driven wheels, Subaru really needs to reconsider their marketing strategy if American Honda would bring such a beast over.

The Legacy already got pWn3Zd by the new $30,000 Altima SE-R ;) and now they're about to get owned again with this thing :lol:

How so? CRV's real-time AWD is the worst AWD system ever. Even Honda doesn't want to use it in its MDX/Pilot. Any AWD can do better than a simple relay switch that connects/dis-connects rear axle to the drive train AFTER wheels slipped, or so called real-time AWD by Honda. :D

Even Kia picked CRV to show off its Sportage's traditional 4WD in its commercials a few years back -- the stucked CRV driver says in the commerical: don't worry, it happens a lot. :D

actually R&T tested the TSX w/ Navigation (this is $2K more than the standard model). Frankly the prices they list are misleading, since the price as tested (w/o nav) would be around $27,035 or so.

one thing that I think that the performance does sway is sales 5-10 years from now.

I know that when I was a kid and looked at the latest car magazines and their test/compairs, the first thing I did was skip to the datasheets, look to see fwd, rwd, power, 1/4 mile, gears etc, that stuff facinated me, and it definately pushed me to like cirtain marques over others.

as I grew up, I started to appreciate other things (economy, quality, etc) but that bud always sat in the back of my mind, power. it definately made me like one over another, and to this day I always will like cirtain brands over others, based on those compairisons of days gone by.

I know that right now, some kid is flipping over this article, looking at the numbers, and not the quality of the stock tires, and in their mental image of importance the subaru label gets one more step up on the ladder above acura.

when the time comes for them to shop for a car, they will look at the two cars and see that they are very compairable, but will invariably, because of this youthful predisposition, choose the subaru and not really know why.

They pretty much say the TSX tires are crap, and the LGTs are better in the R&T article.

Yeah, while I wasn't a big fan of my stock RE92s, theose were 205-55 16s, and and the ones they have on the LGT are 215-45 ZR 17s which are probably still better than the ones I had. While it'd be great to see every car reviewed on the same tire, I don't know if that's fair, after all aren't the cars designed around the tires, as a package, based on target price and performance level? I mean its not the same as testing them all on the same shocks or something crazy like that, but still, as a consumer, I'd be more interested in how they compare straight out the dealer lot. bone stock.

I just posted my own version of this finding. Didn't see your thread.

With any luck the Mods can just join' em or something. :D

How so? CRV's real-time AWD is the worst AWD system ever. Even Honda doesn't want to use it in its MDX/Pilot. Any AWD can do better than a simple relay switch that connects/dis-connects rear axle to the drive train AFTER wheels slipped, or so called real-time AWD by Honda. :D



Yes but to Honda's credit, RealTime's been around since the '80s. At the time, it was pretty good. My father had an '88 Civic RealTime 4WD wagon with basically the same system. I bought it after I graduated from college. Great car (until I got rear-ended by a daft old lady and she totalled it).


But then again....


Honda's been using it since the '80s. :confused:

I believe the Real Time 4WD on your Civic used a viscous coupling.

Honda kept the name, but went to a different mechanism with the CR-V. The CR-V uses a hydraulic clutch to engage the rear wheels after the front wheels slip some amount.

Ken

Could be right about the Civic, I'm not sure. You are right about the CR-V, though.

That Civic was a damned good car. I really miss it a lot. Slow as snot compared to the '94 Integra RS that came after it (which in turn wasn't as nice as my Impreza :) ), but hey.... It was in spectacular condition, and there's a really good chance I'd still own it today, if it wasn't wrecked the way it was.


In hindsight, I wish I'd bought the totaled car from the insurance company. The rear end got very scrunched, but I think it was fixable.