Quote:
Originally posted by UberRoo
Yes, I am saying that the FWD SVX fits into the same category as all other FWD cars. I cannot fathom buying one. If you're using it to commute daily, it's not the most fuel-efficient choice of vehicle, but it'll do the job. Just don't get any ideas about it being a performance vehicle. It will exhibit horrendous understeer under throttle, will not have the self-correcting oversteer abilities of the AWD version, and will have a slower start off the line - especially if you decide to do any engine work. I'm also rather conspicuously omitting any deficiencies that would be noticed in adverse traction conditions.
I do not understand why anyone would buy a FWD SVX only because I do not understand why the FWD version is better than the AWD version. We could quibble about fractions of a mile per gallon, or tenths of a second in the quarter mile, but the difference is negligible. I suppose some people are attracted to the car for reasons other than performance, and it does have other attractive features. Saving a few bucks by foregoing the AWD would appeal to the non-performance group, but it seems silly to spend serious money on such an expensive car and then get cheap on the one feature that really makes it better than most other cars.
I do understand that performance just doesn't appeal to some of us. That's the FWD group. Most FWD owners are content with some other brand of car, which is precisely why Subaru caters to people who are not content with FWD. You'll notice that Subaru also doesn't understand the appeal of FWD, as they no longer offer FWD as an option.
Regarding the introduction of FWD as a feature to reduce weight and increase interior space, I partly agree. At first, and possibly still today, they cost considerably more to produce than a RWD car. I believe the weight and space savings were significant factors, but there must have been a great number of other factors involved to facilitate the introduction of FWD. And yes, having weight over the front wheels does help with traction on those slippery days. It just works very unfavorably in more favorable weather. (Center of mass, inertia, balance shift, tire loading and all that.) Subaru has been producing some extremely neutral handling cars. The AWD SVX is not their finest work in that category, but the FWD version is a strong candidate for their worst example of neutral balance.
I'm comfortable contradicting myself. ...just so long as nobody notices. 
|
I guess I have to respond to the implication that there are no real "performance" FWD cars worth having. Others have mentioned the great little CRX - definitely a performance (the SI version) FWD car that does really well in autocross or on road course tracks. The same for the old (and now the "new") Mini-Cooper. And don't forget the (now discontinued) Ford Focus SVT. Regarding the latter, my son runs one (a 2002 model) at autocross with me in the '97 SVX (AWD). Both of us are in G Stock, and he "usually" beats me - last week, by a second (50 to 51 sec runs). Of course, I am getting a bit "long in the tooth" and my reflexs aren't what they used to be
- that's my story, and I'm sticking to it! And my "first SVX" was a '94 SVX, which I also autocrossed - and regularly beat my son in his '96 Firebird (considering SCCA indexing between classes). I firmly believe that the '94 FWD SVX autocrossed better than my current AWD SVX (except in the wet
). And yes, Subaru went to all AWD and no longer sells FWD cars - seems to me this was as much a "marketing" thing as anything else. It has certainly made Subaru unique in the automotive world, hasn't it?
So I guess my point is: as a general rule, yes, the average FWD car is a pretty poor performance choice, but a generalization like that does not hold water across the board (the same is true of the average RWD car too) - all one has to do is look at the results of SCCA autocrossing at the national level. Those boys (and girls) are going to run what will win, and they aren't all running RWD or AWD, are they?
Harry