Consumer Reports 1992 Test of the SVX!

EveryShadeofBlue · #1 08-11-2004, 07:45 AM

I don't know if it's been posted on here before (I've never seen it) but I actually found the September 1992 Consumer Reports magazine that pits the SVX against the Corvette, RX-7 and 300ZX. It's not exactly a positive article and it really predicts the failure of the car in the fact that it did not fit into any single category. As usual, it's also a pretty emotionless review but interesting none the less.

I have put the aritcle in my Locker as it was too big to attach. I viewed it at 158% to read it best.

http://www.subaru-svx.net/photos/fil...Blue/20002.pdf

Jeff

dcarrb · #2 08-11-2004, 08:36 AM

Interesting that they placed the SVX in this category based on Subaru's marketing it as a "sports" car. Pretty much as I remembered; not a bad review at all. But shouldn't 0-60 acceleration be more in the 7-second realm?

dcb

Guard-TL- · #3 08-11-2004, 09:51 AM

And 16.7 for the 1/4 mile........they sure went easy on it. Also they used "man" as short for manual.

Chiketkd · #4 08-11-2004, 09:55 AM

Honestly, Consumer Reports wouldn't have the most aggressive road test staff out there. Heck, they only got a 0-60 of 6.3 and a 1/4 of 14.9 for a Stealth RT/TT!!! Other mags have gotten times over 1 sec faster for stock Stealths.

I bet they just launched the SVX in a way that was easy on the drivetrain. The trap speed of 85mph is also the lowest I've ever seen in a mag test of an SVX (Road & Track got a 15.4 @ 92.5 in their test of a '92)

-Chike

P.S. Nice article btw. I've never read it before.

Quote:

Originally posted by dcarrb
Pretty much as I remembered; not a bad review at all. But shouldn't 0-60 acceleration be more in the 7-second realm?

dcarrb · #5 08-11-2004, 10:02 AM

And to parallel the "Bumped" thread, I smiled when I noticed that the Consumer Reports "bumper basher" inflicted no damage on the SVX.

dcb

Aredubjay · #6 08-11-2004, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by EveryShadeofBlue
It's not exactly a positive article and it really predicts the failure of the car in the fact that it did not fit into any single category.

Jeff

Yes, therein lies the plight of the SVX. Not a sports car . . . not a luxury car . . . not a family sedan. All in all, to compare the SVX with those cars was a totally unfair comparison. If they wanted to compare, they should've compared with a Lexus SC300 (the car the SVX was originally designed to compete with). One has to wonder why the SC wasn't included in the comparison. I won't even acknowledge the base insult of, "A couple of competent and far less expensive alternatives to the SVX are the Honda Prelude and Toyota Celica." <shudder>

dcarrb · #7 08-11-2004, 10:40 AM

At least they said "competent" and not comparable.

dcb

EveryShadeofBlue · #8 08-11-2004, 11:26 AM

Randy,

Good points. I think the reason the SVX was included here was because of Subaru. In the article it states that "Subaru is marketing the SVX as a sports car." Therein lies the fatal flaw...Subarus botched marketing. I know there's a book on this, I haven't read it. The SVX was a royal disaster for those in the Subaru marketing dept.

If Subaru wants to call it a sports car, I think CR was like "Ok, let's pit it against some sports cars!"

Jeff

Chiketkd · #9 08-11-2004, 11:41 AM

full-body-shudder!

-Chike

Quote:

Originally posted by Aredubjay
"A couple of competent and far less expensive alternatives to the SVX are the Honda Prelude and Toyota Celica." <shudder>

Aredubjay · #10 08-11-2004, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chiketkd
full-body-shudder!

-Chike

I would have gone into an acute myocardial infarction if they'd mentioned the N**N.

Shadow248 · #11 08-11-2004, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chiketkd
Honestly, Consumer Reports wouldn't have the most aggressive road test staff out there. Heck, they only got a 0-60 of 6.3 and a 1/4 of 14.9 for a Stealth RT/TT!!! Other mags have gotten times over 1 sec faster for stock Stealths.

I bet they just launched the SVX in a way that was easy on the drivetrain. The trap speed of 85mph is also the lowest I've ever seen in a mag test of an SVX (Road & Track got a 15.4 @ 92.5 in their test of a '92)

-Chike

P.S. Nice article btw. I've never read it before.

I think CR doesn't try to get optimum numbers. It seems to me like they run the vehicle the way any average joe would. Mags like Car & Driver and Road & track...etc...do full out drag launches to get their 0-60 and 1/4mile numbers. I noticed the Corvette in that test got the slowest times i've seen for that model and year. I've seen anything from 5.5 secs to 4.8 for my WS6. In a full-out launch, i've done 4.9 by radar. If I walk the car off the line, I average about 5.3. Problem is, cars will only take so much of that kind of abuse, which one of the reasons (probably) that CR doesn't do it that way. Good thing they didn't test the 92 ZR1.

Chiketkd · #12 08-11-2004, 11:53 AM

Very true. They never get any earth-shattering numbers when they road test their cars and probably do it for the reason you mentioned...

-Chike

P.S. One thing of note from that article, a fully loaded 92 LS-L came in at 3610lbs on their scale!

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadow248
I think CR doesn't try to get optimum numbers. It seems to me like they run the vehicle the way any average joe would

svxfiles · #13 08-11-2004, 12:43 PM

P.S. One thing of note from that article, a fully loaded 92 LS-L came in at 3610lbs on their scale!
[/B][/QUOTE] They probably had 30 pounds of toasters and hair dryers in the trunk. Thats what they are qualified to test.

dcarrb · #14 08-11-2004, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by EveryShadeofBlue
The SVX was a royal disaster for those in the Subaru marketing dept.

I'd flip that nickel and say that the Subaru marketing department was a disaster for the SVX.

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadow248
I think CR doesn't try to get optimum numbers. It seems to me like they run the vehicle the way any average joe would. Mags like Car & Driver and Road & track...etc...do full out drag launches to get their 0-60 and 1/4mile numbers.

A very good point that seems lost on some. (See below.)

Quote:

Originally posted by svxfiles
They probably had 30 pounds of toasters and hair dryers in the trunk. Thats what they are qualified to test.

Your implication is that Consumer Reports is unqualified to test automobiles? Curious.

dcb

Bobb · #15 08-11-2004, 01:42 PM

Hi everyone, What I like about CR auto reports is the fact that they go out and buy the cars from a dealer like we would have to if we were buying one, They also can tell you what they paid and what members had problems with after they got the car and drove it for a while. As for the test numbers reported buy other magazines. These are made with cars direct from the mfg. and are as perfect as testing and fixing can make them. Makes you wonder when a car craps during the test. Take care and remember you pays your money and you get your thrills. BOBB