NY Times Attacks SVX!!! - Page 4

pavanbabut · #46 12-15-2005, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rotorflyr

Personaly I like it, pictures don't do it justice for sure, and besides the Aztec was a much uglier vehicle then the Tribeca is.

Yep... I agree with you. It would be a better one in person rather than on pics.

Coming to the article, he might be the dumbest man on the earth. How can he tell that no one remembers it anymore???? thts funny. I dont know anything abt Subaru till my first year of bachelors. when I took IEEE membership in 2000, I came to know abt Subaru. To say, each and every subaru engineering is approved by IEEE. Then i started knowing abt Subaru and gradually my love on its vehicles increased and then I came accross SVX. From then, I was always dreaming of owning it. When I came to US, the only car for which I have searched is SVX and finally got one.

-Pavan.

WGJ · #47 12-16-2005, 01:56 PM

As I remember, and it's easily verifiable, ALL of the automobile mags that tested the SVX loved the performance, value and style. Minor complaints about the windows. NONE about handeling. Much said about how EASY it was/is to drive the SVX quite fast with minimal effort. A very quiet high speed Grand Touring car for making rapid progress in nearly any weather and a major reason for my purchase...VERY SAFE! (Safety Vehicle eXperimental). Terrific as is!

Further Porsche-like development could/should have included:
3.6 litre engine w/300 hp.
Manual transmission. 5-6 speed and/or Auto tranny w/5 sp.
17/18x8 better looking alloy wheels.
Better front seats w/ more side bolster and longer steering adjustment.
More functional instruments- engine oil pressure/temp, tranny ol temp for example.
Other improvements would be slightly better handeling/braking.
WGJ

svxthc · #48 12-17-2005, 12:16 PM

This swine needs to learn to write before he goes about bagging on a car before his time he has probably never driven. I agree, auto journalism is dead. Such disgusting prejudice should be fined, especially coming from the Times. Any peanut brained fool could write an article like this. His technique of acting unbiased while ripping on Subaru in general for no apparent reason may be worthy of a lawsuit. Thank god for freedom of speech and modern day journalism/nationalism. No one here has to defend the car, it is common knowledge that the SVX was years ahead of its competition. And to this day it still turns heads, they must have done something right. -Clayton Silva, 16, svx owner.

TomsSVX · #49 12-17-2005, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SVXMAN2001

TomsSvx,

Your last post seems contradictory to the majority of the work you've done on your svx. Maybe I am just playing devil's advocate but, you state that the svx is not a sports car but a luxury coupe....haven't you done considerable work in trying to make the svx a better "sports car" i.e. cams, suspension, 5/6 spd conversion, turbo/supercharger... I am just a little confused based on the majority of the statements you've made on the network. And it makes me think that after having invested all that time in upgrading certain aspects of the svx have you come to a realization that the svx was just not meant to be a full bore sports car?

I can understand why you say this... WHat you are missing is my point about how the car was produced. I feel that if this journalist drove my 5mt he would feel completely different about the car. The car was produced to be a GT with a decent amount of grunt to cruise nicely on the highway. This is known to us as the "floating on air" feel that we have at highway speeds. I personally went a little more agressive and built my car to be a "sports" car. Off the lot it was not. What I do conforms to my personal preference not to what Subaru wanted the car to be. While I am not attacking you here I am explaining what I meant. The SVX was not made to be a sports car but because of it's stylish looks, 2 door design, and powerful engine it was automatically assumed by most reviewers that it was competative. What I make my car is my decision but what it was before I did these things is completely different

Tom

SVXMAN2001 · #50 12-19-2005, 06:07 AM

Tomssvx,

Yeah that's cool! I was just trying to get an understanding of where you were coming from. Now i do. To be honest, I'd love to do some of the things you've done, just need the money!!

#51 12-26-2005, 12:14 AM

Just another reason I would rather sit around and light myself on fire than be forced to read the worthless babble that fills up papers like the New York Times and just about any newspaper from California (or anything owned by the Times for that fact)

Thankfully I don't need to make that decision as I have banned my parents from bringing home papers like that, at which, they shrugged because they don't like the Times either.

ensteele · #52 12-26-2005, 01:07 AM

I have to agree with you on that one.

svxistentialist · #53 12-26-2005, 06:29 AM

Subaru seems to have got that SUV wrong. It is almost as ugly as some of the people carriers coming from Korea and these sort of places.

Subaru are not new to the art of making ugly cars. Before the SVX the Subaru XT made my list for the ugliest 10 cars in the known universe. It looked like it was styled by a beginner at origami.

They had big plans for the SVX which went wrong and cost them money, bigtime. Did they learn from this? Did they heck! Recently they put forward a design exercise [like the way the SVX was born] called the B111S. This looked to be a worthy successor to the SVX, right size, right shape, right power, right performance. The vast majority of people who saw the design were very critical of the beercan ringpull styling of the nose of the car.

Did they take any notice? NO. Since then they have upgraded practically all their cars to a nose-job using this ugly disaster of a grill. They were heavily criticised for the bug-eye lights on the Impreza, they had to change those. The latest Impreza now has the ugly ringpull grill. So has the Tribeca.

Subaru marketing people do not listen to what the car loving public likes.

They are not alone in the automotive world for getting it wrong. Back in '92 Honda had a worldbeating coupe in the Prelude, lovely aggressive shape, good performance. The marketing people decided they were not selling enough of them to the ladies, so the new model was "feminised", took the aggressive styling away. Now nobody wants them.

I will continue to buy and run the SVX because they got it so close to perfect. As for their newer attempts, I think keep voting with your wallets, walk away. They will eventually get the message that we want and demand true style with the competence that Subaru cars already have.

Joe

TomsSVX · #54 12-26-2005, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by svxistentialist

Subaru seems to have got that SUV wrong. It is almost as ugly as some of the people carriers coming from Korea and these sort of places.

Subaru are not new to the art of making ugly cars. Before the SVX the Subaru XT made my list for the ugliest 10 cars in the known universe. It looked like it was styled by a beginner at origami.

They had big plans for the SVX which went wrong and cost them money, bigtime. Did they learn from this? Did they heck! Recently they put forward a design exercise [like the way the SVX was born] called the B111S. This looked to be a worthy successor to the SVX, right size, right shape, right power, right performance. The vast majority of people who saw the design were very critical of the beercan ringpull styling of the nose of the car.

Did they take any notice? NO. Since then they have upgraded practically all their cars to a nose-job using this ugly disaster of a grill. They were heavily criticised for the bug-eye lights on the Impreza, they had to change those. The latest Impreza now has the ugly ringpull grill. So has the Tribeca.

Subaru marketing people do not listen to what the car loving public likes.

They are not alone in the automotive world for getting it wrong. Back in '92 Honda had a worldbeating coupe in the Prelude, lovely aggressive shape, good performance. The marketing people decided they were not selling enough of them to the ladies, so the new model was "feminised", took the aggressive styling away. Now nobody wants them.

I will continue to buy and run the SVX because they got it so close to perfect. As for their newer attempts, I think keep voting with your wallets, walk away. They will eventually get the message that we want and demand true style with the competence that Subaru cars already have.

Joe

Preech on brotha... preech on!!

I do agree with what you said, and like they did with the failure of the SVX they just need to learn all over again

Tom

svxistentialist · #55 12-26-2005, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomsSVX

Preech on brotha... preech on!!

I do agree with what you said, and like they did with the failure of the SVX they just need to learn all over again

Tom

Thanks Tom, did not realise I was in preech mode.

Yo!

Have you put the twin-turbo install on hold?

Joe

NikFu S. · #56 12-26-2005, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by svxistentialist

... the Subaru XT made my list for the ugliest 10 cars in the known universe. It looked like it was styled by a beginner at origami.
...
They are not alone in the automotive world for getting it wrong. Back in '92 Honda had a worldbeating coupe in the Prelude, lovely aggressive shape, good performance. ...

Joe

The XT6 outperformed the Prelude of the era, and almost everyone I've met when I had mine mistook my 6 for an 80s Lude.

I gotta say though the 92 style was the hotness. http://www.prelude-fan.de/bbx_g1.htm

DarknessofDeath · #57 12-26-2005, 04:10 PM

"new york times writer mutilated to death by psycho with nothing to do"

NikFu S. · #58 12-26-2005, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarknessofDeath

"new york times writer mutilated to death by psycho with nothing to do"

"SVX Network mafia prime suspect in recent homocide"

DarknessofDeath · #59 12-26-2005, 05:03 PM

ok/
let's start recruiting now
who's in?\\

WGJ · #60 12-26-2005, 08:03 PM

even after making such stupid comments:

"I have affection for this contrarian carmaker and its unsurpassed line of relatively affordable all-wheel-drive sedans and wagons, but I am at a loss to explain Subaru's continuing desire to change its image into something else,"-this part reflects my own thoughts, but then he gets silly- "along the lines of BMW's from Mars. See, this is not the first time Subaru has tried to move upmarket by introducing a flagship U.F.O. with an astronomical price. Those with good memories will recall the SVX 'sports car' of 1992-97, though most enthusiasts have happily forgotten."

Although a strong case may be made for Subaru trying to be the Japanese BMW, (including the recent decent into BMW-like smacked-with-an-ugly stick styling) and some misguided marketing/styling, the SVX is a powerful example of what Subaru can do with a little imagination and some help from Ital Design. Were Subaru to introduce the SVX today, with the well known problems resolved...proper sized rear wheel bearings, and the following upgrades, (see below), with typical Subaru reliability, it would be a world class supercar. It would be interesting to see what it would cost to produce it today and how well it would sell with Subaru's new found "rally racing" reputation, more 'upscale' product line and a decent marketing effort.
Further Porsche-like development could/should include:
3.6 litre engine w/300 hp.
Manual transmission. 5-6 speed and/or Auto tranny w/5/6 sp.
17/18x8 better looking alloy wheels.
Better front seats w/ more side bolster and longer steering adjustment.
More functional instruments- engine oil pressure/temp, tranny ol temp for example.
Other improvements would be slightly better handeling/braking to accomodate the extra power.
Styling is a non-issue...it's a stunning car (w/a v/ high 'cool' factor) that still looks fresh, modern and is better looking than most anything out there.
What might an SVX cost today with these upgrades?
Is there anything currently in the market that would be comparable with an upgraded SVX???(Regardless of price?)

As for the dildo who wrote these ignorant, rude and unjustifiable comments about the SVX we need to ALL write his editor and express our extreme displeasure about this crap being printed...the dildo doesn't deserve to die...but we can make his life v. uncomfortable with the same medium, the written word. What's the name of the fool that authored this slanderous garbage?
Let's all write the editor,
WGJ
PS- I wonder what the dildo drives?