By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Yes, you will still have the costs of the rear quarter panel, but maybe(?) not the additional expense a tail light assembly too.
Bob
However, the super-wide sides eat into interior width. It was probably a safety issue?
The XC's extensive cladding is plastic, in either blue (they call it slate) or brown. I couldn't decide which color was uglier.
-juice
The SVX was classy. Auto-temp controls, and BMW feel of the interior. The whacky windows allowed it to have a far better drag co-efficient than any other car it's year. Oh yeah they could add a convertible and some HID headlamps to it also.
-mike
I say 4 on the coupe, with suicide-style rear doors a-la Saturn (GM is our parent) on both sides. 280hp, 6 speed, moonroof, leather, VDC, loaded. $28k.
Then a 2 seat roadster with the same specs for $30 grand.
-juice
..Mike
..Mike
Bob
Bob
Speaking of the SLK, I think it (and... speaking of design again) is perhaps the best looking roadster to come down the pike in many a year. It is the only roadster that looks as good - if not better - with the roof up, as it does with the roof down.
Bob
w/ your post #1213.
I think you are correct, there's no maybe to it.
Younger designers seems to compete against
others. Experienced designers seems to compete against their own effort. It's a humbling profession in any case.
Function first is the key. Most folks do agree.
-mike
2+2 for the coupe, 2 seat roadster. Good enough.
Look here for my complete 2001 Volvo XC review, as well as some other interesting links.
Let me know what you guys think!
BTW, test drives are so critical. I really had no idea what to expect. There's nothing like seeing for yourself.
Am I shopping Volvo? Nope. Can't afford $40,200, but a $100 gift to Orvis.com motivated me to go for a test drive.
-juice
..Mike
..Mike
I can't even remember if the XC even HAD cup holders! DOH!
Well, I tried to pay SOME attention to the interior, not just focus on the engine and suspension like I usually do!
-juice
Excellent review on the Volvo.
A number of magazine tests also seem to feel the XC is not quite as good as should be, considering the price. I still like the looks though. The Swedes, especially Volvo, seem have a real knack for combining good design with function, safety and sport. They also have a knack for not quite completing the job, hence the criticism. Same holds true for the Volvo convertible. Again, another extremely attractive vehicle to my eyes, but has gotten a lot of criticism for having more shakes than a Parkinson's patient.
Bob
The cheesy fake brushed aluminum is absent, as is the gawdy colored cladding, which would look better if it were dark gray!
Also, it looks better in dark colors, which hide the cladding more. Light colored XC's could frighten small children.
Function? Yes. Safety? They invented it, and the XC is no exception. Sport? No way, it falls flat on its face here, at least in this iteration.
-juice
When shopping for a wagon, we test drove a 99 V70 (base) wagon (not the XC) with no turbocharger. IMO the auto needs a turbocharger -- once you drive an auto V70 base model sans turbo, you'll no longer think an auto OB is slow. My wife thought the V70 suspension was too stiff (again not XC so no direct comparison). So she ends up with a GT, go figure. I'd have to drive a V70 again before I could comment on a direct comparison between the GT and V70 suspensions. In the end, we couldn't justify spending more money on a Volvo that would be less reliable than a Subaru. I'm with Bob though, I like the 01 design, but I also liked the square end of the 00 V70.
..Mike
..Mike
Before you say "but the top..." remember I'm not a practical guy and don't even recall there was a top!
Hopefully, that'll change to the new SVX soon!
The XC actually has what appears to be FAKE brushed aluminum, on par with the Hyundai Tiburon or maybe Toyota Celica, certainly not the TT. It's on the door handles and the passener's Oh-Crap! bar. Both were scuffed up.
The XC comes only in one powertrain flavor, too: LPT auto. The VDC has nothing to worry about.
-juice
I haven't driven the new XC, so I'll have to take Juice's word on it. At some point I would like to drive it. From what I've seen, the upgrades (5-speed auto and longer wheelbase) seem worthwhile. If Juice is correct (and I have no reason to doubt him) regarding the tip-tronic tranny, that's a shame. Again, it's a great idea that probably hasen't matured properly when applied to the Volvo. Perhaps it's a "beta" version?!?!
Bob
I do like the looks of the Wagon. In fact, we had ours out at Elora Gorge yesterday and when we came back from the hole in the rock, there was some guy taking a good look at it. Made me feel all good, (then I remembered my failed fuel injectors)
-- ash
All that and you get paid too?? I don't suppose you want a Canadian or two to help out with the testing do you?:-)
MikeF
..Mike
..Mike
Have you all seen the Delfino, the handbuilt two-seat roadster with Impreza drivetrain bits? Their website is at http://www.delfino.co.uk. Curious as to your opinions and whether that's the type of thing Subaru should be thinking about with the new SVX.
Ed
Note that they don't have the multi-reflector headlamps. Hmmm... Wonder what the U.S. version will get?
Bob
http://www.new-impreza.com/holland_docks.htm
Bob
Patti: see if you can get some photos. Especially dirty Scoobys.
Lark: grad school a 2nd time? What, you didn't get it right the first time?
I'll have to try those suede seats. They must not slip at all.
The Delfino looks too derivative. Part 'vette, part Viper, part Miata, with 240SX head lights. Is it really based on an Impreza?
On the new Impreza - looks like they jumped on the fake brushed aluminum bandwagon. Also, the wagon's d-pillar is angled way back, with a bit of a behind sticking out. Looks good, but it'll mean less cargo room.
The multi-reflector headlamps look better.
-juice
One more comment regarding your dislike of the Mercedes SLK: You mentioned that you didn't like it because it looks short and stubby. I know you like the Audi TT -- which is about the shortest/stubbiest sports car in the world. Interesting dichotomy. I think both are terrific cars, each in their own way. I certainly wish the SLK was a 4-Matic though.
Bob
Ross
I actually was able to look closely at an SLK this morning. Here's the thing - substantial bottom, tiny top. Looks out of proportion. I know it's a folding hard top, but especially from the rear it looks like something is lacking.
The TT is small all around, so the entire look flows much better. I'm more impressed by its interior, anyway.
-juice
-juice
The strong "wedge" profile, with the high rear is necessitated by the folding hard top -- and, to allow for a reasonable amount of trunk space. Besides being a styling issue, it's a functional issue. To me it's another example of "design" and "function" working harmoniously together.
However, it's the folding hardtop that sets the SLK apart from all other roadsters. It's that feature, if Subaru ever does a SVX roadster, that I would like to see them incorporate.
Greg: I second Juice's welcome aboard. The more folks from the Subaru "corporate family" we get on this discussion board, the better. After all, we're all just looking to improve future Subaru products, and help one another out.
Bob
Look at the newer Vettes. The Z06 is much uglier than the hatchback.
-juice
Patti, Don't know if you were involved in convincing Greg to come out of the lurker's closet, but if so, thanks a bunch.
..Mike
..Mike
I don't care if the "hard" roof is heavier. It's a much better year-round and a safer solution. The rear outward visibility on all soft-top convertibles is lousy at best. Th rear window is small to tiny, depending on the vehicle. It is often plastic, which fogs and discolors over time. The so-to-speak "B" pillar is thick, and is a real blind spot.
The SLK, on the other hand, has gobs of rearward visibility. And because it is a hardtop, it is most likely much quieter, and probably more weather-tight to boot. It's also probably(?) safer in a roll over accident.
Bob
According to the reviews I've seen of it (in UK's CAR and EVO mags), the Delfino uses the Impreza WRX's chassis and drivetrain. Rumor has it that the underpinnings of the P1 will be purchased from Prodrive and used in production models.
Always an issue with indie car makers like this is build quality and dealer support. I have to admit that I'm a bit of a Panoz fan, and I'd like to take a trip to the Subaru/Panoz driving school at Road Atlanta (in my Forester, of course!) and then tour the Panoz facilities.
I agree with Juice's comments on the styling - only the big driving/fog lights give any clue as to its Impreza origins. I don't like the rear very well, either; although it reminds me a bit of the Lotus Elise, it seems like an afterthought.
On the other hand, a 2-seat Impreza Spyder might be a neat addition to the Subaru lineup.
Ed
The TT's roof seems much lower, more integrated. I'd never raise the top anyway. It's more of a 3rd car to me.
I wouldn't want to roll in any of these!
Ed: Panoz sounds good. If you're going, let us know when (let's discuss under Events).
-juice
Another advantage of the hard folding top is that it could easily be thought of a "first" vehicle, not just a second or third vehicle. Subarus have always known for their "year-round" ability. A hard folding top would echo that philosophy quite nicely.
Bob
I actually think the sonata isn't a bad car for the $.
-mike
Hyundai gas gotten better, but they still have a ways to go. I don't see the styling resemblance much, but at least the Sonata is no longer a punch-line.
-juice
I really do think, however, that we will see many more hardtop-convertibles in the future. The next-generation, larger SLs will be so equipped, as will the upcoming Lexus SC430. It's just a matter of time before this technology trickles down to more mainstream brands.
There's no question, however, the SLK has been a sales homerun for Mercedes. They're all over the place here in the DC area.
Bob
If Subaru ever does come out with a SVX roadster, I don't see it as a performance-at-all-costs type of vehicle, like, say a Honda S-2000. I see it more as a sports/GT type of roadster. Something with a bit more of a "mass appeal." Certainly a ST-i version could be developed for the hard-core enthusiast.
Bob
The WRX will be the light one, so the SVX can be the comfy GT.
-juice
Bob
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/000926/nv_sema_sh.html
SPT is expanding their catalog, and SEMA is exactly the right place to showcase those.
Hopefully SPT will offer forced induction by then, otherwise the slammed Impreza they'll most likely show will be relatively tame compared to most show cars.
My wish list, starting with a 2.5RS:
22mm rear sway bar w/end links
front strut tower brace
rear upper strut tower brace
17"x8" wheels
4 piston calipers front/rear
vented/cross drilled discs front/rear
braided metal brake lines
single stage brake booster
1" lower springs
turbocharger
intercooler
high flow fuel computer
dual friction clutch
short shift kit w/urethane bushings
low restriction exhaust
racing camshafts
5 point harness
Racing bucket seats
full integrated roll cage
SPT Helmet
That'll get my attention!
-juice
juice, nice list.
I think getting 4 pot front brakes and moving the stock fronts to the rear will be sufficient though.
-Colin
Bob
We have to make sure someone goes and gets photos. Anyone leave near Vegas?
I'd like to see a Forester with a low range and bigger tires, at least. Maybe the H6, too.
-juice
MikeF
-- ash