Not mine, etc.
-
Oct. 10, 2008 1:55 p.m. ApexC Reader
-
Oct. 10, 2008 9:24 p.m. SVreX SuperDork
I've got a little experience with SVXii (OK, a lot)- I wouldn't have a FWD SVX.
The 94 FWD was an attempt to lower the pricetag on a car that was tanking in the marketplace. Cuts out everything good about an SVX.
The 92 AWD is the car to have.
Since AWD versions with roasted trannies are available for $500, some effort put towards a 5 speed swap can yield a fabulous car for under Challenge prices.
-
Oct. 11, 2008 12:19 a.m. oldopelguy HalfDork
But that engine would be so cool in a VW.....
-
Oct. 11, 2008 3:19 a.m. Duende New Reader
I have a '92 SVX in my area for $1100 - were all the SVX of that year AWD? Why is that year to have? It's random that I ask about this car, I happened to be viewing it on Craigslist and this thread at the same time... I'm always curious at these sub 2k treasures!
-
Oct. 11, 2008 6:56 a.m. SVreX SuperDork
All '92's were AWD. While the engine remained largely unchanged, and therefore AWD SVXii are basically the same, '92 was the initial release year. It had no rev limiter, which lets you use the full potential of the engine RPM's when doing a 5 spd swap. I like that.
I'm generally not a fan of first year cars, but Subaru expected the SVX to be a success, and poured a lot into it. After the initial year's poor sales, pretty much everything was an attempt to cut costs.
I'm also thinking (though not sure) that one of the more popular colors (Claret) was only available then.
