A couple of thoughts on the Volvo XC and Subaru WRX
11-24-2001, 09:00 PM
#1
AudiWorld Senior Member
Thread Starter
A couple of thoughts on the Volvo XC and Subaru WRX
<img src="http://new.volvocars.com/models/xc/images/cc_gallery_ext4_lrg.jpg">
<B>A layman's thoughts on two interesting cars</B>
I drove my sister's XC for the first time tonight. It's a nice car. The seats are plush, like a lazy boy recliner, and were very comfortable. Not sport seats by any means, but comfortable... perhaps what a station wagon should be.
What I don't get is that some mags/reviews refer to the Volvo as being more ergonomic or having a better interior. This (as stated by others earlier) is absolutely ludicrous. Just go take a look one day. For example, there are no preset buttons for the radio, it uses a rotary dial to cycle through stations... hard to use while driving on the freeway.
The tiptronic that the Volvo has was very slow to respond. As I shifted, it exhibited what I would guess to be a 40-50% delay as compared to the allroad. But all in all, the car had a comfortable drive. The 5 cylinder turbo doesn't compare to our V6 biturbo, but then again, I don't think the Cross Country's target market cares too much about that.
What I realized today is that the comparisons that will be drawn on the Cross Country vs. allroad are inevitable, but the two cars were designed with two very different philosophies, and should be treated as such.
The XC is good for people who are looking for a cruising wagon, and the AWD feature/function of secondary importance. I wonder if Volvo made a T5 Cross Country with the additional 50+ bhp, how many people would pay allroad money for it. Maybe that's why they don't make one.
The allroad is a bit for the younger crowd, who needs the space of a wagon, but doesn't want to give up performance/styling, and would not really consider any other wagon. I personally think that the allroad quattro system is better equipped to handle offroad situations than the Volvo XCs AWD system.
In fact, I'd bet that if the allroad didn't exist, a good majority of us would be driving either an BMW X5 or settle for a sports sedan and give up the space... I don't think that the Volvo Cross Country or any other wagon was really a second choice for us.
<img src="http://i-club.com/featured/featured_13.jpg">
Now, the Subaru WRX. Yes, it is <B>ugly as sin.</B> My friend brought his by my place today and we went for a drive. Wow... if you love performance, this car is simply amazing for $25K. I couldn't believe how the car pushed me back into the seat as it accelerated, even on wet pavement (it rained pretty hard here in LA). It's combination of handling and turbocharged power was simply amazing. I've always wanted to re-purchase a VW GTI (the car I traded in for my allroad) as a second "throw around" car, but man, I will really have to think twice when I have the spare cash around to get a second "play" car. Simply amazing for $25K.
For those that don't know, the Subaru WRX is a super light weight, turbochared 4 banger with 227 horses, 16" wheels with sport tires, all wheel drive and it comes with fun stuff like a Momo steering wheel and aluminum clutch/brake/gas pedals as standard equipment. And there is a sport wagon version too!!!
My consipiracy-theory is that Subaru realized that if they made this car look good, they would never meet demand, so they purposely made the car NASTY looking to drive down demand. :-)
Anyhow, I just thought I'd share my thoughts on two cars I test drove today.
<B>A layman's thoughts on two interesting cars</B>
I drove my sister's XC for the first time tonight. It's a nice car. The seats are plush, like a lazy boy recliner, and were very comfortable. Not sport seats by any means, but comfortable... perhaps what a station wagon should be.
What I don't get is that some mags/reviews refer to the Volvo as being more ergonomic or having a better interior. This (as stated by others earlier) is absolutely ludicrous. Just go take a look one day. For example, there are no preset buttons for the radio, it uses a rotary dial to cycle through stations... hard to use while driving on the freeway.
The tiptronic that the Volvo has was very slow to respond. As I shifted, it exhibited what I would guess to be a 40-50% delay as compared to the allroad. But all in all, the car had a comfortable drive. The 5 cylinder turbo doesn't compare to our V6 biturbo, but then again, I don't think the Cross Country's target market cares too much about that.
What I realized today is that the comparisons that will be drawn on the Cross Country vs. allroad are inevitable, but the two cars were designed with two very different philosophies, and should be treated as such.
The XC is good for people who are looking for a cruising wagon, and the AWD feature/function of secondary importance. I wonder if Volvo made a T5 Cross Country with the additional 50+ bhp, how many people would pay allroad money for it. Maybe that's why they don't make one.
The allroad is a bit for the younger crowd, who needs the space of a wagon, but doesn't want to give up performance/styling, and would not really consider any other wagon. I personally think that the allroad quattro system is better equipped to handle offroad situations than the Volvo XCs AWD system.
In fact, I'd bet that if the allroad didn't exist, a good majority of us would be driving either an BMW X5 or settle for a sports sedan and give up the space... I don't think that the Volvo Cross Country or any other wagon was really a second choice for us.
<img src="http://i-club.com/featured/featured_13.jpg">
Now, the Subaru WRX. Yes, it is <B>ugly as sin.</B> My friend brought his by my place today and we went for a drive. Wow... if you love performance, this car is simply amazing for $25K. I couldn't believe how the car pushed me back into the seat as it accelerated, even on wet pavement (it rained pretty hard here in LA). It's combination of handling and turbocharged power was simply amazing. I've always wanted to re-purchase a VW GTI (the car I traded in for my allroad) as a second "throw around" car, but man, I will really have to think twice when I have the spare cash around to get a second "play" car. Simply amazing for $25K.
For those that don't know, the Subaru WRX is a super light weight, turbochared 4 banger with 227 horses, 16" wheels with sport tires, all wheel drive and it comes with fun stuff like a Momo steering wheel and aluminum clutch/brake/gas pedals as standard equipment. And there is a sport wagon version too!!!
My consipiracy-theory is that Subaru realized that if they made this car look good, they would never meet demand, so they purposely made the car NASTY looking to drive down demand. :-)
Anyhow, I just thought I'd share my thoughts on two cars I test drove today.
11-25-2001, 07:43 AM
#3
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...Subaru WRX
My wife used to have the pre-hood-scoop version of the Outback Sport (the non-turbo version of the WRX wagon; hers was 135HP, I think) and now has a Forester (same wheelbase, slightly better engine at 165HP, but still underpowered).
I can see how the WRXC, with the better drivetrain, would be a monster. My only beef with the OB Sport was its seats--the interior was just too small for them to be comfortable, and I'd get backaches even on shorter trips. But the handling was great.
The seat issue is fixed (pretty much--these are still Subaru seats, after all) in the Forester.
What Subaru really needs to do is to put the WRX drivetrain in the Forester. Then I'd have an excuse to buy my wife a new car. HPH
I can see how the WRXC, with the better drivetrain, would be a monster. My only beef with the OB Sport was its seats--the interior was just too small for them to be comfortable, and I'd get backaches even on shorter trips. But the handling was great.
The seat issue is fixed (pretty much--these are still Subaru seats, after all) in the Forester.
What Subaru really needs to do is to put the WRX drivetrain in the Forester. Then I'd have an excuse to buy my wife a new car. HPH
11-25-2001, 02:49 PM
#6
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Volvo XC and Subaru WRX - My thoughts
While I agree with every thing in your editorial, here are some additional thoughts...
Having owned 2 Volvos - I find them to be superior cars in the "general" car market. Their ergonomics are truly superior to most cars. Though I prefer the console layout in (all) Audi's it is a bit "busy". Almost every automotive publication ranks the A6 interior as top in its class (better than BMW & Mercedes) in many cases. But the Volvo gets high marks for "simplicity" and easy to read *****/buttons. Remember it's built from a very "utilitarian" Swedish perspective. Everything in a Volvo is quite practical. Whereas in Audi it's more about luxury...
As for Volvo's auto/manual mode - the new "Geartronic" (as it is called) transmission is taken directly from GM (which might explain it's short comings). Though Ford purchased (the car division ONLY) of Volvo in 1998, Volvo had already signed a contact with GM to use its transmission...
Demographics; while you may be correct in your analogy of "younger" buyers and the allroad, the exact opposite is true for these 2 companies. Volvo's intent with the XC is to reach the younger market and young family segment. Which is why it's gone for the Subaru "Outback" look. Audi on the other hand simply wanted to break into the SUV market without developing a new platform. The Audi AG marketing & research information showed the primary market the AR would be targeting is; Males with an average age of 42, married, college degree or higher with an average annual income of $150K.... is this you??? 8-)
As for the WRX - agreed, ugly as all Hell but HUGE, I mean REALY huge in Europe....
Having owned 2 Volvos - I find them to be superior cars in the "general" car market. Their ergonomics are truly superior to most cars. Though I prefer the console layout in (all) Audi's it is a bit "busy". Almost every automotive publication ranks the A6 interior as top in its class (better than BMW & Mercedes) in many cases. But the Volvo gets high marks for "simplicity" and easy to read *****/buttons. Remember it's built from a very "utilitarian" Swedish perspective. Everything in a Volvo is quite practical. Whereas in Audi it's more about luxury...
As for Volvo's auto/manual mode - the new "Geartronic" (as it is called) transmission is taken directly from GM (which might explain it's short comings). Though Ford purchased (the car division ONLY) of Volvo in 1998, Volvo had already signed a contact with GM to use its transmission...
Demographics; while you may be correct in your analogy of "younger" buyers and the allroad, the exact opposite is true for these 2 companies. Volvo's intent with the XC is to reach the younger market and young family segment. Which is why it's gone for the Subaru "Outback" look. Audi on the other hand simply wanted to break into the SUV market without developing a new platform. The Audi AG marketing & research information showed the primary market the AR would be targeting is; Males with an average age of 42, married, college degree or higher with an average annual income of $150K.... is this you??? 8-)
As for the WRX - agreed, ugly as all Hell but HUGE, I mean REALY huge in Europe....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
audidood
A4 (B5 Platform) Discussion
17
10-18-2001 12:55 PM
quattroinAK
S4 / RS4 (B5 Platform) Discussion
0
10-07-2001 07:59 AM