Re: subarus (was: A valid comparison?

[Eliot Lim <eliot@u.washington.edu>]

On Tue, 2 Jan 1996, Psychos 'R Us wrote:

> Mitsubishi with its "VR-4" series on almost all of its models (only the 
> GTO/4000GT is imported into U.S.) 

i think it's the 3000GT you are referring to.  4000 pounds (freudian
slip on your part?) of mostly fat.  just fine for pot bellied gold
chain and gold rolex owners with a hairy, tanned chest.  no thanks.

you also forgot about the eclipse.  wonderful concept, but terribly
flawed.  plus viscous coupled diffs are not technically attractive.

>and some other Japanese mfr's are also 
> some long-time AWD/4WD mfr's -- even Honda with its AWD Integra.

bleeeeech.  they can keep this one in japan.  let's not start
another round of honda bashing ok? .. sorry for saying that, but
i HAD to... :) :) :)

> The 
> problem is that they realize that U.S. market is simply not suited for 
> AWD. 

maybe now you have an idea why i hate f*** trucks so much!  they
effectively keep the really good stuff away.  

> The last rumor is that Subaru is seriously considering selling the 
> Impreza WRX in U.S. due to the fact it's selling quite well elsewhere. 
> Ahh... another "$30,000" Subaru for U.S. consumers.

nah, wait 8 months and they will discount it to $19,999.  i will
seriously take a look at one if they bring it here.  the main
attraction: "only 2% fat" :) , lots of power and decent pedigree.
plus, i've always liked the horizontally opposed engine layout...

i think it has a better chance than the SVX because the SVX is
probably too radically styled, plus it did not have the racing
credentials, which i think count for a lot.  how many audi freaks here
were first converted by the 88/89 racing Q's?  or the WRC/pikes peak
Q's?

the "outback" legacy seems to be doing well (with paul hogan doing the
sale!), so a follow on WRX with a "tough" marketing campaign of the cars
carving up the european forests might actually work....


eliot