JazzyFunkyKool wrote:

hmmm...Motortrend doesn't seem to like our 92x much...the fit and finish...fair enough; but the handling criticisms?  no way kids...they don't even mention the sti steering ratio but regardless, i can't believe that after reading what all the other track tests write, even the one that has our 92x beating everything but a trac spec 911 (can't remember the publication) on the track, that our 92x is a little "scary in the slalom..."

what'd you guys thunk?

http://motortrend.com/roadtests/wagon/1 … awdwagons/

Probably the best thing to do to find out is go and autocross the car:).

Actually, not too surprised. I've heard what was done was stiffen the springs (slightly)
and soften the shocks vs. the WRX. Softer shocks are NOT the best thing for transitions
(such as a slalom). Notice that the more steady state handling figures (skidpad and figure
8) are identical to the Volvo (too bad there wasn't any WRX data there), but there's considerably
less transitions in these manuvers.

Scargo

Never liked Moter Trend (it is a pure rag).  Now this cements my hated for the mag.  Car and Driver is the true automobile mag, plus they really like the 9-2x:).

MSRP to MSRP, I'd take the V50 over the 9-2x.  The 9-2x is not worth 27k.  But as we all know, MSRP on the 9-2x is meaningless

aren't volvo's getting employee discount now?

so what's a V50 T5 goin for?

JazzyFunkyKool wrote:

hmmm...Motortrend doesn't seem to like our 92x much...

Look at their Car of the Year choices.  I quit paying attention to what they said when the bestowed that honor on the Renault Alliance.

ODG wrote:

Personally I agree with just about everything Motortrend has to say.  I've noticed that there are lots of posters on this board that seem believe the 92X is some sort of high class supercar that doesn't get the respect it deserves.  The fact is that it's Subaru's bottom of the line wagon with a hopped up engine.  The fit and finish is pretty poor, it has moderate performance numbers but mainly because of it traction..the only thing that really makes the car spectactular is it's value .  Especially since most manufacturers are have once again upped the bar on performance.  The WRX was commanding respect 4 years ago when it was introduced but times change.  Don't get me wrong...I like my car but I didn't buy mine because I thought it was some sort of sportscar that would command respect and outdrive most other cars on the road.

Amen, again. Well stated.

Scargo - my butt dampers are soft:(

I'm just so sick of people coming on this SAAB 9-2x forum and going out of their way to bash it.  Its ridiculous and its a spoiler for people who want to come here and read about their car, and how to improve it and to meet with other saabaru lovers.

That depends..post up the articles and I'll take a look.  As far as actual 92X reviews go I haven't seen one yet that put the car up on a pedestal above the competition.  In fact most that I have read point out the cars aging shared platform.  And once again let me say that I like my car and that it's probably the best performance for the $$$ out there but really...in 2005 it's not that exeptional.  Plus let's not forget that the 92X is softer slower than the WRX.  When I test drove a WRX it did feel a bit sportier than my 92X.

ODG wrote:

That depends..post up the articles and I'll take a look.  As far as actual 92X reviews go I haven't seen one yet that put the car up on a pedestal above the competition.  In fact most that I have read point out the cars aging shared platform.  And once again let me say that I like my car and that it's probably the best performance for the $$$ out there but really...in 2005 it's not that exeptional.  Plus let's not forget that the 92X is softer slower than the WRX.  When I test drove a WRX it did feel a bit sportier than my 92X.

As stated many times, it's (post discounts) a great performance bargin. But for those whom think they are the best handling, accelerating, etc, cars in the world, lets face reality. It's not. Let's start with SCCA Solo2 (Autocross). Since
the WRX is the closest thing to it, we'll go with results of those. At nationals, not one, ONE WRX even made it into the trophies, let alone top ten in D-stock. Since someone quoted C&D said it out-handled a 3-series, note 330's were in the top 5 (winner was, as usual, an Integra type R). Now, with modifications (i.e. STX) a WRX topped the chart, but that did take mods, and the total time on course for STX (alot due to tires) was slightly slower than for the stock class.

This doesn't mean it's a bad car, in fact I think it's pretty darned good. But it's not a world killer, not even a class killer. It's unique, nicely executed (I, for one, after being picked up by the dealer in a 9-3, think it's actually a classier ride than the 9-3, and I (used to) like Saabs) and a really nice compromise vehicle. But it's not a Mustang killer, a M killer, S killer, etc. So, enjoy your car for what it is. I know I do (and it's got me driving too fast again. Gotta slow down)

Scargo

At the risk of getting flamed off the boards, even with slight mods it drives like a sporty econobox.

But I like my sporty econobox.

As stated earlier, clearly the reviews would have been different if they factored in the incentives that're going on right now. Having said that, I think the fact that the 9-2X still got good reviews in some magazines says a lot. It most definitely is not worth MSRP, but some magazines stated that even with its $28K+ pricetag, it is worth consideration. Considering most of us here on the boards paid a hair under $20K for our Aeros, and considering that nowadays for that kind of money you can only get cars that don't even come close in terms of performance, the 9-2X is an awesome car. No, it may not beat every car in its own class and it may not command the same respect it did in years past, but for the money we paid it shouldn't have to.