Talk:Subaru Alcyone SVX

Concept to production

Though this article is otherwise excellent, I have to dispute the claim that the SVX was the first concept car to go into production nearly unchanged - the Dodge Viper, also conceived in 1989 and released for sale in 1992, would be the proof. The original Isuzu Piazza (Impulse to North American buyers) was also largely the same as its "Ace of Clubs" concept predecessor. Or, going back a lot further, the original 1953 Corvette was almost completely unchanged from its Motorama concept form. There are other similar examples, but these are the most obvious ones I could think of. Again, not a patch on the article, but I'd suggest adjusting that one statement. Duncan1800 (talk) 07:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Performance

The top speed was listed as 182mph which seemed suspicious, so I checked the reference article, which actually lists the top speed as about 140mph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.210.179 (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

External links

Per this, I've reverted a load of spam links. More importantly, I've also removed two legitimate links in order to replace all links with a link to the DMOZ project per advice at WP:SPAM. Hopefully that'll stop the addition of spam links. This is the first time I've done this, so I won't be upset if the two legitimate links are added back. I'll continue to revert spam, however.

There were a couple of suggestions at WP:ANI - WP:RFPP and WP:AIV. I'm not convinced AIV will be effective against an IP hopper, but semi-protection of the article may well force them to discuss their external links here, and should probably be the next step.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 09:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The open directory template wasn't working so I fixed it. There's only one link under it though, is there another directory page I didn't find? Since I didn't see the legitimate links under the directory I added them back. Page protection or a range block will probably be required if the spam continues. swaq 17:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries - you've probably realised by now that I've not used {{DMOZ}} before! Thanks for fixing it. I thought it would list the main Subaru Alcyone SVX links, plus others - I guess that was an assumption too far, so it makes sense to re-add the "official" external links back.

I'll continue to watchlist the article. I warned the latest IP, but I suspect they never received the message (and probably haven't received previous messages). Semi-protection or range-blocking may prove to be the best way to get their attention.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

top speed

I think we need better source than Gil B. from California, and same page Car and Driver magazine September, 1991 issue, 1992 SVX LS-L results 140 mph. What is the official factory speed? --Typ932 ^T·C 08:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. As it stands right now the cited source doesn't match the text. The source's data page (95.jpg), which I assume is referring to a 1991 SVX (based on 03.jpg), lists the top speed at 143 mph (estimated). Usually when Road & Track states an estimated speed it means they got the number from the manufacturer and didn't verify it by doing a top speed run themselves. This seems to me to be the best number to use. swaq 17:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Being an owner myself, and member of the largest SVX forum in the world, the general concensus is the 1992 SVX was not rev-limited, and had a top speed of 154mph. This number was reduced incrementally in the subsequent years. The 154mph top speed has been attained by many members using completely stock engines and transmissions. The fourth gear ratio is .694, with a final drive of 3.545. Redlined at 6700 RPM, the car is theoretically geared to attain a top speed of 195 MPH with those ratios. However with the 230 horsepower, and the .29 drag coefficient, it is mathematically valid and undeniably proven, by the many forum members who own and race the SVX, that 154 MPH plus IS attainable on the 1992's with the stock 230hp. Whos more likely to be right? A magazine that test drove the SVX once or twice, or a few thousand SVX enthusiasts, some of whom race them professionally? You are invited to question any moderator or admin on the forum, SVX World Network

The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, here on Wikipedia. I won't argue that the SVX can't reach 154 mph, but the number used in the article must be backed up by a reliable source. swaq 20:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia articles should be based on facts, official factory numbers and if possible reliable/verifiable other numbers also backing up official numbers. That speed 154 miles per hour (248 km/h) sounds very optimistic for such heavy car with only 230 hp and its quite hard to believe without proper source --Typ932 ^T·C 16:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Since when did the weight of a car have anything to do with its top speed? If you read up on the SVX, you will find it was designed with a slippery drag coefficient of .29, which is the other value combined with horsepower that determines top speed. Weight is only a factor when determining acceleration. Also on the matter of backing up information with reliable sources, I guess hundreds of SVX owners who have actually attained that speed on the track (bone stock) dont count...... The facts stand.... the horsepower, gearing, and drag coefficient of the SVX, along with the fact that the 1992's were not rev-limited, can be MATHEMATICALLY verified! This along with the experiences of people who actually own and race the SVX, should be enough to verify the addition of a few MPH to the stated top speed. And fellas, if you really want to be 100% correct, you have to list the top speed of each and every model year, since after the 1992 model introduction, the SVX top speed was reduced incrementally almost every model year with rev-limiting. Ill leave it alone since im obviously not getting through, but in the interest of being as exacting as you wish to be, I would investigate more on the matter of the changes made to the SVX throughout it's 6 year run.

redlimit only 6700, so how much does it actually rev? come on does not sound very powerful engine..., as it is said forum talkings are not enough in encyclopedia. mathematically verified is not enough. Try to find proper sources if you claim that it goes that speed--Typ932 ^T·C 06:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding right? Ok try here: http://www.apexgarage.com/tech/horsepower_calc.shtml , add the necessary specs (you're the SVX master, right?), and see the HP needed to take a .29 drag coefficient car up to 154 MPH !! "Cmon does not sound very powerful engine"...... I cant believe im here arguing the facts with the spawn of Slingblade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcyone LS-L (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Give the source for the speed and add it to article, no speculations with different formulas, you can calculate what ever you want --Typ932 ^T·C 03:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Heres a couple, http://www.motorcities.com/vehicle/00AEM275501786.html, http://subarucars.wordpress.com/, these are IN ADDITION to the calculator I provided that you so freely discount. Given the absurd amount of differing specs listed for this car in the many sites ive checked (136-182 MPH top speed), I have to ask..... Who would most likely know the real facts?? I would say, people who OWN the car, and the few of those who have actually attained the top speed on the track or Autobahn. But if you want Wikipedia to be laughably incorrect, and not even list the differing top speeds throughout the SVXs 6 years, then its fine with me. It will only serve to invalidate the reliability of Wiki information. Alcyone LS-L (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither source you provide is even close to reliable. The second source is in fact copied from an earlier version of this article. Until an actual source can be provided that differs from R&T I don't see any reason to change the article. Wikipedia is interested in what reliable sources have to say about a topic not necessarily what it is true. --Leivick (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, what "source" will and will not be considered reliable, and who makes the final judgement on it?? What makes the one source quoted more reliable than the others provided? What are the standards of reliability?? By your own logic, you personally have zero reliablity in this matter, as you most likely have never even sat in the car..... Anyhow let me know the parameters of Wiki-Approved "reliability" and I will find a source. Alcyone LS-L (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I already linked that above, but here it is again: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. swaq 20:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." "Reputation" is a very subjective term, is it not? With the many conflicts shown in "sources" in the matter of top speed, does it not warrant "common sense" in "editorial judgement" to consider more than the one source (Road and Track) when there are so many differing sources? Why does my "editorial judgement" count less than yours, sir? Could it be that the reason that Wikipedia itself is not considered "reliable" in academic circles is the fact that a SINGLE source is sometimes considered the bottom line in article references? At any rate, it has already been stated that Wiki is about source "reputation" and not "editorial judgement", as apparently your opinion on which sources are correct (among conflicting information) are better than mine. This makes trying to add truth and actuality to Wikipedia a colossal waste of time.Alcyone LS-L (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to add that your entire reference to top speed is based on a one sentence quip from a 1991 test drive of a PROTOTYPE SVX, and the author did NOT even try to attain even that. Therefore the reference itself is actually pretty UNRELIABLE in the face of "editorial judgement", so what is your basis of arguement now? Alcyone LS-L (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are right, trying to add "truth and actuality" to Wikipedia using Wikipedia mirrors and blog posts is a "colossal waste of time". Just provide a reliable source similar or better to Road and Track (a fairly respected periodical) which lists an alternate top speed or stop wasting your own time. --Leivick (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, you completely missed the point. By WHOS judgement do my sources already provided stand INVALID. Yours? Your ENTIRE arguement is based on ONE article..... and its funny, in the "External Links" section, the "SVX Specifications" links to a page CONFIRMING my top speed figures. I own the car, I know many others who do as well. What is YOUR purpose here? At any rate, the article can continue on being sadly incorrect and incomplete, if for no other reason than to entertain the misinformed(you!) who insist their ONE reference is above all others. I have already provided sources, and will not continue to waste the effort in the face of stubborn reluctance to consider new sources, especially with all of the conflicting figures. "Editorial judgement" apparently means "Who's here to edit it more often". Alcyone LS-L (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Road & Track is considered a reliable source because they are a third party, published source (for over 60 years) with a reputation for fact checking. Which of the sources you linked to are published and known for fact checking? The sources you linked to don't even say where the numbers came from. The motorcities link just lists specs without saying where they came from and the blog is just a copy/paste of an earlier version of Wikipedia! At least for Road & Track, when they don't test it themselves, it is usually a number that was provided by the manufacturer and can be considered reasonably accurate. If you can find an article where an independent speed test was done with a calibrated radar gun then we could probably use that. However, until then the Road & Track source is the best we have to go off of. Also, I wouldn't call being within an 8% margin being "laughably incorrect". Some cars' speedometers are off (usually optimistic) by that much. In Australia it is allowed for speedometers to be optimistic by up to 4 km/h + 10%. Other countries have similar laws. The numbers in the external link are from a "Gil B" (who's that?) and doesn't say where they came from. It also says the top speed is 140 mph, according to Car and Driver, so I don't see what's "funny". swaq 15:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

By owning this car and being SVX enthusiasts I think it should be easy to find reliable source (magazine article or something else) for the speed claim? and maybe checking the owners manual and specification section... --Typ932 ^T·C 16:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

See the problem is, R&T didn't give THEIR source, or mention ANYTHING about a speed test with "a calibrated radar gun". I do see your point though swaq, its just there apparently isnt enough interest in this 12+ year old car for any new articles on SVX top speed testing. I just know there are some on our network that race them professionally (lots of YouTube clips) and know for a fact the top speeds of the differing years. At any rate, I give up, I cannot find any article on any car magazine as large as R&T that even covers the SVX specs. Ans as for the question about the owners manual specs regarding top speed... it doesnt mention it. I just wish someone over there at R&T would have done a little more research, the article quip regarding top speed seems like it was just mentioned to the guy in passing or something.Alcyone LS-L (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

appearances

there is a back Subaru SVX with anew jersey license plate in season 3 episode 6 the 23rd episode of seinfield from 1:08 to 1:16 and again in and out of the shot from 5:24 to 7:34 a couple that Elaine tries to get help from the female who gets into the Subaru SVX 7:34, a black Subaru SVX appears in 14:24 to 14:30 it's in the background from 17:53 to 18:28 . (Subarusvx (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

Not really notable. See WP:WPACT. swaq 20:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Not subaru's first sports car

Whoever wrote this article had no knowledge of the Subaru XT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.57.4.187 (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone ever considered the XT a sports car. A runabout with sporting pretensions, or maybe even an aspiring gran turismo in the six-cylinder version, but hardly a sports car.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Automatic transmission claim

″All versions of the SVX sold were equipped with automatic transmissions, as a manual transmission capable of handling the horsepower and torque of the EG33 engine was not produced by Subaru at the time.[7]

I find this claim to be dubious, as the SVX has as its contemporaries the WRX and the Legacy GT, both of which used a turbo EJ22 engine that had only a few hp and nm less than the SVX's engine. I understand that at the time of the development, perhaps the manual transmissions were not available to the designers of the SVX, but it seems to be a bit more complicated than the article currently states. Intrepidus (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

VTD usage

On the page there is this quote: "A more advanced system called VTD (variable torque distribution), was introduced and used on SVX for sale in Japan, the UK, the Benelux region, Sweden, Australia, Spain, Austria and Brazil.". Is there any source to confirm this claim? From my experience (owner of SVX in Europe), all SVX'es sold in Europe, Japan and Australia/New Zealand had VTD transmission, and those sold in United States had MPT transmission. I've never saw one with MPT in Europe that would not be an US import. I own German-spec model with VTD transmission, seen Swiss-specs with VTD. OpposedForces page for SVX (link) lists "Europe" and "USA" versions, with Europe covering also Australia/New Zealand, and part schemas for Europe list only VTD transmission. Taking these into account, I find this quote as false and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BelegUS (talk • contribs) 10:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)