Remember the Subaru SVX? You should! They were novel, strange cars with windows-inset-in-windows and a flat-six engine and Giugiaro styling and, somehow, no manual transmission option. They sort of marketed it as a luxury sports coupé, but the reality is that it was much more strange and wonderful. Based on some of these ads, I’m not really sure Subaru actually knew what the hell they were doing with the SVX, because there’s more than one ad that was touting getting into legal trouble as a plus.
In some ways, Subaru’s difficulty in marketing and selling the SVX is the sort of problem I wish they – and other carmakers – still had today: building cars that were so unexpected and cool that they manage to confuse themselves.


Of course, it would be better if they actually managed to still sell the cars. You know how many SVXs were sold, worldwide, in their run between 1991 and 1997? About 24,000, with about 14,000 of those sales in the US. That’s not a lot. Maybe that’s because of ads like this?
I mean, yeah, that’s true, the SVX could do 140 mph, and, sure, sports car advertising has played with the idea of speeding or getting tickets with a wink before, but rarely to the point of suggesting that you’ll soon end up without the legal ability to drive not just the car they’re advertising, but any car.
I feel like there must have been other versions of this kind of ad that got fecalcanned in the brainstorming process that had taglines that read “You can drive it so fast you’ll not see a kid crossing the street in time and kill them in sight of their parents and spend the rest of your life in a guilt-saturated hell of your own making.”
Other print ads were a bit less dire, but still confusing:
I get wanting to pitch a car as something that’s both fun and practical, a sportscar that can be civilized, too, but it’s hard not to think that maybe the two sides they picked here are, perhaps, too extreme? A 17 year old kid and a Florida retiree, like my friend Jeremy’s grandparents that play mah jongg and complain about soup temperatures?
So, based on these criteria, an SVX is what, a mashup of a poorly-running Chevy Cobalt with a primer fender and a well-preserved 1998 Oldsmobile Delta 88? Is that what drivers were looking for?
Their commercials were sort of misguided as well. Like this one, that feels like a newspaper print ad, just recast for television:
It’s even almost in black-and-white. The text moves faster and far more than the car does. Why go through the expense of making a television ad when you’re literally showing text and an unmoving car?
This commercial at least has plenty of driving action, but the voice over and scrolling text somehow manages to talk itself out of the appeal of a sports car by bringing up traffic and cops and gas prices:
Way to go, Subaru. Your own commercial disillusioned itself.
SVXs still feel exciting and futuristic when you see them on the street today, a rare happening, but still. It’s just a shame Subaru’s ad agency seemed to have no idea what the hell to do with it.
I really, REALLY wanted to love the SVX… but the first time you take one through a drive through and have to deal with people through the tiny part of the window that actually rolls down, you’ll wish you just bought that mitsubishi eclipse instead.
Man, I really don’t know what you’re talking about. Owned one for 8 years. Drive throughs were fine. ???
I feel like 99% of the shit talking about the windows in the comments here are by people who’ve never driven one.
I also owned one…other than them being massively cool, I never had any drive-through or parking lot ticket issues…I WISH I owned mine for 8 years, but sadly, it was totaled within a year in a massive freeway pileup.
I bought my first new car in 1992, It was a 4 door, AWD manual Subaru Justy for $8800. Subaru had no idea who they were back then. Many of their cars were not AWD. They has this sports coupe they did not understand themselves. Heck, I could have bought a CVT Justy at the time. I am glad they got their act together. I managed to get my little 3 cyl. tractor motor Justy to over 100 mph once. My ex took it when she left me.
I like how that second commercial is like “over 24 safety features”. Is the number indeterminate? Like why pick such a specific number to say “over” about?
”Over 24” is better than “25” at forming the concept of “very many” in the reader’s or viewer’s mind, which is the actual goal. They don’t care that you think of a particular number. “Over <x>” is expansive, while “25” is limited. It’s standard marketing psychology, and any time I see “over <x>” in an ad I make myself read it as <x+1>, and the spirit of the ad falls apart.
The Bishop tried to convince me to buy a used one as my first car. It was between that and a crazy-practical 1991 Mercury Tracer Wagon. I took the blue pill and this began a history of me disappointing my car-loving family for 30 years (until I bought the 2CV)
It was weird, yes, but much more imaginative than the current Subie offerings.
Perhaps The Bishop could create an SVX/Brat mashup?
The cheaper Legacy 2.2 would do over 130 with essentially the same engine minus two cylinders (the turbo even set a 1.5-2.0 liter class speed record averaging over 138 mph for 100k km that still stands), so that’s not much of a brag for a flagship, especially when its perceived competition were some of the more legendary cars to come out of Japan. While they weren’t really competitors, there wasn’t a direct comparable, so they generally got judged against the legends. On one paw, I get the ads trying to be different to separate themselves in that space, on the other, they’re really bad. The car itself wasn’t bad, though the transmission was tragic, not just for being an automatic, but also a fragile one, though their manual at the time was also probably not up to the task of the torque and weight of the vehicle (though they might have been adequate if offered in FWD versions where wheel spin could bleed off some driveline stress, plus the lower weight vs AWD). It was the wrong kind of car for the time, more of a PLC than GT and definitely not a sports car, and that’s the kind of thing buyers were leaving in the past. It’s too bad they didn’t do more with the EG33. I wish they had used some combo of the EJ22 (maybe expanding use of the turbo version, particularly adding a damn intercooler) and used the EG33 for their cars instead of going to the terrible EJ25, though I understand why they didn’t (expense and CAFE, plus packaging for the EG33).
The first ad reads like someone who’s just driven a rental-fleet V6 Camaro for the first time, and the second one looks like someone put “retired and living in Florida” on the Zingers whiteboard, someone else suggested a “seventeen or seventy” play on words, and they didn’t want to hurt the first guy’s feelings so they half-assed both.
Perhaps the target demographic of middle-aged men wasn’t sapphic enough for their A-team, so they handed the campaign off to the interns.
I understand these can be manual swapped. Supposed to transform them. I’d love one.
Indeed they can, and often are.
I think I forgot they existed as soon as I heard no manual.
The jdm auto is a heap better too with 45-55 torque split compared to the 95-5 of USA models. My 92 USA only handled proper at wot.
Others have said a modern 4.44 final auto out of a 4spd outback helps too. Helpful if the factory auto eats itself.
I happen to know of at least one SVX driveline that was manual-swapped and then transpanted into an XT6.
Probably worth noting that this ad campaign was not only confusing, it was also a major (and expensive) flop for Subaru that led indirectly to the all-Outback-all-the-time version of the company we know today.
https://priceonomics.com/how-an-ad-campaign-made-lesbians-fall-in-love-with/
Are we sure these are real ads and not outtakes from ‘Crazy People?’
https://youtu.be/GTJZEK4JP0k?feature=shared
Curved widows also made entering and exiting easier. Mine was low enough to put a hand flat on the floor from a sitting position, yet easy to get out of since you could just stand up without hitting your head. Just requires a 90 on the seat to put feet on the floor.
I really enjoyed mine while I had it. I was number 55 on the manual swap list on Subaru-SVX.net, and that car was great with a manual in it.
I specifically remember this car because Subaru advertised it on the old dial-up Prodigy pre-www internet service. It took like a minute to draw the image of the car by layers on the ad, which was sort of fascinating to watch.
Back when Subaru actually cared about cars instead of “love and dogs”.
Much better times.
“So we made the side windows so small you can’t pass your license through them.”
Actually, the first few years of SVXs didn’t have speed limiters, and would top out at around 154mph. I took mine up to 143mph in South Dakota once. It was still pulling but I hit uneven pavement and backed off because hitting wave pavement at almost a buck fifty is code brown.
For having only 231 horsepower, that speed is impressive. Its 0.29 Cd value was among the most slippery of any production car for is time.
What part of Mexico is South Dakota in?
SVX: your guess is as good as ours.
“What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.” — the Captain
That’s a pretty wild ad campaign. Good to remember confusing ads and ads in poor taste aren’t new (I’m looking at you, Dodge and Jaguar).
I thought the SVX was a class act. Didn’t like the slushbox but, after driving one from Seattle to L.A., decided I could live with it. For me, the design rocked, too.
Thought long and hard about buying one, especially after used examples came on the market for attractive prices. But then looked up parts availability and decided it was a big, beautiful “No.”
They’re not too bad to keep on the road imho. I had one for 8 years. Biggest problem was shocks/strut mounts.
Part costs were a big part of why I decided to sell mine as well. Even the valve cover gaskets, while available, were quite expensive. Windshields though, thats what did me in. The were $1200 at a time when ever other normal car was $300.
Yup. I went through 3 windshields. I made sure I had really good glass coverage. They had titanium oxide in the glass to block UV rays, which also blocked GPS signals. If you want to run GPS in an SVX you need to put a remote antenna in the back window. 🙂
Well, you did promise not to write about Citroens today. So you wrote about the closest thing to a Citroen ever made in Japan!
The glitch occurred when it became possible to speak the phrase, “attractive Subaru.”
When these were new, the lack of a manual made them less appealing. Automatics of the day weren’t nearly as good as the current batch, and it put the SVX into the “personal luxury” category like the Thunderbird SC or Buick Riviera, Lexus SC, and Acura Legend Coupe. Of course, the issue with that is that people looking at that group of cars weren’t interested in the Subaru badge or the strangeness of the SVX.
When I was a kid, someone in my neighborhood owned one of these when they were new. I knew that it was a Subaru, but it still seemed very futuristic and kinda exotic at the time.
It brings to mind this Triumph Dolomite advert:
https://i0.wp.com/stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/dolomite.jpg?ssl=1
Although they look cool, I’d sooner take a Morning Star to the groin as my alarm clock than try to live with that window nonsense on the daily.
I personally would take the window nonsense.
Then you can cook in that greenhouse with minimal airflow to your heart’s content.
I will, gladly!
My brother in law had one of these many years ago. I was a teenager and I absolutely loved that car, window quirks be damned.
Given the thirst evident in the Bible fandom (by which I mean Italian sculptors and Hazbin Hotel) plenty of people would love to take a Morning Star to the groin.
…also I like that window nonsense.
aesthetically, it’s great. If you like any kind of windows down cruising, then airflow and arm placement are a PITA.
Have you ever tried? The airflow was one of the best things about the car, you could be cruising at 80 with all the windows down at talk to your passengers in a normal voice, and the elbow placement was far more comfortable than almost all rentals I’ve had in the early 2000’s and any car since.
No, he’s just hating on things he doesn’t know anything about.
Yeah, a lot of people are also fooled by how big overall window is. If we go by wheel to window ratio knowing the SVX had 16″ wheels, the Acura pic in the morning dump would need to have at least 22″ wheels to have a window as big as the part that opens in the SVX. When I replaced it with an RX8 I had nothing but bad things to say about the RX8 windows until I started traveling about 4 times per month, had lots of rental cars, and realized the RX8 is slightly better than average.
Can you imagine how frustrated cops would be if they told you to roll down your window and you said, “It is down,” and waived your fingers out of the little window?
The window nonsense is actually awesome. It’s plenty big for drive throughs or tolls or anything, offers far better views/visibility, way better aero, way less noise (better aero) and a larger door opening so you don’t bash your head getting in.
If you’re tall enough to sit with the seat all the way back, maybe. Anyone with a slightly forward driving position puts the leading edge of the open window nearly in line with your shoulder.
Not sure what you mean
I also fail to see how adding a pillar in my view along with a traditional A pillar improves my visibility.
The pillar around the retractable window is NOT in your vision when driving, it’s past your range of vision. The side view mirrors are not obstructed. The A pillar itself is thin, and rolls inwards the higher it goes, resulting in more visibility upwards and forwards. You’d have to sit in one, it’s great, and one of the features I miss most after owning one. The best was rolling the windows down at 80mph without the deafening WUMP WUMP WUMP noise.
Or you use the sunroof because the drive-through window is taller than a svx.
When I got a truck, I still couldn’t read the menus in drive by places.
Who are they building for?
I loved cruising in mine at 70, all four windows down, sunroof open. There was very little wind buffeting. You could light a one-hitter with ease. Or a crack pipe. Maybe they should have used that in the print ad.
The implication that you can easily light a smoke with the windows open tells me you’re not getting shit for air flow as the driver. Which, to me, defeats the purpose of driving windows down. I hope the AC never goes out on it.
That happened to me once, it sucked, and by the time I got my destination I was in my underwear. But if the AC works, it’s great!
It wasn’t an oven though. There were lots of reasons to be annoyed with the window design but airflow wasn’t one of them. I would roll down the windows in mine all the time because the window design kept the wind turbulence off my ears/face. So I got a great breeze but none of the annoyance.