Talk:Subaru Impreza

4th gen WRX/STi

The 4th gen section has no mention of the now-released WRX and STi variants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.84.49.122 (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

This article needs merging with Impreza, probably. There are too many Impreza pages in the Subaru category! Andrewferrier 15:27, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

I think this has been done. Impreza now redirects here. --SportWagon 17:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks Like Pacer?

Does anyone here think this thing looks like a hypermodern AMC Pacer? -Litefantastic 23:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I remember Pacers. An Impreza Wagon doesn't really look that much like one in real life.--SportWagon 17:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

They do have a similar silhouette (a bit of tumblehome to the body and tail, for example) the cars really don't look much alike.

--Bagheera 22:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

First Entry into Small Car Market?

Can you say Subaru 360, Subaru Justy ? And the Legacy isn't "large". Do they mean precise "compact" versus "sub-compact" or "micro" or something? Or is the claim just plain wrong?--SportWagon 17:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct engine designation.

"The basic turbocharged motor, the EJ20, produces 211 bhp."

The "EJ20" was the single overhead camshaft engine with either 8 valves (88) or 16 valves.

The "EJ20T" was the twincam 16 valve turbo which produced upwards of 180HP

---

Actually, EJ20 is a block designation, it has nothing to do with the heads or turbo.

^^^ Don't forget to sign! EJ22T is different block to the non T model, with design considerations made for Turbo-charging. It was used before the 97-99 redesign. Daniellis89 (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Images

Would it be possible when adding / changing images that the full spec is included in the image name or comment, including the region. -- Jbattersby 11:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Separate page for RS?

Shouldn't there be a separate page for the RS just like the WRX and STi? --Arun 23:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you; at the least, this article needs more info about the RS, and perhaps a picture of the RS. Also, since there are seperate articles about the WRX and WRX STI, a lot of the info about those cars can be cut out of this article. Maybe this article could benefit from a chart explaining the differences in the cars, or a more organized listing of the trim levels. The differences in the trim levels of the Impreza are more extreme than most cars, and the Impreza could be viewed as either a slow granny-driving station wagon, a rugged off-road vehicle, or a high performance sports car.

Delete the Collectibles Section?

At one time (5 years ago) it was difficult to find die-cast replicas of Imprezas, or Subarus in general. There are far more available now, however, both as collectibles and pure toy variety (I myself sometimes find the latter more "collectible", but anyway...). IMHO the new section says little of interest (toy and collectible replicas are made of most successful automobiles), and is nowhere near complete. I mean, they don't even mention AutoArt. (And yet a complete list would probably be off-topic for the article).--SportWagon 17:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Very difficult to find in the US. Yes, there is some controversy over whether collectibles should even be allowed in WP, but who is to say whether a Subara Impreza is notable, but a Choro Q Impreza is not, as there are certainly articles on types of toys, and certainly individual cars such as the Hot Wheels beach bomb. I would advocate not following those who seek to delete all topics they do not deem of interest, and err on the side of including more information, rather than less. --matador300 19:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Engine Designations

Shouldn't there be some mention that the 2.5L engine used in the USDM STi is the EJ257, and the 2.0L JDM and EDM versions are the EJ205?

Of course it should. USDM STI's enigne designation is EJ257. I corrected it twice yet some moron keeps changing it to EJ25. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.104.213 (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if you had cited a source or even at least used an edit comment the first two times it wouldn't have been misidentified as vandalism. Also note that personal attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia. swaq 19:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Link-Fest

There's a silly amount of external links here, mostly to fan sites and other non-encyclopedic sources. Can someone take a look a tidy them up? StopItTidyUp 20:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

incomplete data

once again the engine range and data is not complete.

From 92 the impreza was available with an ej15, ej16 or ej18

In 96 the impreza wagon was available with ej20

Not all nonKei Subarus are AWD. In North America that may be the case, but then the reference to Kei cars is pointless. If JDM Kei cars are mentioned, then it must be said that Subaru markets a base model FWD Imprez in Japan.

Road Course

I think I've seen Impreza's used in road course racing. 67.188.172.165 20:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Error for 2008 model?

For the 2008 model it's said the base model have a 1.5L engine, that doesn't sound right, I'm fairly sure 2.5 was intended.

Nope, 1.5 litres is correct. In Japan the new Impreza comes as a 15S (1.5 litre), 20S (2.0 litre) and S-GT (2.0 litre, turbo). [1] Paul Fisher 06:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fuel Economy

talk about fuel efficiency of Subaru Impreza models? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.138.245 (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

First generation - image

The very first Impreza had a very strange grill partially closed off with a plastic panel. It didn't last very long, but does pre-date the more open type shown in the 1st generation images in this article. Can anybody find a picture of the original? Paul Fisher 10:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean this or something even older? IFCAR 11:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not it. Even older, I think. Paul Fisher 13:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a sketch of the original 1992 styling. [2]. And here is a picture I found through Google [3] A photo of this model would be a significant addition to the article. Paul Fisher (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. We never had that in the US. IFCAR (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Leading Image

The blue impreza doesn't do the article any favors and it is now 2008. I hope the old image doesn't have a fan and tries to defend his vehicles image with the old one. Maybe someone will upload a nicer image of the latest impreza, just anything but the bug eyes blue sedan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dddike (talk • contribs) 16:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't think the bugeye WRX should be illustrated in the article? And there's no reason whatsoever that the newest image should be at head, particularly when it isn't of high quality and puts redundancy in the article. IFCAR (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The bugeye can be illustrated somewhere in the article to show design history, but it shouldn't be the first image when the article first appears. I welcome anyone who wants to upload a better version of the newest model as a lead image. The bugeye is no longer built.(Dddike (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC))

It doesn't matter which is being built. Only one infobox describes the current generation, the head infobox describes the entire line and can be illustrated with any version. IFCAR (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If the reader has found this article due to "googling" the vehicle name to research the vehicle for a new car purchase, but doesn't know what the new car looks like, and chose Wikipedia instead of the manufacturers website first, I think the first image shown should be the current version. I realize that there are hundereds of articles currently written that do not show the latest version of that vehicle, regardless if the vehicle is still in production. Do you currently have an emotional attachment to the bugeye vehicle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dddike (talk • contribs) 02:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's stupid. It doesn't matter if you think the head image should be the newest, because there is clear policy and precedent that it should be the best image, not the newest, and there is absolutely no reason to have the same image twice in the same article to accommodate your irrational desire to make Wikipedia the top source for someone who Googles Wikipedia to find out what the current Impreza looks like and won't read the article. IFCAR (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I understand; this is a photo of your car and you are emotionally attached to the image. My appologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dddike (talk • contribs) 02:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"UK spec 2005 Impreza." That's mine all right. Never mind the fact that my profile page says that I live in the US and drive a minivan. Nice thought though. IFCAR (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

3rd generation image

IFCAR please stop reverting to the picture of the sedan. The 3rd generation Impreza is a hatchback in every market in the world except North America. This was a major departure for Subaru and has drawn much comment in the motoring press. Hence the infobox picture should be a hatchback. By all means include the sedan in a gallery to indicate the difference, but it doesn't belong as the lead image for this section.

In addition, two or more pictures of the same car do have a particular value if they demonstrate different facets of the vehicle. It is not unreasonable to show a front, rear and profile view of the same car. Paul Fisher (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. While there is certainly nothing wrong with showing multiple views of the same car, that should not be at the expense of other cars. And two 3/4 front views of the same car does not add any value to the article.

In the layout I preferred, the hatchback WAS in the third-generation infobox. Yet in the infinite wisdom of knee-jerk "head image must be newest car", it was moved to the top of the article. Putting another image of the same car in that infobox is a poor choice. Putting an image of the WRX version, which has its own article, is a worse choice. (And the fact that it too is a sedan suggests you have some other reason for insisting against what I see as a highly logical image layout.)

There is absolutely nothing that says "infobox image should illustrate the car sold in the most markets." A discussion of where the sedan isn't sold is subject for the text of the article, not for a debate on the article talk page about which picture should be used.

Photos should be used to illustrate the car, in the best variety using the fewest photos. The sedan may not be sold around the world, but it is sold in at least two countries that represent a substantial sales volume for this model. It's not like anyone's trying to stick in a stretch-limo version sold only in Albania. It's also not as if there is a ridiculous difference in appearance between the 3/4 front view of the hatch and sedan. And it's also not like there won't also be a hatchback image featured even more prominently in the article.

3RR constrains me from reverting out the obviously inappropriate WRX image, so I'll have to ask you to. I ask for anyone else to comment on this, because this is one of those things that would just go back and forth between two people without a third-party viewpoint. IFCAR (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, the lead image should be an image which best depicts the vehicle over all its various models. It should also be a high quality picture. The infobox image should be the one which best depicts the particular model. In the case of the 3rd gen Impreza, the hatchback is the defining quality in world-wide markets. However the guidelines say it should be a front quarter view - so I've inserted a front quarter view of a hatchback. I think that brings me up to 3 reverts as well :) Paul Fisher (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine that changing your own edit could count towards 3RR. (I also don't think that non-revert modifications count -- I hope I'm right because that's what I'm doing, but in keeping with the spirit you've laid out.)

Also, since it is now also calendar-year 2008, I think it is now safe to call the 3rd-gen Imprezas pictured 2008s. Especially the version that is sold only in countries that use model years. IFCAR (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:GoldDragon and User:AverageGuy reverts

I've reverted to the version that seems more correct (dates mesh with filenames) and has more references. It would be great if both of you would discuss your differences instead of reverting each other as vandalism. -- BillWeiss | Talk 14:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Material was removed legitimately after having been fact-tagged for months. GoldDragon is trying to reinsert it as part of a larger edit (the rest of which is legitimate). I will remove the offending material only, not reverting the entire edit, but he has to stop reinserting the material unless he is going to provide a source. AverageGuy (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the diff from my revert (here), especially the last diff section, you'll see a reference that you were removing. It looks like that's the reference for what you're removing. Disagree? -- BillWeiss | Talk 14:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Links at the beginning of the article

At the beginning of this article, one sees links immediately to the WRX, WRX STI, and Outback. Is this really necessary? It just strikes me as odd in comparison to other articles about car models. I know they're very important, but I think it would be more fitting to be placed somewhere in the main text, perhaps before the Contents. RotisserieEngine (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No they dont belong there, should be changed --Typ932 ^T·C 08:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Diesel

Atleast in the Finnish Subaru site you can "order" a diesel version already, [4]

• 2.0 TD 2,0 TD 110/150/3600
• 2.0 TD-S 2,0 TD 110/150/3601 (Sport)

So the article is very outdated with the "Diesel" section in the third generation. The infobox could be updated with the 2.0 liter Diesel as well, or is it only US-centic, as it does not even list the 1.5 L version for Japan and Europe? --Pudeo' 23:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Please update the information about Diesel engine options available for the Impreza as Europe seems to be the only source of information. (Regushee (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

I did that, I also added 1.5 L and 2.0 L engines to the infobox. The 2.0 L 150 hp can cover the turbodiesel as well, as according to Subaru they're both the same 2.0 L and 150 hp. --Pudeo' 00:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the name

The article stated:

"Impreza" is a coined word, deriving from an originally Polish word, meaning a party.

"Impreza | Define Impreza at http://en.bab.la/dictionary/polish-english/". http://en.bab.la/. Retrieved 2010-10-01. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= and |title= (help)

Sorry, but Polish dictionary is not a proof. Do you know what Ford Kuga means in Serbo-Croatian? Here's The answer. So, please give as a source, preferably from Subaru, which states the origin of the name. No such user (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Pulling the "band-aid" and suggesting various articles shoud be merged into Impreza

If the Outback was crying out to be merged into the Legacy, why not do the same for the Impreza. It would make navigating through the WRX and STi versions so much easier, the logic used for the Outback and Legacy merger (Regushee (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC))

I personally feel that this made the Outback article harder to navigate through and damaged the integrity of that article, but that is not the reason for my opposition. My reason for the opposition is that these three vehicles have completely different engines, bodywork, and are not updated at the same time (they do not always share the same generations for the same year). MarcusHookPa (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Bodywork is the same (new plastic bumpers are not new bodywork; the body pressings are still the same). We will need to split the Impreza article into generations to accommodate the mergers as the detail will make the main page too long. Once the non-encyclopaedic content (overly-detailed specs, marketing puffery, etc) are pruned from the WRX and STI pages, the content will be much more manageable and should fit into the generational articles very nicely. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 1.0

Have an umbrella article titled Subaru Impreza with the following sub-pages:

• Subaru Impreza (first generation) — including the regular model, WRX, WRX STI, and Outback Sport
• Subaru Impreza (second generation) — including the regular model, WRX, WRX STI, and Outback Sport
• Subaru Impreza (third generation) — including the regular model, WRX, WRX STI, and Outback Sport
• When the fourth generation becomes detailed enough, then Subaru Impreza (fourth generation) can be created.
• Subaru Impreza in motorsport — for all the race-related information that is in significant detail.

The WRX and WRX STI pages would be turned into a single disambiguation article, akin to Subaru Outback. And to quash any concerns that the next generation WRX will be an independent model separate from the Impreza; that is true, but the new car will be migrating to the "Subaru WRX" nameplate, completely eschewing the Impreza title and allowing a new Subaru WRX page to exist. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Amendment 1.1: MarcusHookPa has suggested that the Saab 9-2X be merged as well, so I would like to add this to the above proposal. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - as instigator (...suggesting the band-aid be pulled...) (Regushee (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC))
• Support — as nominator. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support --Pineapple Fez 05:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support -->Typ932 ^T·C 07:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Support MarcusHookPa (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC) In other nations, this vehicle is sold as its own model. MarcusHookPa (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support And if there is a unique WRX someday, the disambiguation can be there, a la Chevrolet Cruze. IFCAR (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - as per nom, but let's give this one a good two weeks so that we can better establish consensus for the arguments which are sure to take place in July (and again in August, September, ...). Also I would like to see some documentation for MarcusHookPa's statement that the WRX/STi is sold as a separate model somewhere.  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm that Marcus is correct. The current generation does not have "Impreza" badging in most markets—the USA and Canda are exceptions to this. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur, the WRX is now sold without the Impreza badge in the UK too, but of course it still is an Impreza.Warren (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I withdraw my opposition, I am now on board. MarcusHookPa (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow Marcus, I'm impressed. And you've already started the merger! OSX (talk • contributions) 10:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, hopefully we can rub out the rough edges with that one soon. There wasn't much to work with, but I feel that we may be able to get this done by the end of the week at this rate. Thank you, MarcusHookPa (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Things are starting to flow a little better now. I'm really stuck with what to do with all the WRX variants though. Any suggestions because that section is still a mess? OSX (talk • contributions) 09:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Just one article - Subaru Impreza and that's it. We don't need separate articles for versions or generations. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think that would just a little too long? OSX (talk • contributions) 09:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so I have merged the lot now. I managed to get it all into two articles: the main Impreza page, plus Subaru Impreza (second generation). There was simply too much information on the second generation to cram it all into the main page (and that includes the Saab 9-2X as well). By pruning the contents of the first generation WRX and STI down, I think that section is now of reasonable length and we can probably go without a separate page for this series. Likewise, the third generation section is not all that long so I don't think we need to consider a separate page for that generation yet (and I have yet to go through and slim down this section). If anyone wants to salvage the motorsport information from the old WRX and STI pages, feel free, but they were simply to messy to warrant inclusion. This information needs to be made more encyclopaedic before we consider restoring it though. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This article looks like crap now. All of the formerly easy to read spec information on the old standalone STI page has been squashed into a couple of paragraphs. 24.16.226.233 (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

For the second generation article, I believe that we should leave the information boxes for each model (Impreza/WRX/WRX STi/9-2X) as they all have slightly different weights and slightly different engines (especially Impreza) as we did for the individual generation Legacy articles. MarcusHookPa (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Due to the sheer number of Impreza variants released, we can not reasonably include weights in the infobox. This is something that is going to have to be (and has been) relegated to the prose. Powertrain tables for each generation would fix up your concerns with respect to the engines, and allow details such as power outputs that were cut from the infobox to be restored to this article. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but merging these pages has done nothing but add complication to an already difficult to read article. I realize the Wikipedia plan involves making things as "encyclopedic" as possible, but you have to understand your target audience before making such sweeping changes. The people who wiki Impreza are NOT the same people who wiki WRX's/STI's, and pruning relevant information about these models to make them fit on one page is a disservice to everyone involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.64.16.132 (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I really have to agree that the current article is something of a structural mess ... there are just too many different models in the Impreza line to allow for the creation of a single, coherent article. While it would be overkill to construct separate articles for each Impreza generation, the Crosstrek is definitely distinct enough to merit a separate article, and it might also be logical to create a separate article for the WRX/STI "sport" variants. Pitamakan (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing generation?

Okay, where is the first generation? I know Impreza's were made in the 80's. I am really confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookster451 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you are confusing this car with the older Subaru Leone. Impreza production started in 1992. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Separate WRX Article?

I see that in the past several articles for Impreza were merged, and understand that reasoning... However, I'm sure many of us are aware the WRX is it's own model now. So... What to do?

Proposal 1: Separate Article for WRX. Pull all the meat of the WRX stuff in there, and reference back to Impreza article when necessary. Likewise, in the Impreza article, mention the WRX, but no specifics.

Pros: - Both articles contain all the important information, and are relatively thorough.

Cons: - Maintenance. lots of duplicated information and crosslinking.

Proposal 2: Separate article for WRX (not to be confused with the former Impreza WRX). Simply start with the 2015 model. In history, mention the Impreza article and that they used to be the same model. also highlight the differences from the Impreza to establish the new platform. (truthfully, I don't know how different it is, but know that a lot of different "model" subarus are very similar e.g. 1999 Forester and Impreza.)

Pros: - Accurately matches the current branding. - Little initial work to be done.

Cons: - That Will make the WRX article pretty short, but that's fine for now I think. Many readers if not most will have to navigate to the Impreza article to get older info. - Also, over time that Impreza article will seem to have little relevance to the WRX.

As it stands, the current structure is ok, but somewhere down the road this will have to be addressed. I think this will please a lot of people who liked the separate articles in the past too i.e. the performance crowd versus practical shoppers.

Other suggestions are welcome, so feedback would be great! AutumnWind 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: I already see some flaws in my logic... I was under the impression the chassis is different with the newest WRX models. But anyway, given that the last debate on this was a while ago, maybe worth rehashing.AutumnWind 17:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what to do with the WRX right now. My inclination is to maintain the status quo, maybe look at revisiting the issue with the next generation. This is because as far as I know, the new 2014 WRX is not really a completely separate model. Yes, the front end (including fenders) is different. The rear fenders are also uniquely sculptured, plus the rear doors have had a subtle reskin with an upwards kink (but otherwise the same shape). However, it appears that the roof (including roofline/profile silhouette), front doors, boot lid and interior are common with the Impreza. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The LX trim and the EJ16 engine

In the section "First generation (1992–2000; GC, GF, GM)" it says:

"Trim levels were LX, GL and Sport generation. LX models were front-wheel drive, and powered by a 1.6 L engine; these were four-door only. GL trim levels were either front-wheel drive (Subaru badged these 2WD) or all-wheel-drive (badged AWD); cars launched in 1993 had a choice of 1.6 and 1.8 flat-4 engines, the 1.6 being available with 2WD, the 1.8 an AWD version only. From 1996, the 1.6 and 1.8 versions were dropped (in the European market), and replaced by a 2.0 L engine."

The LX models were available both with FWD and AWD, and were also available both 4-door and 5-door (hatchback). Thus the 1.6 engine was available with both FWD and AWD. Also the 1.6 was available at least until 1998. I cannot find any online sources for this though, and I've been searching for almost an hour. I do know there are many Impreza LX cars near me with the 1.6 engine and AWD. I even owned one ('98, LX, 1.6L, 5-door). Sedumacre (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Messy

This article is an absolute mess and very hard to read or skim for relevant info. There are also large sections that sound like they are written or copied from an auto magazine or something. I'm not a very experienced Wiki editor, so I'm not sure what the 'standard' template should be, but as it stands I find it incredibly hard to understand anything. Esoteridactyl (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

4th Generation Dimensions

According to the manufacturer's site, the dimensions listed for the 4th generation are incorrect. Is the company's own website an appropriate source? Ckoerner (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The link provided is for the WRX model. This is different to the regular Impreza. The manufacturer is fine for sourcing dimensions—feel free to add the numbers for the WRX. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

WRX and Crosstrek

The WRX and Crosstrek redirect to here. They're two separate cars so I'm proposing a split. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:D0B9:3847:B5F:CCA6 (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I would like to cite osx as precident from another edit "The link provided is for the WRX model. This is different to the regular Impreza. The manufacturer is fine for sourcing dimensions—feel free to add the numbers for the WRX. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)" Wrx and impreza are different models with different chassis codes and should have their own pages, or if your polish and Italian are good enough we could just translate. :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyboardmechanic (talk • contribs) 06:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• I support the split. JonathanDP81 (talk | contribs) 00:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support. They are different vehicles with different features and capabilities. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support. They are different vehicles and are marketed differently. It is not obvious to consumers that the Crosstrek is connected to Impreza. -- cydonia90 11:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support, yes please. I find it difficult to follow as is. Impreza is a normal sedan, WRX/STI are more like a sports car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradL

• Support, yes please. The Crosstrek is a missing step child. There is no mention of the car in the Subaru article and it is lost even in this article crossed with other models. Today the USA calls the car a Subaru Crosstrek with no other designation. No other letters are part of the model number. It is an independent offering from Subaru America. This history can show how it came about but today it is a separate model entirely even though the Impreza body a starting point. It is common for automobile models to derive from a common base model and grow to something very different. DaleDe (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - Crosstrek is just some cladding and suspension. The Impreza WRX was a sub-model of the Impreza until 2011 (when it was no longer called Impreza) or 2016 (when it gained a more different body). I believe that splitting Impreza into generations would be the best, with the latest WRX getting its own entry. This page could then be reduced to a clear, concise explanation of what is what and when the WRX was split off the main Impreza line. I see no reason to separate the Crosstrek/XV yet, but I guess that could change in the future.  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - Couldn't agree more with User talk:Mr.choppers. The latest WRX is way more different to Impreza than Crosstrek is. Just like to add that the latest Subaru WRX in a way already has its own entry with Subaru Levorg which is a WRX station wagon. If the next generation Levorg won't show up in detuned version I would recommend adding WRX to Levorg and renaming an article to Subaru WRX/Levorg. Zvrkljati (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. - Please split these. Additionally WRX should be split from Impreza now that it is its own platform. For example, the 370z is not all bundled in with the 350z and other Z cars, so why are all of these together in one huge article for the Impreza, WRX, STi, and Crosstrek? --4.34.224.37 (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - A much better solution might be to split this article by generation, not by trim level, and leave only part of this page in place as an overview. The GC, GD, GE/GH/GR/GV, and GJ/GP/VA should probably all be different articles. After all, this is what we have done for cars like the Honda Civic, Ford Mustang, etc. Then again, there is precedent for splitting the article by trim level in the form of the Nissan Skyline and Nissan Skyline GT-R pages... GearheadLydia (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Nobody is talking about splitting these articles based on trims. In 2014 Subaru introduced a new model vehicle: The Subaru WRX. This is entirely separate from the Impreza model, which used to have a "WRX" trim. This article is incredibly messy combining the Impreza, Crosstrek, and WRX models. I don't think it's appropriate to continue to persist this page as an aggregate. The Impreza and Crosstrek are separate models as well, regardless of how similar they are. That's the point of having platform vehicles. Yes, they're similar. But they're separate models designed and marketed for different tasks and demographics. This article should only contain information relavent to the Impreza model. Right now, it's turned into spaghetti trying to maintain information for at least three. Swivelgames (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Yes, the Crosstrek and the WRX are branded as different vehicles, but we already have more than one instance where vehicles are separated into articles by mechanical similarity, despite having different badge engineering efforts going on (see also: pages on the Holden Commodore models, and specifically the VE model, which has been declared a featured article). If nothing else, most of the panels are interchangeable within any given generation of the Impreza, Outback Sport / Crosstrek, and WRX; only in the latest two generations of the Impreza (and the latest single generation of the WRX) does this start to change. Also, for what it's worth, a page for the second generation car specifically already exists, and includes info on the Saab 9-2X. GearheadLydia (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - The Impreza, the WRX, the STI, and the CrossTrek all use the same platform with slightly different suspensions/drivetrain/options and vastly different marketing. A split would just confuse the readers of wikipedia. Like others have said, the most significant difference is the branding, not the vehicle. 107.77.204.72 (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support - The Impreza, WRX, and Crosstrek are all marketed as very different vehicles, even if they come from the same platform. There's also a large enough amount of content that putting them all together makes navigating through the article harder. Add the fact that the Crosstrek now spans two generations so you'd have to have two Crosstrek sections here to keep it in the generation sections. --Vossanova ^o< 21:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Support The WRX and Crosstrek are similar cars, but performance-wise, they are in completely different classes. They're even classified as different chassis codes (The WRX with VA, Crosstrek with GP and GT). --Eightsixofakina ^o< 02:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support Totally agree with Eight.^^ Especially with many, if not most, automakers beginning to shift all of their vehicles to a number of universal global platforms (the Ford Mustang eventually moving to Ford's global CD6 platform, for example, the same platform that underpins the new 2020 Ford Explorer), it is paramount that we continue to treat separate models as exactly that, separate. I may be totally out of my mind here, but the Explorer and Mustang, while they will soon be built on the same platform, are totally different vehicles. Making articles with three models as one, as this one does, only complicates the future of auto wikipedia pages in light of new global platforms with many similar, but separate, models on each platform. --G8Burnout ^o< 11:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support Those still arguing that the WRX is a trim of the Impreza is missing the point of the rebrand from the "Impreza WRX" to the "Subaru WRX". The chassis code of the WRX and Impreza are completely different, their chassis are incompatible, they have different manufacturing processes, and are now developed by entirely different groups within Subaru. Just like the Nissan GT-R (and many other examples), a new model has been created to replace another model's trim level. The change is identical to the Nissan GT-R vs Nissan Skyline GT-R. The WRX and Impreza do not share a platform. In fact, the WRX (including its STi trim level) is the only vehicle within the Subaru line-up as of this writing that is not built on top of the Subaru Global Platform. As for all the other vehicles, every single one of them share the exact same platform. This includes the Crosstrek and Impreza, but also the Forester, Legacy, Outback, and Ascent. To use that as justification would require all other Subaru models to be combined into this article. Each of these new models serve separate purposes. --Swivelgames (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Support I believe that the best way to approach this would be to turn this article into a general article, create separate WRX and XV/Crosstrek articles that are also generalized, then have separate, more detailed articles, for each generation:

• GC/GF/GM Impreza and WRX
• GD/GG Impreza and WRX
• GE/GH Impreza and GR/GV WRX
• GJ/GP Impreza
• GP Crosstrek
• VA WRX
• GK/GT Impreza
• GT Crosstrek

I will admit my understanding of how these model codes are arranged isn't perfect. But would some form of this idea work well enough? EDIT: I should also mention that, since WRXs up to the VA generation seem to be connected to the regular Impreza, it'd be safe to keep those together until the split. Just my two cents. — R. J. Circus – contribs - talk – 03:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

WRX STI as separate?

Should the WRX STI be split into its own article, since the Subaru WRX exists as its own article? --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I think it doesn't match the main WP:SPLIT reasons. Jasmir54 03:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Better choice of XV image

Good afternoon all,

Mine (factory specification)

Vauxford's (factory, but with aftermarket features)

Me and Vauxford have an image of a Subaru XV 5th gen that we are sorta arguing over. It appears based on this, that he believes that his would be the better example as his is "...look nicer because it similar colour and angles..." however, while I agree with this statement, however coming back I did a second check and found the orange highlights are aftermarket (not factory fitted), because the wing mirrors are supposed to be body coloured even on the base model. I'm going to enlist Charles01 as he'd have more experience with this trivial matter.

I know mine is original because it retains the black bumpers and also has the body colour wing mirrors (not the orange highlights). Knowing Subarus, I can tell that I can recrop the image if need be. Noticing Vauxford used to do his images tightly cropped, I learnt my crops through OSX & the 2017 method so thats why. Lets have a discussion and see which one of these would be the most suitable. Vauxford please see this discussion and input your thoughts. Until we have a discussion, this edit will remain. Okay, because we do not want this to become an edit war. Vauxford's Subaru image will be violating WP:CARPIX and therefore would not be suitable for use in the car articles --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 05:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

EurovisionNim Could you stop treating CARPIX like it some official policy. The orange trim for the grille is a official accessories from Subaru as shown: here. It very unlikely for a car that is less than a year old already been modified but I can't seem to find the orange covers for the bumper, skirt and wing mirrors which is odd. Reason why I thought it was all orignial because I know manufacturers such as DS do let you put additional colour trims as a option. --Vauxford (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Vauxford, but optional accessories do not really play a factor in replacing images. Again CARPIX is not the important issue at the moment. The main issue is the wing mirrors and the bumpers which technically are aftermarket equipment. Again, this is relatable because my mum's X3 has the sports package so therefore there are plenty of unwanted accessories that detracts me from picturing her car :). Vauxford, some cars under six month old can be modified, but in your case the Subaru's wing mirrors and other accessories except for the winglets are aftermarket accessories. Such as in the case of Mr.choppers, he uploaded an image of the green Mirage (pictured). This car was fitted with aftermarket accessories 1 week after being purchased. Some owners can be complete muppets. Also remember DS & Subaru are different companies so therefore they would have different rules relating to optional accessories. Check the company's official website before determining. Normally for me, I use the company's official website and also Carsales to help determine the accessories :)) Its not like its a bad image, but the orange accessories do not really work for the article. However, I do LOVE the Eclipse Cross, you have saved me plenty of time with your photo, but you should tweak the images to meet Wiki standards. Have a nice day --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 11:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

So is the splitting of the article happening or not?

I've read through the split proposals on the Talk page, and it seems that the majority of people who replied support the split, so I am wondering as to why it hasn't happened.Eightsixofakina (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Looking back at a post made five years ago by Autumnwind on the same subject, I looked through proposals they've made and I should agree with the second proposal regarding the creation of an article specific to the V* era WRX, while leaving the G* era WRXs on the Impreza article. To reiterate, there would be a brief history explanation as to the G* era WRXs moving into the V* era, which would be detailed from then on in a main WRX article and expanded with information on the forthcoming (VB?) WRX.

I.e: Summary > History (hotlinks to the first three Impreza WRX generations) > First Generation (VA) > Second Generation (V?) > etc.

Meanwhile, the Impreza article should have a brief explanation as to the off-shooting of the WRX into its own brand. I believe it would be ideal to have that explained at the end of the subsection describing GR/GV WRXs as those continued into the 2014 model years (in the U.S, at least) while GJ/GP Imprezas started with the 2012 MYs (again, in the U.S.).

As for the XV Crosstrek, approach it similarly.

Summary > Predecessors? (as the American Impreza Outback Sport exists) > First Generation (GP) > Second Generation (GT) > etc.

I know I've said earlier to have separate articles for each little generation of three different cars, but in hindsight that'd be a lot of overhead. The Crosstrek only has two generations thus far, and the V* era WRX is soon to be evolved to only its second generation. So I now see no justification to separate the articles to *that* much of an extent. — R. J. Circus – contribs - talk – 01:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I definitely think a split is in order. I came looking for information about one of the three and found an utterly unnecessary amount of information about different vehicles. To say that the platform or drivetrain underneath is all that matters means that VAG only produces like two or three cars across all of Audi, VW, Seat, Skoda, etc. which is clearly not the case. I agree that these started together, much like the Celica Supra, but at some point they are shaped and sized differently and have different customer bases. They each deserve their own article. If nothing else, this isn't even particularly usable in its current form. There's too much information that isn't relevant. The Impreza may tie them together but I can't imagine anyone straight-face claiming that an STI and a Crosstrek are the same. 130.45.43.153 (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Can't be bothered to read it all again, but the proposal as laid down by R. J. Circus above seems logical and consistent with policies, even when those policies come into contradiction with each other. Go forth, Be Bold! I'll help out when I get the time. (I still think the Crosstrek entries belong in the requisite generational Impreza entries, but I am not about to get on any barricades over it)  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I went ahead and changed the WRX article from a redirect to a very basic stub article with lots still needed to be built on yet. I can't take the credit for the proposal as I was suggesting an idea someone else proposed early when the VA WRX was released. Expand on it how you will. — R. J. Circus – contribs - talk – 01:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Update: Apparently it didn't work out as well as planned, as it's been reverted. Now I'm questioning if it's really wanted. Whatever; I'm not good at writing articles from scratch. If anyone else wants to take a crack at it, feel free. — R. J. Circus – contribs - talk – 01:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I was asked by User:Bkissin to split Subaru Crosstrek, and it does appear that there was consensus for the split, so I have accepted Draft:Subaru Crosstrek (after renaming the draft). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I am currently working on a WRX article (Draft:Subaru WRX). Since the articles will split anyways and the WRX has a much more confusing history than the Crosstrek, can I use the text from this article in my draft? (Also if they are being split maybe the information on this page about the Crosstrek that isn't there already should be moved over to the new article as well.) KK027 (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

As I've said earlier, the WRX article should focus mainly on the V* generation of the WRX, though briefly mentioning the Impreza-based G* generations. Honestly, I didn't consider just making a draft page as opposed to editing what was there and established already.— R. J. Circus – contribs - talk – 06:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense. I could change the draft to just have the info from this article on the V* generations along with some information on the Impreza based models. Kk027 (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I have completed the WRX article draft, so please feel free to move it, as I cant ("there is another article with the same name"). Kk027 (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I can merge it with the current WRX redirect myself if that's OK. kk027 (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I've done extensive editing on the Subaru Crosstrek article, but there is still a lot that needs to be done. Any help is appreciated! Eightsixofakina (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

WRX article

Now that there is a separate article for the Crosstrek, is there any word on a separate WRX article? Eightsixofakina (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support division of wrx sti and restore this full-bodied and thriving version [5] da 60 kb, which can be further expanded with subsequent generations. The WRX STI is an icon of both sports and rally cars in Motorsport and street legal versions, such as the Lancer EVO, BMW M3, Sierra Cosworth, Civic Type R, 911 GT3, Lancia Delta HF; all of which have a separate article of their own. Will separate and restore the unbundling if there is no objection to it. 5.90.235.203 (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  You realized the proposal is about a separate WRX article (which was already done), not WRX STI? Andra Febrian (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I apologize i don't understand immediately, i open new trend. 5.90.232.9 (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Sixth generation

The "all-new" "completely redesigned" 2024 Impreza is being unveiled on Nov. 17th at the LA Auto Show, meaning the final model year for the current (fifth) generation is 2023. Sixth generation section should be added after the unveiling, as seems to be custom. Luma834 (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

WRX STi separation

I want to division of wrx sti article and restore the old version of 2012 about 60 kb, which can be further expanded with subsequent generations. The WRX STi is an icon of both sports and rally cars in Motorsport and street legal versions, such as the Lancer EVO, BMW M3, Sierra Cosworth, Lotus Cortina, Lotus Omega, Civic Type R, 911 GT3, Lancia Delta HF and others; all of which have a separate article of their own. Will separate and restore the unbundling if there is no objection to it. 5.90.232.9 (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Please get consensus for this first before moving again. I've changed the redirect to point to Subaru WRX which seems more appropriate now that we have a split article for that.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I have restored to stable question, in line with the outcome of the discussion. The preventive discussion (and is not obligatory open this) had been opened and has already taken place, in about 8 months no one has opposed it, proceeding with the result of the same has already been materialized by silent consent and WP:BOLD. If anyone wanted to oppose it, they had plenty of time providing adequate reasons and didn't do so. If you don't think this is appropriate, open a new and different trend and provides adequate reasons and justification to support your thesis.37.159.56.73 (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)