|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 4th gen WRX/STi
- 2 Untitled
- 3 Looks Like Pacer?
- 4 First Entry into Small Car Market?
- 5 Correct engine designation.
- 6 Images
- 7 Separate page for RS?
- 8 Delete the Collectibles Section?
- 9 Engine Designations
- 10 Link-Fest
- 11 incomplete data
- 12 Road Course
- 13 Error for 2008 model?
- 14 Fuel Economy
- 15 First generation - image
- 16 Leading Image
- 17 3rd generation image
- 18 User:GoldDragon and User:AverageGuy reverts
- 19 Links at the beginning of the article
- 20 Diesel
- 21 Origin of the name
- 22 Pulling the "band-aid" and suggesting various articles shoud be merged into Impreza
- 23 Missing generation?
- 24 Separate WRX Article?
- 25 The LX trim and the EJ16 engine
4th gen WRX/STi
I think this has been done. Impreza now redirects here. --SportWagon 17:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks Like Pacer?
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)
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?
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)
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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.
I think I've seen Impreza's used in road course racing. 22.214.171.124 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).  Paul Fisher 06:56, 1 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)
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))
- 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)
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)
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)
Atleast in the Finnish Subaru site you can "order" a diesel version already, 
- 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))
Origin of the name
The article stated:
- "Impreza | Define Impreza at http://en.bab.la/dictionary/polish-english/". http://en.bab.la/. Retrieved 2010-10-01.
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)
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)
- 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)
OpposeSupport 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)
- Wow Marcus, I'm impressed. And you've already started the merger! OSX (talk • contributions) 10:05, 28 May 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)
- 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)
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 126.96.36.199 (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)
- 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)