Talk:Subaru Impreza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cars Portal
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Al Holbert's Löwenbräu Porsche 962. This article is part of WikiProject Sports Car Racing, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to various sports car racing series throughout the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stephane Sarrazain, Monte Carlo 2005 This article is part of WikiProject World Rally, an effort to create and improve rallying and hillclimbing related articles on Wikipedia, including the World Rally Championship. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.
This article does not cite any references or sources. (August 2006)
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Road Course

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)