Talk:Subaru Outback

Outback Sport "introduced in 1998"

I'm confused about this, as the Subaru Outback Sport which I drive is a model year 1997. Since model years tend to start before calendar years, I'm inclined to believe it was introduced in at least 1996. Someone who knows, please either make this correct or explain away my confusion. 24.237.121.207 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC) hg

My friend has a '96 Impreza Outback Sport. Also, the picture of the "1st-generation Outback SUS" is really of the 2nd-generation Outback sedan. Rhettro76 22:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

WPOV

Can somebody re-write the introduction with a world point of view? The Outback is marketed in many countries other than the US, but the introduction makes it sound like a US-only model. Paul Fisher 13:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

production

When the production of this vehicle started?? Main box:Production 1996–present, First generation Production 1995–1999 and Outback to the US market in 1994 ?? this is quite confusing.--— Typ932^{T | C}  20:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Subaru Outback Sport

This vehicle was scattered over this site and the Impreza site, and after an image of the 3rd generation Outback Sport was added to the Impreza site, it seemed time to create a special section of the Outback Sport on this page. Subaru seems to use the Outback name as a special descriptor of both the Legacy and the Impreza, so it seemed logical to move the images and information to this article. Curiously, Subaru doesn't offer a Forester Outback or, God help us, Tribeca Outback. (Dddike (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

The 2.2 was the only engine in the OBS from 1997-though the intro of the 2.5, correct? Proscriptus (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct; the 1.8 was never available in the OBS and the article has been corrected. (Regushee (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC))

The Impreza Outback Sport was never referred to in the same stand-alone way as the Subaru Outback, right? Everywhere I've seen it in documentation, its not called the Subaru Outback Sport, but the Subaru Impreza Outback Sport as though it was a Trim level (automobile).

that being the case, it could be mentioned here in the article, but Subaru has used the Outback name as both a model name and a trim level/package descriptor (like STI). So its inclusion should be made separately distinct. RCHM (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Pictures

Do we really need so many pictures of the Outback Sport? Especially given that

a) several of the year models are identical and

b) some of the pictures are of very inferior quality and

c) the Outback Sport seems to be a USA-only renaming of an Impreza trim line which went by other names in other markets.

(In fact I question whether it should be included on the Outback page at all, but that's a separate argument)

Paul Fisher (talk) 09:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Was this coloring scheme used in Australia and Europe? It doesn't seem to make sense to integrate the Outback Sport on the Impreza page, just as the Outback isn't integrated into the Legacy page, and it seems like the "Outback" badge is used to identify Subaru's crossover line.

There is also an extremely limited amount of information on the Impreza Gravel Express, other than vehicles currently for sale on-line in New Zeeland, and if it wasn't for the photo uploaded into Wikimedia, I doubt anyone would have discovered it. Mechanically speaking, the Outback is identical to the Legacy, with the only diference being a lifted ride height and appearance changes. However, the Outback has its own page and the information listed is a duplicate of the information found for the Legacy. I suppose, if someone wanted to devote the time, they could start a new page for the Outback Sport, duplicating the information found for the Impreza without the turbo to remain consistent.(Dddike (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

The same vehicle was sold in Australia as the Impreza RV. [1] [2] Note from the NRMA review it was originally intended to be called the Outback Sport but that name was dropped to prevent confusion with the real Outback. It wasn't regarded as an Outback, but a tarted-up Impreza. The Liberty-based Outback has always had a distinctive identity, but the RV was just another Impreza. Paul Fisher (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Head Gasket issues

I know it's mentioned on the Subaru Legacy page, but shouldn't the problems with the early 2.5L engines' head gaskets be listed here too? They affect a significant number of the cars (10%-15%, from subaruoutback.org forums[3]) built before 2000.123.243.67.1 (talk) 04:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

references and introduction

The article needs references.

Also, the introduction doesn't really introduce the Outback... it starts off full speed with data that's far too specific. It needs to move from "general" to "specific." 842U (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Guess who won Motortrends 2010? SOTY

the subaru outback that's who. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.201.80 (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

2.5i Limited caption

See link to the pictured vehicle's Monroney label [4]. Note that it is labeled as a 2.5i Limited, even without a sunroof. IFCAR (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

misc changes

"Legacy Outback" is still the name used for marketing in Japan. there are other bits & pieces that I've edited, but the scope (for change) is much larger than I realized. I got lazy and stopped.

anyway, how about tables showing the similarities and differences between Outback in different markets instead of mouth-full of (repeating) text? and detail the changes between model years of the same platform, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtual bob (talk • contribs) 05:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Subaru Outback Sport

Why the Subaru Outback Sport is included here? It is only assciated with Outback in name only. Isn't it just an Impreza hatchback with some plastic side claddings and a higher ridding height? ---North wiki (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

For the same reason that the Subaru Outback has its own article, which is just a Legacy wagon with some plastic side claddings and a higher ridding height. (Regushee (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC))

Is this WP:OTHERSTUFF? Then why not consider to merge Outback with Legacy if that IS the proper way? ---North wiki (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried that to no avail a while back. I am willing to try again though, any other supporters? OSX (talk • contributions) 12:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it would work to merge Outback into Legacy now that the Legacy article is split up by generation. IFCAR (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the Outback sport should definitely be merged into the Impreza article, and it would make sense to merge the Outback wagon into the Legacy article. Bookster451 (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The Outback name is a trim package used by Subaru to denote special features installed on the Legacy and the Impreza. Mechanically, the Outback and Outback Sport are identical to the Legacy and the Impreza. The main difference is the lifted ground clearance on the Outback and recently the same approach is now used on the Impreza XV, which is the Outback Sport package used in North America. The idea to merge the articles has been proposed, but the articles remain separated. Combining the articles would also greatly increase the size of the Legacy and Impreza articles considerably, not to mention that there are separate articles for the Impreza WRX and WRX-Sti. Having the Outback trim package as its own article has so far worked well, with one or two suggestions for merge per year.(Regushee (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC))

Despite what the article says, the Outback Sport DOES have a raised suspension versus the standard Impreza. In the Subaru shop manual for GC8 Imprezas, it states the Outback Sport having a ground clearance of 165mm versus 145mm. Furthermore, the owner's manual (at least for 1999 year models) states the Outback Sport as having more off-the-road capability than the other Impreza models due to it's suspension and tires/wheels. Sources are the Subaru Impreza GC8 dealer's shop manual and the 1999 Impreza owner's manual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.185.118 (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Confusing overlap with impreza and legacy

To users who are unfamiliar with the legacy and impreza, this article could be very confusing. I propose either merging both the outback sport and legacy outback back into their respective articles or seperate the outback sport and legacy outback into seperate articles. Any opinions? Bookster451 (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The link at the top of the article for the Impreza suggesting readers go to "Subaru Outback" has been changed to read "Subaru Outback Sport", which takes the reader directly to the Outback Sport Article. Let's see how long it lasts before someone decides to change it (Regushee (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC))

Ok, well even to readers who DO understand it, the whole setup is a mess. We have one article stating it is a dedicated model of the legacy in station wagon form, yet the bottom has an almost completely unrelated vehicle, and said vehicle has no info for the hatchback- "Outback Sport" on it's own Impreza page. I suggest to change this page into explaining the name "outback" as a trim level name, or merge both vehicles back into their respective pages. Bookster451 (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Support de-merge. Subaru XV (or Outback Sport) has nothing to do with the Legacy or Outback. Very confusing article. Warren (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I am fully against the new article edits. However, I feel that if it was separated into Subaru Legacy Outback and Subaru Impreza Outback it would clear up much confusion. I can only support this separation if all information regarding the vehicles (and possibly more for the Impreza Outback) from this article is intact. I have put in "see main article" and linked it back to the Subaru Legacy for the Subaru Outback (Legacy Outback) in this article. I feel that this is much better than completely removing all of the information. MarcusHookPa (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Re-prioritize article

The article gives off the impression that the Outback is it's own unique Subaru model, and then there's the Outback Sport. Regushee made a good point stating the name "Outback" is a trim level used for the Impreza hatchback and Legacy wagon. So, I suggest the article be reworded to describe the name "Outback" as a trim level. If not, the Outback sport should be split off into another article. Bookster451 (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Outback belongs with Legacy article and Outback Sport or XV needs reuniting with the Impreza article. No need for an Outback article at all. Warren (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Subaru has marketed the Outback and Legacy as distinct models, even from the current Legacy wagon, even though the Outback is based off the Legacy platform. Therefore, this article should talk about this distinct model (like it had been). The Outback Sport disambiguation (to the Impreaza) could just be a {{about}}, {{for}} or {{redirect}}. --O (talk • edits) 05:34, 15 April 2012 (GMT)

Subaru marketing the Outback as a different model does not change the almost 100 percent parts interchangeability with the Legacy. What are the differences? Different bumpers, wheels, badging, increase ground clearance, and that's about it. So why have two articles stating the same thing twice just because of what Subaru's marketing department does? The concept is no different to the Audi A6 Allroad (which should also be merged), the VW Passat All-Trac, and the Skoda Octavia Scout. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed in full (with Bookster and OSX).  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

By that logic, you can say the same for Audi A, S and RS models: different bumpers, wheels, badging, engine and suspension settings, or even for the Impreaza and its WRX and WRX STI models, yet those articles are not merged for good reason. --O (talk • edits) 18:01, 15 April 2012 (GMT)

Those examples have been discussed previously. Also, I also agree with Bookster and OSX.--Pineapple Fez 07:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The Audi S and RS models, well we're getting there. I've personally merged the S8 article, plus several AMG and BMW M articles, but I still need to win over a few more fans before we can do away with the WRX and WRX STI pages (again, a work in progress).

The merger of the Outback also reminded me of the Audi allroad quattro, which has now been merged with Audi A6. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This alteration of this article is vastly diminishing the information available for the significant, specific trim and equipment of Outback models. Another flaw is that the Legacy model years in the Legacy article do not match the generations represented in all markets. Thus, people seeking information on a BE/BH of model year 2004 in North America are being confused by being presented that their car generation ended in 2003. End consumers normally do NOT know platform designations, in most parts of the world, they only know the model year designation. If you are going to merge this into the other articles, you could also take time to help maintain the level of information and the accuracy of information for all suitable regions of the world. Is the article for the Subaru Baja facing the same destiny? 76.14.240.12 (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for bringing forward your concerns. I have addressed most of these when replying to your other comment at Talk:Subaru Legacy—please see my response here.

I would like to see the Baja merged as well but that is a separate issue. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

At least the Baja's bodywork is different. "Outback" is mere marketing.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just merged the Baja with Subaru Legacy (third generation) as well. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with 76.14.240.12 The overhaul of this article was very hastily done and in my own opinion, poorly executed. It diminished the amount of information provided. Most people do not know that the what platforms their vehicles are built on. With this logic, you could theoretically merge the Subaru Outback, Subaru Legacy, Subaru Tribeca, and Subaru Exiga into one article. You could also merge the Chevy Cavalier and Pontiac Sunfire into one article using this mentality. I personally disagree with merging the article. Instead I feel that the article should clearly state that the Subaru Outback is actually two different vehicles (Subaru Legacy Outback and Subaru Impreza Outback Sport). This provides the reader with more information and avoids a possibly harmful overhaul of the entire article. MarcusHookPa (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we better merge the Tribeca and Exiga with the Legacy as well. It's not like they are separate designs, with unique panels, body structures, interiors, and dimensions [end sarcasm].

"I feel that the article should clearly state that the Subaru Outback is actually two different vehicles": this version of the Outback page does exactly that. It shows that the Legacy and Outback are marketed as separate vehicles but measured in engineering terms are essentially the same vehicle. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that, but then we should also merge the Pontiac Sunfire and the Chevy Cavalier, and we should also merge the Pontiac Trans Am, Pontiac Firebird, and Chevy Camaro. The two examples are basically what you are doing here. There is no difference between the Sunfire and the Cavalier that is not purely cosmetic. The Outback is actually more different from the Legacy than the Firebird is from the Camaro (in terms of engineering, not cosmetics).

MarcusHookPa (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, just because vehicles are mechanically the same, that doesn't mean that we can merge them. Should we merge the Audi A7 with the A6, or the Mercedes-Benz CL with the S-Class? No, because while some trim levels of the A7 do overlap with the A6, also keep in mind that the A7 is meant to be more upmarket and expensive with fewer trim levels, plus the A6 also has a longer production history. Similar case with the Infiniti Q45 and Nissan Cima, as the Cima continued in production after the Q45 was no longer imported to the United States. MonkeyKingBar (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The A7 shares not a single piece of bodywork with the A6, so it does not apply. The CL sprung from what was simply a two-door S-class, so there is more logic to that, but since most Mercedes articles focus on the model code (W126 or W140 and so on) there is no problem there. Since what many know as the Outback shares all bodywork except some superficial cladding with Legacys, and are even sold as Legacys in Japan, the comparisons are very bad. As for the Q45, it started out as a standalone car, later also marketed as the Nissan President in Japan. The Q45 only became a rebadged Cima later in its existence. Earlier Cimas were simply luxurious (rebodied) Cedric/Glorias. Meanwhile, the Legacy and Outback share the exact same generational changes - so another ill-fitting comparison.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

They are not sold as Legacies in Japan. They are sold as the Legacy Outback http://www.subaru.jp/legacy/outback/. And at the moment, Japan is the only country that I know of currently doing this. The fact is that the Subaru Legacy and Subaru Legacy Outback should not be merged. There is still too much controversy surrounding the merge, and more importantly, Subaru states that they are different models built on the same platform. It would be like merging the Impreza with the Impreza WRX and Impreza WRX STi articles. They share almost the same exact body, and unlike the Outback (except in Japan), they are marked with the original model name (Impreza) on the vehicle.MarcusHookPa (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't violate WP guidelines

Do not revert edits to this article without a legitimate reason and opinions from others. As said here, controversial edits need to be discussed before being made. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookster451 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder for those who feel the need to revert without debate or consensus: please see Wikipedia:Edit warring, and in particular WP:3RR. Warren (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Impreza Outback

I feel that the Impreza Outback Sport should be separated into separate generations such as the Legacy Outback is. Doing this would make the article more informative and more clearly distinguishes between the Legacy Outback and Impreza Outback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusHookPa (talk • contribs) 17:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Information

The Subaru Legacy Outback was sold as a sedan (2000-2007) and currently as a wagon (1995-present) in the United States. Elsewhere it is sold as a station wagon, not just in North America. I would like this issue addressed ASAP.

Thank You,

MarcusHookPa (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I misread about the Outback Sport in North America, however I would still like the issue of the Outback Sedan addressed. Thank You

MarcusHookPa (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Subaru Legacy Outback (which Subaru states is a model all its own), was a COMPACT car from 1995-2009, I can obtain a window sticker to prove this, and there was an Outback Sedan produced from 2000-2007 that is being completely ignored. The Legacy Sedan and the Outback Sedan are two different models, they may be close to identical mechanically, but most Subarus are. That does not change the fact that they are two different models. The Outback and Legacy are not the same car. If you want proof, I can provide a link to the manual.

http://www.manualowl.com/am/Subaru/2001-Outback/Manual/1185 The proof is on page three.

MarcusHookPa (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The text on page three reads "This manual describes the following types of the Legacy series: Legacy Sedan, Legacy Station Wagon, Outback Sedan, Outback Station Wagon". Again: Types of the Legacy series". I rest my case.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

IF you read the manual, there are different instructions on how to care for the Legacy and the Outback, and what you can and cannot do with each. The Outback is part of the Legacy Series, but Subaru states that it is its own model.

MarcusHookPa (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

An automatic has to be treated differently from a manual, as well. As does an FWD from a 4WD, but they don't get their own pages just because of that. If you could please read the entire reasoning above and respond to the points made, rather than just stating that you think it's separate. The page three cited by you clearly states that it is a type of Legacy, and thus undermines your case even further. It also states that the sedan and station wagons are different types, but they also don't get separate articles. As for your Subaru Legacy Outback page, I suggest you carefully read WP:POVFORK and abide by it.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not the only person to have reverted back this article, so maybe your edits are too controversial. I also noticed that my Cavalier and Sunfire argument has been ignored again. I feel, obviously along with a few other editors, that this article should not have been merged, my Subaru Legacy Outback page clearly states that it is not its own model. It just strives to provide more information to one page so somebody who is looking up the Subaru Outback does not have to navigate through separate generation Subaru Legacy pages,

MarcusHookPa (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you read WP:POVFORK yet? Cavalier and Sunfire have different bodywork (as opposed to some bits of cladding) and often different engines, and are sold by different brands and underwent very different developmental histories. The Outback is simply an equipment level. They all share the same repair manual - thanks again for providing that link. And no matter what, if you would like to have a conversation then we will do so - but until the conversation is over and a new consensus has been reached, you do not get to override the previous consensus based on your own personal opinions.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did, and I do not feel that this article falls completely within the violations listed. I tried having a conversation, but i was ignored, hopefully we can now talk about this. I am clearly not the only person having a problem with this. I am just the one of the only people to address it in the talk page. The others just seemed to have reverted back to the old article without posting anything to the talk page. Hopefully we can now maturely deal with this issue. I feel that any further problems with the "fork" pages should be addressed on the talk pages there. MarcusHookPa (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article; in some cases, editors have even converted existing redirects into content forks." This is exactly what you have done with those two articles.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The consensus now seems to be evenly split, so I believe that it would be against Wikipedia guidelines to for you keep editing the "fork" articles to redirect to this article, besides, they seem to be the only thing preventing other Wikipedia editors from doing a complete revert of this page. MarcusHookPa (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, no, until a new consensus has been reached, the old consensus still stands. I am asking slakr to establish one single good place to keep this conversation, and after that, the articles will be set up however those with the best reasoning feel is correct.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

A complaint of edit warring has been filed

Please see WP:AN3#User:MarcusHookPa reported by User:Mr.choppers (Result: ), which is a report of warring about this article. Anyone who knows something about this dispute and has an idea for resolving it is invited to comment there. Unless a central discussion can be started, some kind of article protection may be needed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I admitted my wrong doing, I overlooked the talk page; however, Mr.choppers blatantly ignored the concerns or others and continues to do so even after the consensus was split and then favoring my actions. I may have violated WP guidelines, but Mr.choppers did also, he reverted nearly as many times as I did and, as stated prior, ignored the concerns of others. Anyway, thank you for your posting of this, hopefully this will help us resolve the issue. MarcusHookPa (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't Ignore The Consensus

Please do not revert this article back to the version which does not include the links to the Subaru Legacy Outback and Subaru Impreza Outback Sport. Also please do not turn the articles of Subaru Legacy Outback and the Subaru Impreza Outback Sport (and their talk pages) into redirect pages. It violates WP guidelines because it ignores the consensus. The consensus does not want these articles deleted. MarcusHookPa (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's do this again, shall we?

I am again setting forth the proposal to split Subaru Outback and then merge it into the appropriate generational articles of Subaru Legacy and Subaru Impreza, as was proposed by Bookster451 on April 1. Subaru Outback would be a dab-page, as it is now.

• Outback is simply an equipment level/version of the Legacy and Imprezas. The only differences are plastic cladding, a name (in some markets: in Japan it has been sold as the Legacy Grand Wagon, Legacy Lancaster, and Legacy Outback for the most recent two generations), and slightly higher ground clearance.
• It is currently sold as the "Legacy Outback" in Japan.
• They share a manual, which lists the Legacy Sedan, Legacy Station Wagon, Outback Sedan, and Outback Station Wagon as types of the Subaru Legacy series (scroll to page 3). That is to say, equal importance is given to whether it is a sedan or a wagon, as is given to the badge and cladding.
• The generations (except the introductory one) are perfectly parallelled.
• There is no information which is intended to be lost or deleted. None. If anything was deleted, it can easily be restored. I'm not against the Subaru Outback, I simply feel that the Legacy, the Outback, and the reader are all better served by a split-and-merge.

I would also ask that a certain red herring be dropped: the difference in bodywork between US-built and Japan-built Legacy/Outbacks have no bearing on this conversation.

Lastly, I request that we leave the Subaru Baja alone for now - I feel that it is a less clear-cut case and would prefer not to have to mix it into this one. Alternate proposals are naturally welcome.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Support: I am 100 percent in favour of the above, including the leaving the Baja alone for now. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Support: After reading just the first paragraph I agree with you and can't complain with nothing to lose from this. Thanks Jenova20 08:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Support:Ok. Thanks for reopening the discussion with renewed civility. My considerations had to do with the Baja article. Since it's being left separate, that's great, and there doesn't need to be any notice over on that article. Perfect. 842U (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Support: The manual says it -->Typ932 ^T·C 10:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: I suggest keeping Subaru Legacy and Subaru Legacy Outback as separate articles, as there are some mechanical differences, even if they share the same powertrain. To North Americans, the Legacy and Outback are two different nameplates. This is somewhat analogous to when Mercedes-Benz decided to spin-off the CL-Class instead of keeping it as an S-Class Coupe. MonkeyKingBar (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

No, that's a bad analogy, the CL-class has its own bodywork. As for whatever mechanical differences may exist (suspension changes, I presume) is minimal, less than between a four- and a six-cylinder Legacy, say. They are different nameplates, but that is also (nearly) the entire story.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose To be honest, I have no opposition to the merger of the Subaru Baja article because it is only generation, but as for the Outback, I must agree with MonkeyKingBar. I know that the differences between the Outback and Legacy are mostly cosmetic, it would be like merging the Dodge Dakota and Dodge Durango articles. The Dakota is technically a pick up version of the Durango because it is built on the same platform. I feel that merging separate generations into different articles would make it much more difficult to navigate through Wikipedia.

MarcusHookPa (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

But unlike the Outback, the Dakota/Durango (and to a lesser degree, the Baja) have structurally different bodywork. You have to stop comparing cars which share platforms with cars that share bodies. As for navigatng, the dab page makes that admirably easy.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The first and second generation Outbacks (primarily the second) were considered to be entry level luxury cars, while the second and third generation Legacies (with exception to the GT and possibly B4) were considered by many to be economy cars.MarcusHookPa (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

MarcusHookPA you've once again takes a US only slant! In the UK, and I suspect most parts of Europe, there is no differentiation in vehicle class between Legacy and Outback versions. It is just like a Skoda Octavia Scout vs a normal Skoda Octavia... a derivative of the same model. Warren (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Warren since i'm in the UK and sell parts for these things. I encounter the Octavia about twice a week but have never had anyone here with the Scout version in 4 years. I think it's just an estate (Station Wagon for Americans) variant. These articles are pretty confusing and splitting off sport models and luxury models of the same car is confusing to readers, especially when it's a Toyota or Subaru with different models/names in different markets. Thanks Jenova20 08:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, the bodywork of the first two generations of Outbacks was much more complex than the bodywork of the second and third generation Legacies.MarcusHookPa (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

How is the Mercedes body work argument a bad analogy? I do not understand why bodywork differences can't be taken into account with the Outbacks but it is somehow enough to nullify MonkeyKingBar's argument. If the only differences between the two Mercedes models are purely cosmetic, than I feel that MonkeyKingBar's argument is an excellent one. Also, there are small mechanical differences between the Outback and Legacy. Not every part between the two vehicles is interchangeable. MarcusHookPa (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The CL and S-class do not have the same bodywork - the metal pressings are all completely different, as is the glass. The Legacy and Outback share the body-in-white, including all glass, and are then differentiated by the application of superficial body cladding. I don't know how I can make this any clearer.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Last comment, if any articles should be merged, it should be the Saab 9-2x and the Subaru Impreza WRX articles. MarcusHookPa (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I'm probably one of the contributors to this article that has led to whether the article should be combined into the Subaru Legacy or not. Most of the information I've added is from my international collection of Subaru sales brochures, and this article represents the information I've dissemenated from those brochures. As to whether the various body styles and trim packages should be combined or remain separated, one only needs to look at other vehicles from other manufacturers. The Mazda Capella (Mazda 626) comes to mind in that it's the same car, just named differently internationally, and it has been defended that both articles should remain separate (from a overly protective editor). Whatever. While I would like to OPPOSE that the Subaru Outback should remain separate, with the mention of the Outback Sport (Impreza) included, the real issue is not the content of the article. The real issue is that there are trolls attempting to assert dominance over information, and attempting to establish precedence as to their committee approach, and solidifying "consensus" within the realm of the WikiProject Automobile "cabal" as to which opinions matter. In other words, consensus from recognized trolls, and not just anyone who has an opinion on the subject. And a word to the mediator, your efforts will provide the warring trolls much needed battlescars, demonstrating their tenacity and resillence. Should be an interesting demonstration (Regushee (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC))

I don't know if you are referring to me as a "troll" and as a member of a "cabal", but I would ask that you strike that from your comment no matter who it is aimed at. As for a 626/Capella merger, I stated my support for it here, in the merger discussion.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I would keep the legacy, impreza, and outback as they are, as well as the baja. Bookster451 (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Question - as they are now (that is, frozen mid-edit battle), as my proposal, or as they were before this whole affair began?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Along with Mr.choppers, I feel that a poll would be the best way to go. However this poll is strictly whether to merge the articles or leave them as they are. Please note, this is not a poll of whether or not we should revert back to the old Subaru Outback article. Below, please post your opinion. (Support=merge, Oppose=leave as is) This is for the Outback article, NOT the Baja article.

I feel that these articles should be kept distinct (left as is). The Subaru Legacy Outback and Subaru Legacy are two distinct models. The Subaru Legacy Outback is an upscale model of the Legacy (except in the U.S.) with a higher suspension and much different bodywork (although they do share the same body). The same goes for the Impreza Outback Sport. Especially with the 1st and 2nd generations of Legacy Outbacks, it would be like comparing the Lincoln MKZ and the Ford Fusion (which both have the same body). I know that the primary issue with my comparison is under two different "brand names" while the Outback, Legacy, and Impreza all share the same "brand name". A better comparison would be the one made by MonkeyKingBar which can be seen above. MarcusHookPa (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: I hope there's a discussion of establishing clear and persistent guidelines for saparation/merge of articles of vehicles before we jump into the minute details.---North wiki (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Support: Because the Legacy is already broken into generation sub-articles, it's very easy to accommodate the Outback information without a separate page. When two cars are so similar, it's more helpful to address the few ways they differ than to treat them entirely separately. (If the merger is done again, the merged article should be edited to reflect that point instead of just having two independent articles stacked one atop the other on the same page.)

The differences are far greater between the MKZ and Fusion -- different powertrains, different interiors, different feature content, a more significant difference in market position.

I do support the Baja having its own article, though it should have a short section in the third-generation Legacy page that links to that main article.

It's worth noting that I don't think either way would be a disaster, but a merger seems like the best route. IFCAR (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for voicing your opinion, my only issue is that the current set up is extremely easy to navigate through. It is sort of a compromise between a full on merger and leaving the article alone. However, with a merger, there will not be one single page that you can see every generation of the Outback on. With a merger, you will have to navigate through multiple Legacy and Impreza (I am sorry to say this, but while the Legacy is done well, the Impreza pages where the Outback is concerned are extremely lacking in information and format.) articles. I feel that having each generation of both cars laid out on one page for each of the cars (linked to the Legacy/Impreza for more information/main article) would be the best route. We have already done this with the Legacy, but not with the Impreza. Either way, the Impreza article needs work, with or without a merger.

I also feel that the Subaru Legacy page is not as high in quality as the Subaru Legacy Outback page. I feel that deleting a more detailed article in favor of merging it with a less detailed article as Subaru Legacy could be a problem. I am talking about the general page, not separate generations; I am in FULL support of merging the individual generation articles.

Maybe the Lincoln and Ford example was a bit extreme, it is more like comparing a Ford Taurus and a Mercury Sable. I have enough experience with all four cars to say that this comparison is valid. The 1st and 2nd generation Subaru Outbacks is more like the Mercury Sable in terms of luxury and the 2nd and 3rd generations Subaru Legacies is more like the Ford Taurus in terms of luxury (excluding B4 and GT). If you factor in the suspension system on the Outback, the Outback and Legacy are even more different from each other than the Ford Taurus and the Mercury Sable.

Thank you again for voicing your opinion.

MarcusHookPa (talk) 04:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not in love with the trend toward breaking out the generations into separate articles, especially when there isn't much detail left on the primary page. But until/unless that changes -- and last I saw, there's a pretty strong consensus toward sticking with that style of many sub-articles -- I think there's room for the Outback to appear on the Legacy page without much loss of information.

A Mercury Sable merger could probably be pulled off as well, honestly. It was already done with Mercury Mystique into Ford Contour. But when it's a different brand rather than part of a single model's line -- as the Outback is in most of its markets -- I can see more of an argument to keep it separate. It's not that uncommon for there to be revised suspensions and body cladding on different models within a line, like the body kit, firmer tuning, unique grilled and -- on one generation -- exclusive engine on the Toyota Camry SE. And again, I think having a single place to highlight where the Legacy and Outback differ is probably the most useful arrangement, rather than needing full details on independent articles in the many areas where the cars do overlap.

If we didn't have the generation articles anymore, I'd have a different opinion, as we'd need some way to control the article's length. But again, that's not what's being argued here, and I don't think there would be support for it if it was. IFCAR (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The argument for having Subaru Legacy Outback as a separate article is because it is considered a distinct nameplate from the regular Legacy and has a different utility; the Legacy is a family sedan whereas the Outback can be considered somewhat of a crossover SUV...analogous to the Toyota Camry and Toyota Venza.

Similarly, the Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor has its own page apart from Ford Crown Victoria. Function-wise the Police doesn't target the the same customer as the regular Crown Vic.

Most of the info in the Legacy Outback article should be specific only to the Legacy Outback, so there isn't much synergies or duplications that can be found by merging it with Legacy, and the end result of a merger would be an overly long and bloated article. Even if consensus is reached, we should see first how the Outback material could fit on the Legacy page before considering a merge.

The lesser evil is to leave the articles separate, which also makes it easier for contributors to add Legacy Outback-specific material without unbalancing a supersized Legacy article.MonkeyKingBar (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Please re-read the proposal - no one is suggesting merging everything onto one page. The proposal is to split and merge content into the appropriate generational entries. There is not going to be any "supersize" article. Your Venza example is also bad, since you are (again) comparing cars with entirely different bodywork (not just trim, as in the case of the Outback. As for the Police Interceptor, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. As for adding Outback-specific content, that fits just as well in Subaru Legacy (xth generation) as here.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

How is bodywork similarity more important than a raised suspension and other mechanical changes for off-road usage? Bodywork isn't the deciding factor in whether an article is split up or not, it is the nameplate that is the determining factor. The 2006-2011 US Honda Civic sedan and coupe have entirely different body panels but are in the same article; both are compact cars under the same nameplate. Auto comparison websites have categorized the Camry and Legacy as midsize sedans, while the Venza and Legacy Outbacks are crossover wagons. Readers should not have to go through every Legacy generation article to see info on the Legacy Outback, when it can have its own article in the first place. MonkeyKingBar (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You can tell just eyesight that the Toyota Venza IS the Toyota Camry station wagon. If Subaru intended the Outback and Legacy to not be viewed as separate vehicles, they would not market them as such. The Outback's body work and suspension are significantly different than the that of the Legacy. The only things that they have in common (that they do not share with other Subarus) are the dimensions and some of the features in the interior. The rest of the similarities are shared with other Subarus. Just because these two vehicles share the same body, does not make them the same car. Leaving it as is seems to be the best approach in my opinion. MarcusHookPa (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think that all cars in the Venza class also have revised suspensions compared to the sedans they're derived from? I imagine the differences are greater, in fact -- the Venza's has to accommodate all-wheel-drive and a different body size and shape, in addition to a higher ride height. I can't say I agree that there's any visual indication of a mechanical relationship between Camry and Venza; just an assumption based on the precedent for cars in that class.

I think you need to agree that there is a reasonable justification for merging the Outback and Legacy -- which are visually nearly identical, which share a name in some generations/markets, and which are largely mechanically identical -- while there is not a reasonable justification for merging Camry and Venza. Base your arguments from that starting point. You're not coming off as reasonable this way. IFCAR (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

When I was invited to this conversation, I was confused but I just realized there is an article called Subaru Legacy Outback and I realized what Mr.Choppers wanted to do was to merge THAT article into each generation of legacy. I fully support this, and look forward to seeing it done. Bookster451 (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

There reasonable justification for keeping Legacy Outback and Legacy as separate articles, as the Legacy Outback is considered a midsize crossover SUV, however the Legacy is a midsize sedan.[5][6] Not to mention that they are marketed as separate nameplates too in North America. It should be noted that the Mercedes S-Class and CL-Class are actually more mechanically similar (the same) than the Legacy and Legacy Outback, yet as separate nameplates they get their own articles too. Nameplate and function are facts that trump any opinion on whether they look alike or have similar mechanical. MonkeyKingBar (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A change in body style doesn't mean a change in class. The only difference between the Legacy sedan and the Outback wagon, aside from the obvious difference between a wagon and sedan, is the fact that the outback has slightly greater ground clearance. And for the Outback sedan, the ONLY difference is standard AWD and slightly raised ground clearance. You want to call the outback sedan an SUV? See, that's why it'd be confusing to have the articles split by names. Example: the Toyota Camry is called the Toyota Scepter in Japan, but there isn't separate Scepter and Camry articles. Also, this is the ENGLISH article, meaning that any country speaking English will read this page if looked up. You can't generalize just for the U.S. Bookster451 (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Auto journalists who are experts used the category midsize crossover SUV to describe the Legacy Outback, instead of just midsize sedan/wagon. The raised ground clearance (I'm not going to argue whether it is slight or not) is significant enough to give the Legacy Outback offroad capability lacking in the regular Legacy. MonkeyKingBar (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This is why I think the term "crossover" should be taken out of use. But that's a debate for another time. As for right now, I think the Outback should be merged to Legacy. And please, this time answer my question, what class would you put the Outback sedan in? Bookster451 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Compact. The Outback Sedan is a compact car, along with the majority (1994-2009) of the Outback and Legacy lineups. I must state that although the Outback and Legacy share a similar body and an identical frame, the many differences between these two vehicles justifies having separate articles. Most, if not all, Subaru would agree, the Outback and Legacy are different models. As for the Impreza Outback, I feel that it needs to be included only because it bears the Outback name (although the cosmetic differences between them may justify the current setup of the articles). However, the major difference there is that in 2011, on the United States Subaru website, the Outback and Legacy were listed as separate vehicles, but the Impreza Outback Sport was listed as the top trim for the Subaru Impreza. This point may be moot considering that the Impreza WRX lineup was not listed under the Impreza on the Subaru website, it is sold as its own model (another debate for another time, it must be stated that the Subaru Impreza WRX does NOT share an article with the Subaru Impreza). MarcusHookPa (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, please read my Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable argument above, there are more differences between these two vehicles than meets the eye. The Outback (1994-2004) was generally considered an entry level luxury car, while during that same time period, the Legacy (excluding GT and possibly B4 (and obviously STi), which were sport models) was considered by many to be an economy car. There were luxury features that were standard on the Outback but that were not standard or simply just not offered on the Legacy.MarcusHookPa (talk) 06:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Besides the raised ground clearance, body cladding, and minor trim changes (i.e. wheels, bumpers, and upholstery fabrics, etc) can you please outline the mechanical and engineering changes between the two cars? The EPA classifying the Outback as being in a different class has no weighting if the engineering is the same. The US is also just one market; in other countries the Legacy and Outback are classified identically. This too is irrelevant as the classifications processes are often made arbitrarily and inconsistently between manufacturers (and this applies internationally, not just in the US). OSX (talk • contributions) 07:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, firstly, there has always been distinctions between the two models in every market. In Japan, it is known as the Legacy Outback, and I believe this is the only country to do this (please correct me if I am wrong). From a mechanical standpoint, the second generation Outback offered VDC on its highest trim, this was mechanically different from all third generation Legacies as it was not offered to my knowledge. The Outback also came standard with side airbags, a feature that I believe was optional (if offered at all) on the Legacy. This is not as clear with the third generation Outback and the fourth generation Legacy; I know the suspension is very different between the two (as well as the bodywork, I know that is not mechanical), but I do not know of much else mechanically that is different between those two models. I feel that the third generation Outback and fourth generation Legacy eliminated a lot of the mechanical (and even cosmetic (some trims of Legacy were no longer viewed as an economy cars)) differences between the two. As for the fourth generation Outback, an argument has been made that it is a crossover (a term which I also do not agree with), while the Legacy is a sedan and a wagon. There seems to be more cosmetic differences between these two than in the previous generation of both cars. MarcusHookPa (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't have to have a debate over the degree of visual and mechanical differences, nameplate and function are factual differences. It is also noted that there are articles for Acura/Lexus/Infiniti, even if they are mostly US-market spec, because they are separate nameplates despite them being rebadged versions of their JDM Honda/Toyota/Nissan counterparts. MonkeyKingBar (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to see all the usual members of the "cabal" fighting it out, Concerning the classification of the vehicles dimensions, it is in compliance with Japanese government regulations until the 2004 introduction, when it exceeded exterior dimensions and has remained outside the required dimensions. The engine used in the Outback sold in Japan has never been in compliance, and as such it is a compact vehicle with a larger than regulations allow, which only matters to Japanese buyers. Just thought I'd throw a little chaos into the discussion(Regushee (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC))

And insults, too! Everyone's favorite thing that you bring to Wikipedia, this notion of yours that people on this site who happen to agree on various points secretly care more about control than about making the site as best as possible. Oh, and that by extension, something that you think that most people disagree with should be followed anyway to fight this evil power. IFCAR (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with IFCAR on that. I'm open to leaving the articles the way they are if it's demonstrated that the current state makes less sense than the merge. Bookster451 (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A lot has been said but almost no one seems to care what an average reader would prefer. Separate articles are generally easier to read and understand. There seems to be clear justification for separate articles and for a merger. The tie breaker is what benefits the reader, not the ego of the contributors. I strongly oppose merger.Mantion (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Mantion, you are absolutely correct about what the ultimate goal of this article is; the reader. I've had this argument with the "cabal" on many occasions, and they are flatly not interested in the articles readibility. They will quote "wikipolicies" to support their ironfisted approach to the appearance the article exhibits, and to hell with anyone who wants to actually learn something from reading about the subject. Most of the "wikipolicies" are also suspect because the same totalitarian mannerism that didctate what is in the article and how it is displayed, is also used to create the "wikipolicies", in which most of them are illogical and cater to specific editors whims. In many instances, some sections of Wikipedia are nothing more than a literary version of Warcraft, where the trolls fight with words instead of magical weapons, and many of the trolls are of demonstrated, limited intellect. Personally, I think this article serves its purpose at informing either separate or merged at a rudimentary level, it's the trolls that are out for blood, and protecting their "fiefdoms".(Regushee (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC))

Proposal: The "Outback" Section should be merged into Subaru Legacy and the "Outback Sport" section should be merged into Subaru Impreza. It wouldn't make much sense to me if the whole article were merged into Legacy, as the Outback sport is effectively an Impreza with some bumpers. Dhmmjoph (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The new vote below is a little disingenuous as the proposal is for partial merge and redistributing material to other articles. However for the sake of moving on, I will vote on the poorly worded proposal. Warren (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Below please place your vote on whether the article should be merged or not. PLEASE DO NOT JUSTIFY OR EXPLAIN YOUR REASONING IN THIS SECTION, THE DEBATE IS TAKING PLACE DIRECTLY ABOVE THIS. Please say either support (merge) or oppose (leave as is).
Please note: The outcome of this vote does not necessarily directly determine the outcome of the merge. MarcusHookPa (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose MarcusHookPa (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Support Bookster451 (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Support IFCAR (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose MonkeyKingBar (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Support --Pineapple Fez 07:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Support - Jenova20 08:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Support — OSX (talk • contributions) 10:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Support — Warren   (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Support — Regushee   (Regushee (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC))

Support —  ⊂|nbsp;Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose — Mantion (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Support — -->Typ932 ^T·C 21:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering the overwhelming support to merge, I am restoring these pages back to the manner they were (and voted for twice). OSX (talk • contributions) 14:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not feel that this discussion has completely finished, but until it has, I will leave the article as it is.MarcusHookPa (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It has been 9 days since the discussion's initiation, and the original discussion also favoured the merger as well. I am am not sure how much more finished you want it to be. OSX (talk • contributions) 16:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

There is still a significant opposition, until we all come to an agreement, the discussion is unfinished. This vote was supposed to be a general poll to further the discussion and to see where everybody involved stands in this issue, it was not meant to directly determine the outcome of the article.MarcusHookPa (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

MonkeyKingBar, I ask that you please do not go against the consensus detailed above and recreate Subaru Legacy Outback page as you have done here and here. You have made your position clear, but nine editors have expressed their support for the merger whereas only three opposed. This means that only 25 percent of editors supported your proposal. Moreover, in the previous discussion, it was determined that a merger was the best option. You cannot hold up a conversation until it sways to support your position. If you continue to disruptively edit here at Wikipedia I will be contacting the relevant department to initiate a block on editing. It is not appropriate to go against a community consensus—the bedrock of Wikipedia—and impose your own desired outcomes that go against such community dialogue.

Again, I ask that you refrain from editing disruptively and make your case on the talk page here. If you have a good argument I can assure you people will change their stance and vote to demerge the articles. It is not about what you want personally, it's what editors by-and-large want. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is considered disruptive editing to merge the page, when it was clear that it was not a vote to determine the merger. Plus you haven't even tried to integrate the material yet...the onus is on you to see if a super-sized article will work out. MonkeyKingBar (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Um, disruptive to follow the outcome of a consensus... okay then... that's news to me. The material has been integrated, see here, here, here, and here. There is no onus on me to do anything. If editors are unhappy with the merger, then they will vote to undo it—it's as simple as that. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MonkeyKingBar, this vote was not meant to directly determine the outcome of this article. You also have neglected to add in any material that was requested to be put in by other editors. Every time I do, you undo my edits. There is still a significant opposition to the merger here. I feel that you did not allow the discussion to go on as requested. MarcusHookPa (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, OSX, enough with the personal attacks against me in the editing history of the article. If you continue to do this, I will be forced to report you. Thank you for your time. MarcusHookPa (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused about how you think the process should work. After a question is asked and a majority of editors say a certain thing should be done, generally someone goes ahead and does it. Why should it not be? The two sides made their cases, both were legitimate, but one was popular and one was not. Why do you think -- procedurally now, we've already had the discussion of the merits twice now -- that having the article the way you want trumps what nearly everyone else believes works better? And what, procedurally, do you think should happen after a conclusive vote other than the favored alternative being carried out?

(Note that I'm speaking about the merger in general. I'll let OSX answer for himself about various additions or deletions of content.) IFCAR (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to get a weighted compromise, but editors such as OSX refused to do so. That is why I specifically stated that the poll had no direct influence on the outcome of the article. MarcusHookPa (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Marcus, you proclaiming the "outcome of this vote does not necessarily directly determine the outcome of the merge" does not have any weighting. In the original discussion, Wikipedia editors had to an overall agreement to merge. In the discussion opened by Mr.choppers above, the same occurred. Then in your poll, once again, the merger was overwhelmingly supported. You need to accept the decisions that have been made as you are becoming quite disruptive (please read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing). There is no need for anyone to compromise with you if the decision three times now has favoured the merge. Also, it is bad form to open a discussion immediately after a decision has been made.

Now your USA bias is becoming quite annoying. It does not matter if the Outback has leather seats in the USA as standard. It doesn't matter if they are standard anywhere. It is a minor trim change and is not worth mentioning at the summary Outback page. The page is called "Subaru Outback", so please stop changing it to "Legacy Outback", and please note that set index articles like the Outback are meant to be brief, so let's keep the details for the main pages. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The wiki-bullying is getting really old. I am really tired of you reverting the article back regardless of the worth of the content because you disagree with it. I do not have a USA bias, the USA is just the country that the vehicle sells in the best. The Legacy SUS WAS the precursor to the Outback sedan, ask any Subaru dealer in the New England area (or in the US in general). If you disagree with my edits, say something, do not personally attack me. Also, if the vehicle IS CALLED THE LEGACY OUTBACK. Look it up if you do not believe me, but anyway, I am reporting you, so we will see how this works out. MarcusHookPa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

Wiki-bullying? Come on. I said you "seem to think the USA is the centre of the universe", which is an apt comment considering you want to transform the Outback page to reflect how these cars have been available in the USA at the expense of all others. I apologise if you took offence to that, but it is quite frustrating when you refuse to accommodate worldwide views because the USA is all you know. I agree, the SUS was the precursor to the Outback sedan, but the article is about the history of the Outback name, not the SUS name. Going off tangent too much makes this confusing to editors unfamiliar with the car. A new Legacy sedan with raised suspension is going to be sold in Australia and China from next year (see here). It will not be badged Outback, and I would see no reason to mention this at the Outback page either as it is merely a Legacy trim level.

I am happy to discuss the addition of the SUS to the Outback page with you further. Even if we do mention it, it will need to be merely mentioned not described in detail. The same goes with the other changes that inflict a USA bias to the page. They really need to be discussed first because the summary page should really avoid what standard equipment different markets had, which is effectively what you have been including. The purpose of the merge was to get that detail off the Outback page, not so you could go back and re-add more detail on trim levels. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, wiki-bullying, but now you compromised, that was all I was asking for. I was forced to report your fifth revert, but I am happy that we can now maturely discuss this edit. MarcusHookPa (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Again my apologies if you were offended by my centre of the universe comment. I am not too worried if I get blocked, but if I do my guess is that you will as well because you also exceeded the threshold. I have now mentioned the SUS, but can we please keep it at that—a mere mention? I have a big issue with you including the years of USA introduction. Many markets received the Outback and Legacy at different times to Japan, and I feel it is unfair to include US years but not those of other markets. By including other markets, so many different years will detract from what is being said and everything becomes a jumbled mess. USA years are available on the main pages where they belong, not in the vague summary page. Lastly, you really can't keep re-opening closed discussions that don't go your way. Sure, you can re-open these in a few months time, but not the next day. It is WIkipedia policy to have a cooling off period of at least a few months. And finally, yes, in the USA the Outback was classified as a "compact SUV", but in all other markets (including home market Japan) it was a mid-sized wagon. Since it is merely a marketing tag, we do not cave into these at Wikipedia. The Legacy completes with the Camry, Accord, Sonata, etc—it is not an SUV so to speak. Subaru are jut trying to do one on the cheap when it is really just a Legacy with styling accessories and a higher ride height (not that this is a bad thing—I am a big fan of the Legacy and Outback). OSX (talk • contributions) 03:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe so because my edits are not reverts as yours are, but that is beside the point. I just removed the word "mid-sized" because of the classification issues between different markets, because it was not mid-sized in one market (it's most popular market), we can not classify it as mid-sized in this article. I recommend that we leave it as is, without a classification of the vehicle mentioned. The Outback is "technically" a wagon, not a crossover SUV. That may just be marketing, but I am not sure. IF you feel that it is unfair to consider the US model years (again the most popular nation for sales of this vehicle), then include the other nation model years also. The US is more significant only because the Outback is NOT an import in the US, it is a domestically produced vehicle. Japan and the US are the only two markets that domestically produce Subaru vehicles. I am also an Outback fan myself, so I am glad that we can agree on this. If we can agree to one version of this article, I will re-post a link to the report on your talk page, and we can both post that the issue has been resolved.MarcusHookPa (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The "mid-size" identifier is only meant to be descriptive. It is around the same size as the Camry, Accord, etc. Having no description means readers will not know if it's Toyota Yaris-sized or Chevrolet Suburban-sized. In articles where there is a discrepancy over years (or classification category), tendency is to use the years of the home market, which in this case is Japan. The USA has 300 million people out of 7 billion citizens of the world—it is not better than everyone else. Its size does not make the years the Outback was sold there more important that other markets. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, lets agree to disagree, I will leave it as mid-sized for now until we can get other people to weigh in. However, the US model years are more important because the United States is the ONLY country besides Japan where Subarus are produced. The United States even exports vehicles (Tribeca) to other countries, so this factory does have some international significance. MarcusHookPa (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I find the USA Legacy very interesting—it has many cosmetic changes for no apparent reason that do nothing to make the vehicle any more or less attractive—it is just different. As I said above, in cases where the USA versions differ from the rest-of-world car, the convention is to create a USA section and detail why the cars differ and reconcile these differences back to the consumer preferences and legislative requirements in the United States that necessitated them. Articles that try to do it all at once just become a mumbled mess: "In 1998 a new Legacy was released, but the wagon was not released until 1999, with US production of the sedan deferred until 1999 for the 2000 model year... In New Zealand... but in Italy... however, the factory in Japan... but in Sweden...". I hope you get my point. You need to keep the main section generalised and put the market differences in sections for each market. That way everyone can read a nicely flowing general blurb of the car and then proceed to the section about their market to get all the intricate details about exact dates of relase, trim levels, what the EPA says the Outback is, etc. You can probably get away with weaving the USA models into the blurb, but as soon as you start mentioning all the other markets, things just don't work out.

Also, I agree that the Indiana site is significant, but this should be reflected in the page about the factory not the Outback itself. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I am happy with the current version of the Outback page mentioning the SUS. If we can agree to leave it at that, then I will happily remove the request for page protection as it won't be necessary any more. It's good that this is now a civil discussion. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we should cite the financial resources thing, but other than that, I am happy. Maybe we should start a new section regarding the Lafayette factory and any other minor edits, as this now has nothing to do with the section that we are in. MarcusHookPa (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I have now closed my request for page protection, and would like to thank you for your co-operation. I agree, the statement does need to be cited, even if it is common sense. I definitely think we should discuss the Indiana site as well in the Legacy article as it applies to both the Legacy and Outback and the Legacy page is the head article. Thanks again, OSX (talk • contributions) 04:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I think this discussion should start on the Legacy Talk page, as we have pretty much overrun this section and this talk page with minor concerns.MarcusHookPa (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need to discuss this. If you would like to add detail on the USA models, please add this detail to the various Legacy pages in the USA sections. Best regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 04:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 May 2012 - To Add Merge tag

As the current discussion is about the validity of a merge of this article with the Subrau Legacy, I suggest adding a merge tag at the top of the article to direct readers/editors to discuss the subject.-North wiki (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty funny to have a page which is blocked from editing, with a hatnote asking users to "please expand this article"!  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

 Added merge tag and  Removed expand tag. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Legacy SUS

I know that the Legacy SUS is not an Outback model, but I feel that it is necessary to mention because it was the precursor to the Outback Sedan, which was basically a luxury version of the Legacy Sedan with a raised suspension. While only available in the United States, the Outback Sedan is an important part of this article. MarcusHookPa (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

What is an "SUS"?? Bookster451 (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"Sport-Utility Sedan" -- a 1999 Legacy sedan with the Outback's raised suspension and styling cues. IFCAR (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that stating a model known as an "SUS" should be mentioned, as it could confuse readers easily. Bookster451 (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Because the Let's Discuss This, Shall We? section is too long.

The Outback was a Legacy trim long ago back in the 90's, and it's a trim level for an Impreza hatchback. However, for about a decade now, the Outback has been it's own thing. My Consumer Reports magazines, carmax.com, Edmunds, cars.com, and other car sites don't classify it as a special wagon trim, like that of the BMW 5-Series or Mazda3. Was the Dodge Magnum a Charger trim? Nope. That's the same thing. I'm neutral. I understand that moving it to the Legacy page could be okay, but what about now? I don't know what the deal is with Asia and Europe. This is just for America. Atum World There's an Acadia for that too! 15:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The Magnum has unique body pressings. The Outback only differs in superficial body cladding. Thus, not a comparable situation.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to read through the entire discussion, but I will say this: When I was working at the Subaru dealer, no Outback model was ever differentiated from its original model. Even in 2011, when the current Legacy/Outback generation had been out for a year and the wagon had already been differentiated as an Outback and not a Legacy from the get-go, I always looked up the parts as a Legacy. Likewise with the Outback Sport, I always looked up the parts as an Impreza. Another thing to note (if it hasn't been already in the discussions above) is that the earlier generations of "off-road" Legacies were called Legacy Lancasters in Japan. If we're not going to differentiate the Lancaster as its own separate model, then in the interest of consistency, I don't think we should differentiate the Outback models either. Fahrer4184 (talk 16:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Outback vs Legacy Outback

I am not an expert on this topic --- indeed, I consulted this article to learn more about it. However, I know something that appears to be unknown to all contributors to the article and to the talk page:

There is a real and substantial mechanical difference between the Outback and the Legacy Outback (these names refer to US models).

The earlier model was the Legacy Outback and, as has been correctly stated, it was an elevated version of the Legacy. However, this model was replaced by a new model called the Outback. I believe that the change was implemented for the 2000 model year. To my knowledge, the main difference is that the suspension is completely different. You can easily see this by looking at the suspension from behind the car.

The Legacy Outback, viewed from the rear, has the word "Legacy" on the left side of the deck lid and "Outback" on the right side. The Outback, viewed from the rear, has the word "Outback" on the left side of the deck lid and "AWD" on the right. Other obvious cosmetic differences are subtle differences in the overall body shape and the shape of the rear window. The Outback has a more sloping straight line shape and its rear window is curved downwards on the bottom (with the metal of the deck lid curved correspondingly).

I do not know what happened to the Legacy when this change was made in the Outback. It may have been changed in the same way, in which case the Outback would be an elevated version of a NEWER Legacy, not of the original Legacy. I am actively trying to learn about this and I will post more complete information here when I have it. ---Dagme (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I note your point—but none of these changes seem extreme enough to warrant a separate page. Many luxury cars have different suspension systems between models, i.e. air vs. coil suspension Mercedes-Benz S-Classes. The badging differences are petty and certainly not notable in their own right. I have not noticed any differences in rear styling between the two, so you might need to illustrate our point there so it is more clear. Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 09:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

In response to the previous comment, I don't understand the point. I never advocated a separate page, as is implied in that comment. I have more definitive information now and I will post it in a separate section below. I may also add a corresponding seciton to the article itself. ---Dagme (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Outback vs Legacy Outback continued

Here is an account of what I know on this topic. I have no knowledge of the Legacy and Outback models after 2004, so they are not discussed here.

The Legacy was introduced for the 1990 model year in both wagon and sedan lines and was continued through the 1994 model year. These lines had a 2.2 litre single overhead cam (SOHC) engine (EJ22), a 5 speed manual transmission or a 4 speed automatic transmission, and an All Wheel Drive (AWD) system based on a central fluid coupling.

For the 1995 model year, the body was thoroughly redesigned, but the chassis, engine, transmission, and running gear were essentially unchanged. For the 1996 model year, the Legacy Outback was introduced. This model was essentially the legacy with an elevated suspension and larger tires and wheels.

During the 1996 model year, the 2.2 litre EJ22 engine in the Legacy Outback (only) was replaced by a 2.5 litre double overhead cam (DOHC) EJ25 engine. This engine was prone to head gasket problems, which was not the case for the 2.2 litre EJ22 engine. (For this reason, the early 1996 Legacy Outback with the 2.2 litre EJ22 engine is often regarded as an especially desirable model.)

For a detailed account of the various OHC Subaru engines used in Imprezas, Legacy's, and Outbacks, see https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Subaru_EJ_engine

The Legacy and Legacy Outback lines remained essentially unchanged through the 1999 model year.

For the 2000 model year, substantial mechanical and cosmetic changes were made, as well as changes in nomenclature. The name "Legacy Outback" was dropped. The Outbacks from Model year 2000 on are called simply "Outback". The Legacy Outback (1996 through 1999 model years), viewed from the rear, has the word "Legacy" on the left side of the deck lid and "Outback" on the right side. The Outback (2000 and later model years), viewed from the rear, has the word "Outback" on the left side of the deck lid and "AWD" on the right.

The difference between the "Legacy Outback" and the "Outback" is that the "Legacy Outback" is the version of the Outback made for the 1996 through 1999 model years, while the "Outback" refers to any of the post 1999 Outback models (all of which are substantially different mechanically and cosmetically from the 1996 through 1999 Legacy Outbacks).

For both the Legacy and Outback lines, the changes implemented for the 2000 model year include the following:

• The rear suspension was completely redesigned.

• The 2.5 litre DOHC EJ25 engine was replaced by a 2.5 litre SOHC EJ25 engine.

Cosmetic changes include:

• Difference in overall body shape: the 2000 and later Outback has a more sloping straight line shape.

• The rear deck lid is redesigned with larger taillights and backup lights and a rear window which is curved downwards on the bottom (with the metal of the deck lid curved correspondingly).

• The front hood, grillwork, and headlights are redesigned. The headlights are larger.

All this constitutes a real and substantial mechanical and cosmetic difference between the Outback and the Legacy Outback (these names refer to US models).

Note that subsequent generations of Outbacks also differ substantially from the 2000 generation. These differences are not discussed here because they ave nothing to do with differences between the Outback and the Legacy Outback

It is fair to say that, within any given model year, the Outback (including the 1996-1999 Legacy Outback) is, roughly speaking, an elevated version of the corresponding Legacy. ---Dagme (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this information, some of it can definitely be added to the Subaru Legacy pages. I note that the US years you mention don't correspond to the Subaru Outback as this articles follows the international release dates (so the 2000 model year refresh you mention was launched in 1998 many countries, etc). I apologise for suggesting you wanted to de-merge the Outback info from the Legacy pages, that is how I interpreted what you were discussing. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to put this information in the article, that is fine with me. If you do that, you can explain the discrepancy in model years. However, keep in mind that this is an article for the US version of Wikipedia. Also, it might be helpful to wait until more information has been compiled for the later generations.

In general, I find the article vague and confused. I think it could be rewritten to be shorter, more concise, more accurate, and more informative. I hope the information here contributes to such a future reworking. ---Dagme (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree the Legacy articles needs work. I also note that this is the English Wikipedia, the US is just one of many English-speaking countries. The US does not take priority over other countries as Wikipedia needs to take a global, balanced perspective. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Outback & Legacy

I'm not going to start another fight about this.. Just a random reader of this article and feel really confused.

I totally understand editors of vehicle related topics want to have some consistency like keeping the same model in one article; however, the result is very counter-intuitive. An average reader who is looking for information about crossover Subaru Outback may do not even know the existence of "Legacy".

And, this situation is aggravated by some misleading sentences in these articles. There is a bad example: in the beginning of Subaru Legacy, it said

In 1996, a variant of the Legacy with heightened suspension called the Legacy Outback was introduced to compete in the burgeoning sport-utility vehicle class and proved to be a sales success for Subaru. The Outback line was split into its own model in 2000, known as the Subaru Outback.

It gives a link and directs you to Subaru Outback. However, the actual information about Outback (the crossover one), is on Legacy page itself. So why do this?

Another confusing one is the links under the pictures in this article. For example, the fourth picture has a link toward Subaru Legacy (fifth generation). However in that article, there is no description in the first paragraph that mentioned the word "Outback" at all besides the contents.

--fireattack (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree completely. I looked over the past few years of commenting on this topic. The arguments for derogating this page in favor of the Legacy page seem reasonable enough, but they lead to an absurd result. Nobody - writ nobody - who thinks "I'm interested in Subaru's Outback. Let's see what Wikipedia offers," gives two hoots about whether it really is just a Legacy. They've already answered that question in their own mind. While the car may have originated as a trim level of the Legacy, and while they may share the same engineering, it's clearly - clearly - understood in the North American market as a distinct car. To say otherwise is as silly as the people who fought over whether Lakes Michigan and Huron were the same lake. I'd nominate this page for Lamest Edit Wars, but res ipsa loquitur. The Outback-related content in the Legacy page should replace this page in its entirety, and this page should live on only as a subtopic about the history of the Outback brand, and as an example of what not to do in developing Wikipedia pages. Part2343 (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

One wonders whether the argument that they're the same cars is even consistent with WP:NOR. 68.32.126.115 (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The nameplate is usually used to refer to the car as a separate brand. One recent news piece (from the Halifax Chronicle Herald) acknowledges that the Outback used to be a gussied up Legacy but explicitly states that the Outback is now a standalone model. Part2343 (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Jargon

I read this para: In addition to all-wheel drive coming standard on every trim, the 2021 model year also added adaptive LED headlights with SRH on premium variants (some world markets also receive SRH and ADP) and a seat-belt reminder standard for all passengers.

I worked out SRH but cannot find ADP anywhere on the web.

Should articles contain jargon like this? 49.178.10.227 (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)