Talk:Subaru Outback

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Outback Sport "introduced in 1998"

message: 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)
thread_title: WPOV

message: 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.--— Typ932T | C  20:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  production 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Subaru Outback Sport

message: 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) built before 2000.123.243.67.1 (talk) 04:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Head Gasket issues

message: 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)
thread_title: references and introduction

message: the subaru outback that's who.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.201.80 (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Guess who won Motortrends 2010? SOTY

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

message: "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)
thread_title:  misc changes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Subaru  Outback Sport 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Confusing overlap with impreza and legacy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. <B>Warren</B> (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't violate WP guidelines 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Impreza Outback 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A complaint of edit warring has been filed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Don't Ignore The Consensus 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: merge tag and  expand tag. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 17 May 2012 - To Add Merge tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: What is an "SUS"??  Bookster451 (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sport-Utility Sedan" -- a 1999 Legacy sedan with the Outback's raised suspension and styling cues. IFCAR (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Legacy SUS 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Because the ''Let's Discuss This, Shall We?'' section is too long. 

message: 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
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Outback & Legacy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jargon