Talk:Subaru Legacy

Subaru Liberty

should redirect to here, but I'm not quite sure how. anton 11:06, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Untitled

I think I worked it out. anton 07:14, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Air Suspension option needs to be added to US spec first generation legacy

I have a japanese built USDM 1990 Legacy Wagon LS which originally had the ride height adjustable air suspension installed. I have since removed all air suspension components except the dash button and retrofitted standard MacPherson strut type suspension. The original system had both manual height adjustment using the dash button but also reduced ride height based on vehicle speed. It was nearly exactly the same system as available on the XT6. Ciper (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Chile isn't right hand driven

The article said "perhaps because all three (Japan, New Zealand, Chile) are right-hand drive markets" to explain why this model had been released on those markets before than others. I'm aware of Chile is a Left-Hand drive market.

The Legacy isn't 4WD, it's AWD

n/t

Yup I've changed it to AWD. 4wd typically implies that the car can either be manually changed between 2wd and 4wd or the car has a "hi" and "lo" setting. awd on the other hand is almost always the preferred term for permanent power to 2 wheels without any settings like that. subaru uses the term "awd" themselves. finally in other countries (eg australia) the term "4wd" is the term used to mean "SUV". awd is less confusing. Hugzz 02:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

How does one determine if the Legacy 1993 wagon is awd or simply fwd? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.73.224 (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Generational Outline

I believe this page has enough information to have the generation outline on the right side like other cars. Even the Legacy Outback has this, so I think the Legacy page has enough information... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soul Shinobi (talk • contribs) 07:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Road Course

I think I've seen Legacies raced on road courses. 67.188.172.165 20:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

They have raced in SCCA and continue to. You can also see them in Autocross and at NASA events. Here's a video from Mid-Ohio the incar is a Legacy Sedan chasing a Legacy Wagon. "The GOTO Racing Subaru Legacy GT Sedan vs. a Eubaru Sponsored Legacy GT Wagon at Mid-Ohio".[1] Zenhooloovoo 15:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Legacy TX and other models

Good page but there seem to be missing Legacy models. Would be great if these could be added and explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.220.175 (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How about the Alpine Sport and Sun Sport Models available late in the first gen lifespan? Ciper (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If you know what year the models were offered, please feel free to add it (Dddike (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Front Engined or Mid Engined?

Considering the Subaru boxer engine is mounted between the front wheel and axle... shouldn't it be considered mid-engined? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.39.139 (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the engine is mounted ahead of the front axle. Have a look at any of the cut-away illustrations on Subaru's web sites. Paul Fisher 01:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

At best it would be up for FMR layout consideration, but I doubt it would even meet that criteria. Ayocee 03:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Left or right? Twin - turbo

Turbocharged versions continued to be available in most non-US markets. Speciality touring and racing versions were available in Japan, as well as the DOHC 2 liter twin sequential turbocharged version on both the sedan and wagon. The twin turbo can only be installed on left-hand drive vehicles because the turbo on the left side interferes with both the brake master cylinder and steering linkage, among other things.

There is an internal inconsistency in this paragraph. If the vehicle is left-hand drive, then the master cylender and steering linkage will be on the left. But Japan is a right-hand-drive country. Paul Fisher (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fuel Economy info doesn't display in infobox

On the first generation, the information has been added and it appears to be coded correctly, but for some reason, it won't display. Any Ideas?(Dddike (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC))

Fuel economy is not supported by that infobox see Template:Infobox automobile or Template:Infobox Automobile generation it must be written on the main article. Those infoboxes cant be any larger. — Typ932^{T | C}  21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Center differential not a viscous coupling

The Subaru manual transmission uses a true gear type viscous limited slip center differential, not a simple viscous coupling. The secondary shaft in the transmission is hollow with the pinion shaft extending through it to the center diff. It provides a 50/50 torque balance under acceleration and deceleration up to the point of wheel slip, then the VLSD begins to send more torque to the wheels with more traction.

And BTW, Subaru used the term “Full Time 4WD” through 1991, before changing to “AWD” in 1992 (USDM). There were no changes between these EJ transmissions, it was just a marketing thing.

Gary Bury 5/19/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.215.60.170 (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

gearbox issues

i have a Legacy 2003 and ihear funny noise when i chenge the 1st and 2 nd gear,and also if i want to speed up in the firet 2 gears i hear a verry loud noise like a scratch.i need some advice,please. what i should do?

For advise on mechanical matters, try using Subaru Fan Club websites. There are multiple sites than can offer suggestions. Wikipedia, unfortunately, is just an encyclopedia that describes the vehicle, but doesn't offer suggestions for repair. WP:NOTHOWTO (Regushee (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC))

Merger

Please see the poll on Talk:Subaru Outback regarding the merger and weigh in your opinion. MarcusHookPa (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Due to the similarities between both the Subaru Legacy and Subaru Outback, I believe the Outback article should be merged with the Legacy article (and its generational sub-articles).

Listed below is my rationale:

• The Outback is little more than a Legacy with a slightly higher ground clearance, unique wheels, plastic body add-ons (flared wheel arches and door cladding) and a different badge. Both models share the all-wheel drive layout and even the same sedan and wagon body styles.
• Since the vehicles are so similar, content duplication is inevitable.
• Generational changes are released simultaneously for both Legacy and Outback.
• In Japan the Outback was originally a trim level of the Legacy, designated "Legacy Grand Wagon" and later renamed "Legacy Lancaster".

OSX (talk • contributions) 11:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No objection from me. swaq 15:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Due to the increase in information about the Legacy and Outback (I accept the verdict guilty as charged) I don't think this would be a bad idea at all. Most of the specific information about the Outback could be added to the generation breakdown pages so that the information won't get lost and mentions to the Outback could be added to the main Legacy page. Or maybe something else. I've noticed at [hit stats] that the Legacy averages about 900 "views" a day, and the Outback about 600 a day. (Regushee (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC))

I think no need to merge the Subaru Legacy and Subaru Outback pages. Although the Outback is based on the Legacy, they have different characters. Legacy is very popular in Japan, and there are many limited editions offered there. The Outback is a crossover wagon, an alternative to SUV. It's popular in the USA and Australia. Basically I am agree with rational reason written above, but I think people who search for Legacy are more car-enthusiast than Outback searchers. (User:Celica21gtfour) —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC).

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but while I can understand the intention, I see a couple of practical problems to merging them:

1. Even allowing for the removal of duplicated info, Subaru Outback is 51k, while Subaru Legacy is 33k (and it's already been split into generational articles). Looking at it from the opposite perspective, if the two pages were already merged, I think I'd be happy to split them just to relieve some of the bloat.
2. I think it would be inconsistent to have Subaru Outback as a redirect, yet leave Subaru Baja as a standalone article—it seems to just be a Legacy/Outback pick-up truck. But that means yet more merging, and more bloat...
3. According to its own page, the Outback "saved the company" (although I don't know quite how US-centric the statement is; it may only refer to the American division). That's a reasonable claim of significance on its own.
4. The two cars' generations don't match up, making navigation a wee bit tricky. A reader types in "Subaru Outback", gets redirected to the Legacy page, and then sees links telling him to go to one of the various sub-articles. That's a hop or two too many for my liking.
5. Subaru themselves treat it as a standalone vehicle on their various regional websites. This is also true of third-party car sites (in the UK) like Parkers, Auto Trader, etc.

All these wee points make me more sanguine about retaining the status quo. My concerns might be totally unfounded—there might be a perfectly decent article about both to be written—but without seeing it, I'm inclined to think they're better kept apart. Although as I said, I don't have strong feelings on the matter, even though I may becoming a Legacy owner in the near future... --DeLarge (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: just to cloud the issue further, we don't seem to have a consistent approach with existing precedents, at least from what I can see after a cursory glance at similar vehicles from other manufacturers. The Audi A6 allroad quattro (with a name suggestive of it being merely a variant of the A6) is a standalone article, while the more distinctly branded Volvo XC70 merely redirects to the Volvo V70 page. Strangely, though, the saloon/sedan variants (Volvo S70) are separated from the wagon/estate. Yeesh. Strike that last bit, the Volvo vehicle line seems a little more complicated than I first thought, and probably should be described separately. --DeLarge (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Subaru treats them as different vehicles, and the Outback Sport is not a Legacy-derived vehicle. The Legacy page is unwieldy enough as it is, thanks to one certain contributor and will be a clusterbomb of irrelevant information if the two are merged. Keep the pages separate.--A Second Man in Motion (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel they should stay separate, especially since the Outback wagon completely split off from the Legacy sedan in 2008. So what if the Outback is heavily based on the Legacy? The Forester is heavily based on the Impreza, but that's a separate model line. Also, the Outback Sport should be included in the Outback article as well, and separated from the Impreza, in my opinion.fahrer4184 (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The merging of the Outback article into this one is proving to be very awkward, and the fear of bloat seems to be resulting in the diminishing of information for Outback specific trim lines. Another issue is the misalignment of platform generations ( e.g. BE/BH, BL/BP, etc) to model years depending on the market in which the car is sold. In North America, the generation is at least one model year later than represented in the article. For example, an Outback owner in North America with a model year 2004 (BH) would be confused by this article referring to their car as 1999 - 2003. End consumers in most parts of the world know model years, NOT platform designations. In markets where the Outback is treated as its own model, the generation numeration alignment is also off, as the Outback in North America starts with Legacy Generation 2, but is referred to as Outback Generation 1. If these articles must be merged, a better care for preservation of information depth should be considered. 76.14.240.12 (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Outback sections in the Legacy articles are the same as before. Please re-instate any missing content if anything was accidentally excluded in the mergers.

Most of the world does not use model years, essentially only North America does. The rest of the world uses calendar years, so the article uses both calendar years and model codes. Since Japan is the home market, it is fair to use the years that apply for that market so bias between Europe and America is avoided. Most markets use the same years as Japan. However, North American models have sometimes been delayed as they are produced in a different factory in Indiana. Even before the Outback was merged with the Legacy page, the Legacy article still avoided US model years.

Since North American versions of foreign cars are often quite different to the versions sold elsewhere, I think it is important to mention these differences in a section dedicated to North America. I don't believe an article on a Japanese car sold in similar form globally should revolve around an altered version sold in another market. The Japanese model is the base car—that is; the North American version was modified to meet regulations and consumer preferences for that market. Conversely, the Chrysler Voyager article should revolve around the North American version of that model since that is the original market. The altered version sold in Europe and Australia should not be given priority, but should be detailed in a subsection highlighting any relevant changes.

As you pointed out, there is the slightly annoying issue of mis-aligned generations, but this can be overcome, but it really is a minor issue. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

For the generational sections in this article, and perhaps any other article about an automobile model, it might serve better to remove the range of years from the section headers. This would remove the issue of various markets differing years of availability. In the fields where the details of a generation are given, in this article and the generations' own articles, you could include year spans for each given market. This would put the information in a better context that is regionally agnostic. Its also important to note that 'model year' may or may not be concurrent with a calendar year, and doesn't change the disparity from market to market. The only absolute and agnostic separation of generations is the platform designation.

As for the contention that the 'home market' is the focus for the content of the article, as the 'home market' is considered Japan in this case, wouldn't the Japanese Wikipedia be a better place to represent the Japan-centric view of the model? The primarily English speaking markets for the vehicle don't have consistent model year availability, so the years being stated in the English language article don't objectively represent all markets. When the same vehicle is made in more than one nation and market of the world, does the model even have a specific 'home market'? Does the country of origin for the brand, and not the vehicle mandate the 'home market'? See how tying year designations to 'home market' and making them a prominent feature can become a compounding source of confusion? Perhaps it would be better to shift that emphasis as I suggested above, and keep the agnostic information of the platform designation as the focus? 76.14.240.12 (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see the poll on Talk:Subaru Outback regarding the merger and weigh in your opinion. MarcusHookPa (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

blueprint

does any one have a link to a blueprint of the subaru b4 bl5(2004-2008) ? I need one that has views for the front back side and top perspectives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.26.241.98 (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your personal repair manual. Bookster451 (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Another merger proposal

There is another merge proposal to merge Subaru Outback into this article. Please discuss here.---North wiki (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Subaru Legacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090312034014/http://www.subaru.com:80/vehicles/legacyconcept.html?cid=em_200903_insider to http://www.subaru.com/vehicles/legacyconcept.html?cid=em_200903_insider

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)