Talk:Subaru

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Subaru article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

Automobiles High‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Japan: Business and economy / Cars Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks.JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Business and economy task force.

This article is supported by the Japanese cars task force.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

Peer review: None
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations:
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English.
Assess unassessed articles

The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future:

http://priceonomics.com/how-an-ad-campaign-made-lesbians-fall-in-love-with/

History, etc., section

"From 1954 to 2008 the company designed and manufactured dozens of vehicles including..." It is not appropriate to simply change the "To" year to 2012 and tack on the BRZ, because this material is describing what happened during the company organization and ownership of that period. As described in the next subsection, Subaru went through a lot of partial ownership changes and so on up to 2008, but 2008 was a "sea change" in which "Toyota increased their share of FHI to 16.5% in July of 2008" (after GM dumped their stock in FHI). And the BRZ was co-developed with Toyota after that.

You can't describe the BRZ as something that happened in the period before Toyota bought that FHI stock, nor as something that happened without Toyota's involvement. And that's what you're doing if you put it in that list, given where that list is in the narrative. Jeh (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the above I can understand where you are coming from. But this is by no means clear in the article itself. The paragraph talks about the P1, then suddenly switches to a list of vehicles from 1954 to 2008. It does not make it clear that 2008 is a special year (although this is mentioned in another section, far away from that paragraph). If 2008 is used as a special year then it should also be mentioned why that year is special. If 1954 to 2008 gets a list of vehicles then 2008 onward should also get a list. Or we could just delete the idea of lists since it doesn't seem to add much to understanding the history. Stepho talk 22:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. It was perfectly clear to me from the article itself. But it could be made more clear.

I think mentioning the most significant vehicles developed under each period of ownership/organization would add significantly to the context in this section. This would mean breaking up the existing list (as necessary) into multiple periods. I am sure some of those in the existing list happened after the Nissan acquisition in 1968, for example. From the dates given in the existing list + the dates for the various stock movements, it Looks to me like the R2 through the Forester belong in the "Nissan period", and the Baha through the Exiga to the "GM period", then of course the BRZ in the 2008 and later Toyota period. Jeh (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a crack at the above. What do you think? Jeh (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's better but the part that seems confusing to me is how the main part of the history section is mainly a chronology that is then followed by topical subsections. To me, the chronology stops as soon as we changed topic to shareholders. It is not obvious that the chronology is meant to continue or that there is an order to the following topics. Stepho talk 05:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose making the "Later partnerships" section the end of the History section and adding a new L2 section for "International operations" or some such. Maybe that little "marketing" subsection can be moved back to the history section. However since marketing slogans are very country-specific, I wonder about that. Jeh (talk) 06:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good - go for it! Stepho talk 07:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I went. There are still some disconnected things but I think overall it's an improvement. I can't do much more with that part without doing more wide-scope rewriting than I want to. Jeh (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent - it now flows much better and is much easier to understand. The only other change I would make is to lift the 'Marketing efforts' up to L2 so that the History section can work as a chronology from start to end. The change of direction when it gets to marketing is a little jarring. I would also be tempted to put years in the remaining 2 history section titles (ie 'Fuji Heavy Industries (FHI) and Subaru's first cars (1915–1968)' and 'Later partnerships (1968–present)' but I'm not too fussed if that doesn't happen. Stepho talk 10:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Now that Fuji Heavy Industries is now the Subaru Corporation, these articles should be merged (Regushee (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Please post any comments at Talk:Subaru Corporation#Merger proposal. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging.Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mechanical Keyboarder: I currently don't have any opinion, but it doesn't seem like the proposal gained any consensus. In fact, the proposal was opposed by four users in 2017 (Talk:Subaru Corporation#Merger proposal). Andra Febrian (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Undone Please note that the original merge request's tag was removed 4 months after its proposal for being stale, with consensus towards opposing at the time. I've reverted the merge and rollbacked the changes here until consensus can be reached about the matter. In that case, my rollback can be easily reverted. Assem Khidhr (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Key and Unique Feature not included in current article that should be added to tell the Subaru Story - "Hill Holder Clutch"

I've owned 3 Subarus. Back in the early 1980's our first station wagon had a manual transmission (first that I would own) and the clutch/transmission was unique - If you stopped on an upward sloped hill, you could shift into 1st gear to get ready to drive on, and not worry about rolling backwards and hitting whatever is behind you. 1980 Subaru Hill Holder Commercial 46.110.119.111 (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "unique". Lots of vehicles have a similar feature, and it was introduced in the 1930s, almost 50 years before Subaru used it, according to Hill-holder. Meters (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Image Comparing the Logo with the Pleiades is Weird

I first noticed that the Pleiades were mirrored (flipped), and so they're being shown in a way that no one sees them, except when a telescope does reverse the image by reflection. When I was looking into this, I happened to notice, too, that the Subaru logo shown here is upside down (but not mirrored). In addition to these odd choices, together they don't align to show the one-to-one relationship between the stars in the logo and the stars in the sky. Really, they cannot, so long as the photo of the Pleiades is flipped. 50.105.170.133 (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]