Talk:Subaru Justy

I would question the Class designation of Mini SUV.
Sports Utility Vehicle would be usually a hardened version or model with some off road capabilties. Just having 4wd would not in my opinion move it into the the SUV class. This is just a hatchback with 4wd, would you call any of the Subaru WRX or Legacy models an SUV ? Or Mitsubishi Evolution or VR4/Legnum models an SUV ? And I certainly would not class the Mitsi Mirage hatchback 1988 with turbo or N/A and 4wd an SUV yet other than being of higher capacity ( 1600 DOHC ) as an SUV. Just a very quick subcompact hatchback.

Rallyshotz 21:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC) RallyShotz

Agreed... the Justy was classified in the USA as a sub-compact Sixthstar (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

References?
This article doesn't cite a single reference... can we get some, any? Otherwise the article is all "original work" and hence not eligable for the article... 842U (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The article should also have it's Peacock terms removed... who says the mileage was excellent? This is exactly the kind of info that doesn't belong in a reference, particularly if there's no support from a reputable party. Likewise, let's remove the weasel words too... the synchronizers were not "very good," were they? Says who? 842U (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * MUCH MUCH BETTER... thank you! Sixthstar (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Curb weight is vague
there is no mention what model is weighed. There might be up to 300lbs or more difference between Gen I(87-88) and Gen II (89-94) models —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.57.64 (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Move???
WTF is this move into Subaru Justy 2 ???? Lets fix this Sixthstar (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank You Adambro Sixthstar (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Advertising slogan
The Justy was introduced to the American market with this slogan "Justy the right car at Justy the right price." Anyone have a print ad or commercial video of this? It's stuck in my head all these years due to how stupid it sounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 10:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Last Carbureted??
There seems to be a bit indecision about what year it was last done. The 1991 Jeep Wagoneer still had a carburetor. That article mentions an Isuzu base model pick-up having a carb until 1993. AMCKen (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe EG Civics with the 1.3 (D13B2) engine sold in Europe had carbs until replacement in 1996, so I believe the UK claim is also untrue. --Zilog Jones (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Name meaning
Any idea where the name comes from? Coemgenv (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Since when is the Justy a station wagon?
Someone edited the opening line to subcompact car to station wagon, but the Justy doesn't look like a SW at all?

--85.191.27.236 (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I fixed it to say hatchback like the article originally did before vandalism Sixthstar (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge Toyota Tank and Roomy
The Toyota Tank and Toyota Roomy are being marked for deletion for being too short. They should be changed into redirects to here and their information should be merged in.  Stepho  talk 22:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't move. Please add another image to the article Toyota Tank. Because it was developed by Toyota and Daihatsu, but Subaru only rebadge it as the Subaru Justy. Alex Neman (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Then should we rename the Subaru Justy article as 'Toyota Tank' and make 'Subaru Justy' into a redirect to 'Toyota Tank'? Do we have any references for whether it was designed by Toyota/Daihatsu or by Subaru?


 * Also, you removed the merge tag on the Toyota Tank article. This is showing that you have made a unilateral decision and acted on it without consideration for consensus and in such a manner as to remove any further discussion about it. Not good.  Stepho  talk 22:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It is designed by Daihatsu. You must merge Toyota Tank and Toyota Roomy into Daihatsu Thor. Alex Neman (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not "must". It might or might not be the best approach. It is pretty clear that all three brand names of the vehicle should be covered in a single article, but which should be the actual title is a matter of WP:COMMONNAME.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe replace the second-gen picture?
That one has aftermarket wheels, roof rack, and badge, so a stock one could be a better example. 137.229.82.97 (talk)ke7ofi