[HN Gopher] Gymkhana's 1978 Subaru Brat with 9,500-RPM Redline, ...
___________________________________________________________________
Gymkhana's 1978 Subaru Brat with 9,500-RPM Redline, Active Aero
Author : PaulHoule
Score : 62 points
Date : 2025-11-11 18:21 UTC (8 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thedrive.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thedrive.com)
| SilverElfin wrote:
| Looks amazing. How does someone with no car tuning / mechanics
| skills get something like this premade?
| bigyabai wrote:
| > someone with no car tuning / mechanics skills
|
| I'm just going to pull the band-aid off, you're probably not
| the target audience for a drag-race sleeper rig.
| squigz wrote:
| Just crapping on GP's dreams!
|
| If he wants to believe he's the target demo for a car that
| would immediately put him into a wall, let him!
| wickedsight wrote:
| Money, lots of money.
| linsomniac wrote:
| Just to quantify it, most "restomods" start at $100K USD.
|
| Decades ago I had a buddy that did something similar with a
| VW Bug that he did "on the cheap" doing almost all the work
| himself and things like paint through connections he had, I
| never talked price on it but it was at least $30K I'd bet and
| probably more like in the $50Ks, and took around a decade.
| hoofhearted wrote:
| Vermont Sports Car.
|
| They build all the fast Subarus for everyone; Travis Prastana,
| Bucky Lasik, Ken Block, Lia Block.
|
| The Huckster, the Project Midnight; all them too.
|
| https://vtcar.com/
| DebtDeflation wrote:
| Honestly, just learn it like anything else. Understand the
| basic components of an internal combustion engine (block,
| crankshaft, rods, pistons, camshafts, cylinder heads, valves,
| intake and exhaust manifolds), the 4 cycles the engine goes
| through (intake, compression, power, and exhaust), how fuel
| delivery and ignition systems work. And then there are tons of
| resources on tuning and you can get the software for a laptop.
| Grazester wrote:
| Then there is the building of the engine and understanding
| clearances for specific applications and RPM's, value train
| harmonics when thing start getting to crazy high revs like
| 9500.
|
| Still very learnable but outside the scope of standard engine
| rebuilt stuff.
| yourusername wrote:
| >Honestly, just learn it like anything else.
|
| If you're starting from 0 that's probably a decade long
| commitment before you're able to start to execute a project
| like this. There's a youtube series 'project binky' where a
| pair of professional car tuners rebuild a mini cooper and
| stuff a Celica engine in it. They already have all the
| skills, own a shop and all the tools and it still took them
| years.
| spike021 wrote:
| similarly, there's a youtube channel called Mighty Car Mods
| that does builds also and even the ones they "rush" can
| take months and thousands of work hours from people from
| multiple disciplines (body repair, paint, electrical work,
| tuning, etc.). Not cheap at all.
| jcgrillo wrote:
| A decade would be very quick. The amount of specialist
| knowledge that went into every part of this project is
| crazy.. After a decade's worth of projects I doubt I'd be
| confident to tackle the steering and suspension design on
| something like this, let alone all the aero.
|
| I've been working on cars for 20yr, I weld, I have done
| CAD/CAM/CAE stuff, rebuilt and modified engines, done
| custom suspension work... there are _so many_ aspects of a
| project like this that are just completely unknown to me,
| like I wouldn 't even know where to start. Many aspects of
| this build are not things you can really learn or research
| on your own.
| VintageRobot wrote:
| It isn't that simple. I've been learning to work on my own
| car over the last few years. I'm not even doing anything
| crazy just fixing up an older vehicle and modernising some
| parts of it (mainly interior).
|
| I had to fix the wiper system. The wiper system you would
| think it wouldn't matter much whether the parts are
| aftermarket or not. I was very wrong, parts that even look
| almost identical may not work properly, due to differences in
| tolerances.
|
| There is also different revisions of particular parts and it
| will become obsolete. You can lose an afternoon on the
| internet just doing that.
|
| Then there is the tools. I've spent about a small fortune on
| tools. I have 3 torque wrenches, 3 sets of sockets, 3 sets of
| spanners and loads of weird specialist tools like special
| pliers. There are many jobs I can't do myself because they
| needs specialist knowledge to do properly e.g. gearboxes.
|
| You have to be prepared to spend potentially years on it and
| huge amount of money, even on relatively simple projects.
|
| There is a reason that a lot of guys get into old 4x4 pickups
| and do those up, because they are a known quantity and parts
| are readily available.
| lewiscollard wrote:
| As someone building a particularly stupid car in a genre
| almost but not entirely unlike the OP (a turbo LS1-swapped
| Rover P5), I am not totally making stuff up when I say that
| this:
|
| > You have to be prepared to spend potentially years on it
| and huge amount of money, even on relatively simple
| projects.
|
| is not at all mutually exclusive to this:
|
| > Honestly, just learn it like anything else.
|
| I didn't really know what I was doing when I started my
| project. I had an idea and the desire to make it happen. I
| barely knew how to use a MIG to do the fab work, so I got
| good (enough) at it. I knew nothing about LS engines, so I
| learned enough about them at each point I needed to know
| something about them. I only have a vague idea of how I'm
| going to do the next phase of it; I know that I can figure
| it out with enough thinking and by making all the mistakes
| I need to make. I don't know how to TIG, and it'll be
| really useful if I do, so I am learning how to TIG.
|
| Start somewhere, and the more you do, the more you can do.
| Grazester wrote:
| Premade as in have someone built it for you? Well, the same way
| they did it. You offer up a load of money to a reputable build
| shop and come back in about 2-5 years depending on how busy
| they are.
| bob1029 wrote:
| Unless you would be planning to keep it at a race track, you
| would not want to own a car like this. It would almost
| certainly be miserable to drive at legal speeds. That 2.0L
| engine isn't going to make any useful power below 5-6k RPM.
| Keeping a turbo like that spooled for any meaningful duration
| is guaranteed to get you pulled over by the police.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| It is more than the speed potential. This thing is very
| likely not capable of running pump gas, and has to be running
| very rich. The cost per mile, just in fuel, would be insane.
| Also, good luck passing any sort of emissions controls for
| road use.
| Reubachi wrote:
| this vehicle has no interior to speak of, and no lighting
| to see at night (inside or out)
|
| It has no cats, no EGR system, sequential trans etc etc.
|
| To original OP of this question, this is closer to a racing
| speedboat than a race car. More expensive to own than a
| yacht assuming you want to run it
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| You don't- without that knowledge you would not know what to
| pay someone to build and why. It's also going to be extremely
| complex and unreliable, and likely not street drivable or
| street legal.
| joncrane wrote:
| Nearly impossible. For the same price and effort, you can
| probably get a high end Porsche 911 or similar which will be
| way more practical.
|
| The next level up would be to get a modified car from a company
| that has very strong ties to the manufacturer, such as Ruf with
| Porsche, Roush or Saleen with Ford Mustangs, etc.
|
| Trust me either of those options will be more than anyone but
| the 1% top skilled or thrill seeking individuals can handle.
| jcgrillo wrote:
| Step 1: Get ~$250k+ in cash for the initial build.
|
| Step 2: Start learning. If you don't know how to evaluate the
| work of your builder you may have a few false starts finding
| someone who can actually do it, which will cost you even more
| time and money.
|
| Step 3: Learn some more. Owning a vehicle like this is a
| constant development effort. The work will never be "done" so
| unless you have a mechanic on retainer you will be working on
| it constantly.
|
| In short, unless you have like a million dollars to spend on a
| toy and staff to keep it running you'll have to shoulder at
| least some of the effort.
| lan321 wrote:
| The best way with finite money is racecarsdirect or some other
| similar platform.
|
| Cons are you're getting someone else's project.
|
| Pros are they've already sunk stupid money into it.
|
| You can get great cars on there if you have someone in the know
| to bounce deals off of.
|
| The best way with infinite money is either some very high end
| small batch restomod or to even commission one of the large
| OEMesque motorsport shops to plan and build a one off. Smaller,
| specialized shops are also an option but the amount of people
| who're learning on customer vehicles is high and they'll be so
| hyped to get a large project they'll promise you the moon with
| entirely good intentions and then fail spectacularly.
| VintageRobot wrote:
| You can't, unless you a Saudi billionaire. These things are
| completely custom, are hugely expensive (why they have sponsors
| all over them) and often they will have work lined up for
| literally years.
|
| You also wouldn't want one. They cannot be driven on the road
| really as they aren't legal. They will also break a lot.
| Generally the more tuned a car is the more maintenance it
| needs.
|
| If you are interested in cars, you are better getting an older
| vehicle and somewhere to work on it e.g. a garage and working
| on it as a hobby at the weekends. You will learn a lot more and
| can actually enjoy it.
| hoofhearted wrote:
| You can have one built; you just call Vermont Sports Car lol.
|
| Yes, price is a major factor.
|
| No, you are completely incorrect on street legality; and way
| far from the truth lol
|
| The basis of a WRC rally car is that it is indeed street
| legal; and is required to be driven on the public roads with
| a proper license plate in between the stages of the rally.
| acejam wrote:
| While I agree with your comment about learning more by doing
| the work yourself, you don't need to be a billionaire to
| acquire one of these. Yes, they are expensive. A typical pro-
| level WRC spec WRX STI rally car from Vermont SportsCar goes
| for about $600k. They are actually very reliable though. And
| thats a bargain compared to just about any modern hypercar.
|
| Rally cars also must be street legal because they are driven
| on public roads between stages.
| RajT88 wrote:
| Buy a hooligan car new (or very lightly used) like a WRX STI,
| or Lancer EVO.
| madduci wrote:
| I would like to see a comparison between this and a Lancia
| Stratos.. They somehow share the same vibe
| stickfigure wrote:
| Can we just bring back the Brat? A compact 4wd pickup truck with
| a pair of jump seats in the bed.
|
| Pickup trucks are great, but they're only available in "behemoth"
| size in the US.
| danans wrote:
| Something like that:
|
| https://www.telotrucks.com/
| everdrive wrote:
| If they ever build it I might buy one. Heavily depends on if
| it has an always on mobile connection and the car is full or
| screens and stupid garbage.
| officeplant wrote:
| I desperately want the Slate[1] truck to success because it
| completely lacks infotainment. I hate Jeff Bezo's but I
| hope his funding helps them actually create a product.
|
| [1]https://www.slate.auto/en
| bluedino wrote:
| > Pickup trucks are great, but they're only available in
| "behemoth" size in the US.
|
| Not all trucks are 1/4 or 1/2 ton in the USA.
|
| There's things like the Honda Ridgeline, Hyundai Santa Cruze,
| and the Ford Maverick
|
| Subaru had the Baja for a little white but they only sold a
| couple thousand per year.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| Wouldn't you need to flag a sheet of plywood in the back of a
| Maverick? My old '06 Canyon doesn't require that and it's
| actually a smaller truck than the Maverick.
| fragmede wrote:
| you'd need to flag a sheet of 4x8 in quite a few of the
| full sized pickups after you get the extended crew cab
| which shrinks the bed and makes them more of an SUV than a
| truck. THeres a platonic ideal of a truck bed holding 2x4
| and 4x8 sheets, but it's more of an ideal sometimes.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| The overall problem is that the ratio of vehicle size to
| carrying capacity has gotten way larger. Small 2-seater
| pickup trucks could comfortably carry this stuff in the
| 80s and 90s and were not that much bigger than a sedan.
| Modern trucks are enormous _and_ can 't even carry as
| much unless you choose options that make them even
| bigger.
|
| Then compare this to something like a Kei truck and it's
| really quite pathetic.
| commandar wrote:
| >Then compare this to something like a Kei truck and it's
| really quite pathetic.
|
| I will forever be sad that Canoo was wildly (possibly
| fraudulently) mismanaged and went bust before they ever
| built any of their planned pickup trucks:
|
| https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/features/canoo-
| pickup-tr...
|
| They were going to be built on the same platform as their
| vans and the best way to describe them is "Kei truck
| upsized and uppowered enough to be safe on US roads."
| They had neat party tricks like a compact bed for daily
| driving that could expand out to fit full size ply and
| fold out workbenches on all four sides of the truck.
|
| I'm not even a truck guy and I desperately wanted one of
| these things. Just such a cool concept.
| ljf wrote:
| Thset is really sad - I'd seen a review of an early model
| on YouTube and it seemed like a brilliant idea - really
| hope someone else can make something similar work.
| deltoidmaximus wrote:
| > They had neat party tricks like a compact bed for daily
| driving that could expand out to fit full size ply...
|
| Unless I'm missing something this sounds like the bed
| extenders which I've seen on lots of trucks that allow
| the tailgate to be used as part of the bed when folded
| down. I was initially think they might be allowing the
| passenger compartment to be opened up to temporarily get
| full bed size but I didn't see anything like that when
| browsing the page. The closest thing I ever saw to that
| was on the Subaru Baja (which was far more a sedan than a
| truck) and given how short the bed was and the the fact
| that the back window was immobile seemed like it had less
| hauling utility than a standard hatchback.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| Yeah, but they were 2-seater trucks. Very few people want
| that these days.
|
| Our truck carries stuff a lot. Bags of feed, bales of
| hay, etc. But unless you want to stack it unreasonably
| high, 10 bales is about the limit. For big loads, it has
| to haul a trailer. If it were only a 2-seater, with a
| bigger bed, it could carry more, but that would mean that
| all we wouldn't be able to carry all the stuff that's
| typically in the back seats for safety or protection from
| the elements.
|
| Like everything, it's a tradeoff.
| briffle wrote:
| They have shorter beds, because of the larger cab, but a
| 1975 Ram one ton could carry 3500 lbs of payload in the
| bed, and pull a 11,500lb trailer.
|
| A 2025 one can carry 7500 lbs of payload in the bed, and
| tow 37,090 lbs (some states require extra permits or
| licenses for that much)
|
| All modern trucks can carry and tow WAY more than they
| used to.
|
| and the 1/2 ton ones have dramatically impvoved mileage
| (the modern 3L diesels do about 29Mpg, and the gas ones
| turn off cylinders when crusing, and can do 20-25mpg when
| empty. My older small pickup (old ram Dakota) from the
| early 2000's got 15-16 on the highway.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Sure, but who cares? Unless you're a
| contractor/tradesperson, that's a fairly rare edge case.
|
| I've owned a few pickups over the years, owned my house
| much of that time, and can probably county the times I've
| needed to move plywood or other oversized lumber on one
| hand. Add a second hand for times I've moved long pipes or
| other oversized stuff that required flagging.
| olyjohn wrote:
| So then what the heck did you have a pickup for if you're
| not moving around large items?
| AlexandrB wrote:
| All of these trade bed space for seating space, and they're
| still larger than my stepdad's 1990s-era Sonoma. As a sibling
| comment pointed out, you can't carry 4x8 sheet goods easily
| in these.
| everdrive wrote:
| The Ridgeline and Maverick are actually quite large compared
| to a 90s Ranger. Yes, not everything needs to be as big as a
| modern half-ton, but everything has shifted towards huge.
| pengaru wrote:
| Sure, but the OG Brat is a tiny truck by modern US standards.
| It's like the Miata of trucks.
|
| Even my 01 Forester will look big parked next to the OG Brat.
| Despite looking diminutive next to most modern vehicles here
| in Cali... It's super annoying how big ~everything on the
| road has become.
| alistairSH wrote:
| The Ridgeline is closer to a 1/4 ton like a Tacoma or Ranger.
| I own one. It's great for what it is, fits my outdoor
| lifestyle well (towing a small travel trailer, a few mountain
| bikes, and a large cooler).
|
| The Maverick, Santa Cruz, and the currently-vaporware Slate
| are much smaller.
| tristor wrote:
| The current model year Santa Cruz and Maverick are roughly
| the same size as the Tacoma, and the Tacoma is now the same
| size as a Ford F-150 was in the 90s when the Ford Ranger came
| out as a successful small pickup and the Tacoma was sized the
| same as the Ford Ranger. The vehicle size bloat in the last
| 30 years has been insane.
| munificent wrote:
| Agreed, they aren't all _huge_ , but they are all pretty big
| and the few that aren't huge sacrifice a _lot_ of bed size.
|
| I'm going through this now because I'm looking at upgrading
| from my ancient 2002 Tacoma Xtracab. Here's compared to 2025
| models: Vehicle
| Length Bed ---------------------------- --------
| ----- 2002 Toyota Tacoma (Xtracab) 202.9" 74.5"
| 2002 Toyota Tacoma (2Dr) 184.4" 74.5"
| 2025 Maverick 199.8" 54.4" 2025
| Honda Ridgeline 210.2" 64.0" 2025 Hyundai
| Santa Cruz 195.7" 52.1" 2025 Toyota Tacoma
| Xtracab 213.0" 73.5"
|
| My Tacoma wasn't even the shortest you could buy back then
| and it's still shorter than half of the "small" trucks you
| can buy today. And unlike those, my truck has a full 6' bed.
| A Maverick is shorter than mine, but the bed is also nearly
| _two feet_ shorter. I honestly don 't see the point of a bed
| that's less than five feet long. At that point, it's just an
| SUV with a trunk that isn't weather-sealed.
|
| Now, granted, it's not like you get nothing in return. These
| new vehicles (except the new Tacoma Xtracab) all have four
| doors and full-sized back seats. I can fit a kid in my jump
| seats but anyone older than that has a bad time. I'm sure
| they're safer for everyone in the truck too.
|
| But if you really do want to prioritize bed size and still
| want a short vehicle, that option is just no longer well
| supported. I accept that my use case is probably a narrow
| one:
|
| * Live in a dense city with a lot of parallel parking so
| don't want a long vehicle.
|
| * Kayak fish a lot so want a long bed I can load a kayak in.
|
| * Can get away with a two-seater because we can use my wife's
| car when there are passengers.
|
| But it's definitely not as well served as it used to be. I'm
| probably going to end up with a short-bed Tacoma and rely on
| a bed extender to keep the kayak safe.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Why get rid of your perfectly fine truck? People would be
| lining up around the block for your truck. As you say they
| don't make them like that anymore. Here in socal there are
| still 70s-80s era ford and chevy trucks in service. Those
| old f150s look tiny today. And in major demand even if they
| aren't prestine.
| amonks wrote:
| For what it's worth (maybe not much from an internet
| stranger), I couldn't possibly overstate how much I love my
| Ridgeline. I love the trunk under the bed, I love how the
| back seats fold up for extra in-cab cargo space, and I love
| how the unibody structure and independent rear suspension
| make it drive like a car. It's comfortable enough that I
| can use it happily for longer road trips.
|
| I love it so much that when it was stolen on a trip to
| Montreal a few years ago, I bought the exact same year and
| model again without even googling other options.
|
| It is a bit longer than I'd prefer--I live in urban Chicago
| and occasionally do have to forgo a good parking space, but
| usually those are, like, Honda Civic spaces that a slightly
| smaller truck wouldn't fit into either.
| olyjohn wrote:
| Regardless of the capacity, the Ridgeline is not a small
| truck. There are no small trucks anymore. The Ranger and
| Colorado are not small trucks, they are mid size. Compare
| them to the pre-2019 Ranger, and the pre-2011 Colorados and
| S10s.
|
| Sure, the Maverick is kinda small. But and does fine for most
| people, but it's not really built like a truck. For some
| reason, I can't handle this thing, because it's replaced real
| small trucks. It's just an Escape under the covers, and
| nobody considers the Escape to be a workhorse. Yet, I can
| give the Baja a pass, because it was honest in the fact that
| it's a car with a bit of a utility bed.
| officeplant wrote:
| Blame the chicken tax. Ruining small trucks in America for
| decades.
| mc32 wrote:
| You can't have passengers in jump seats like it's 1970 anymore
| --unless you're on your own ranch somewhere.
| whartung wrote:
| We used to travel with folks in the back bed in beach chairs.
| It was quite comfortable, and you could fit four in a small
| Toyota truck bed. We would face each other, and talk, and
| it's was a fun and social way to travel. Six adults in a
| short bed Toyota, with 2 in the cab.
|
| With just two of us in the back, we'd have the chairs against
| the cab (like the Brat did). Riding backwards in a vehicle is
| surprisingly relaxing. You can't see the traffic ahead, so
| you have absolutely zero interest in where the car is going,
| how fast, how close, missing exits, etc. You're just
| cognitively out of that loop. Even as a normal passenger,
| even if we stay silent, we're all firing off those "back seat
| driver" neurons a bit.
|
| But riding backwards, where it's all out of sight and out of
| mind, it's a noticeable reduction in that. On one trip, we're
| heading to the mountains, my friend and I in back of the
| truck. Suddenly, the truck is braking very hard. We, of
| course, have no idea what's happening. I said "Well, this is
| it, good knowing you." "Yup! You too!".
|
| Obviously nothing happened, but it was a curious incident to
| say the least.
| mc32 wrote:
| Definitely not a place to be during a rollover. Same reason
| they don't have seats at the rear of cars facing back. Not
| best place to be when getting rear-ended even though it's a
| great place to be as a kid watching traffic and making
| faces to passers by...
| olyjohn wrote:
| The Tesla Model S has an optional third row that faces
| backwards.
| stickfigure wrote:
| Why not? Jeeps are basically the same when you remove the
| top. The original Brat had a faux rollbar but you could
| integrate a real one into a new design.
| whalesalad wrote:
| I got my eye on the Slate - https://www.slate.auto/
|
| It answers the question, what if Framework made cars?
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| The roof rack is the new small pickup for US market. Put a good
| roof rack on your Subaru Outback and call it a day.
|
| https://sherpaec.com/products/olympus (no affiliation)
| yabones wrote:
| When cost and reliability is no concern, you can do truly crazy
| things...
|
| > 2.0-liter boxer engine ... 670 horsepower and 680 lb-ft of
| torque
|
| Those are V10 numbers coming from something the size you'd find
| in an econo-box.
|
| Obviously unlike your Camry this thing is not going to do 300,000
| KMs over its lifetime, and will be rebuilt frequently. This is
| the extreme end of the engineering tradeoff, and it's interesting
| to see what happens when the scale tips all the way over.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| 2 liters is hardly econobox, even without a turbo. A new honda
| civic sedan is 1.3 liters (NA). 2.0 is more typical for sedans
| imho. The 2.0 turbo in this biuld originally turned 250+ hp
| (wrx) which is well beyond econo anything.
| yabones wrote:
| Heh, very true. These days most new cars have a 1.0-1.5 turbo
| (or hybrid) rather than a larger 2.0 NA. And even 20 years
| ago most European cars were around 1.5 or less because of
| their higher fuel prices and registration taxes.
|
| I'm a bit spoiled with the beefy 2.5 in my Mazda... Though
| it's still about 480 HP less than this beast ;)
| redwall_hp wrote:
| That was a big thing with Japanese sports cars in general:
| proving more cylinders was a dead end and just extra weight.
| Pretty much all of the big JDM classics of the 90s and 2000s
| are 4-cyl (aside from Mazda's rotary engine cars) putting
| down 200-300hp range with favorable power/weight.
| giobox wrote:
| Sure, if you completely disregard the legendary straight
| sixes from Toyota and Nissan (RB, JZ...). I agree 4 bangers
| are huge historically in JDM sports cars, but so too is the
| straight six - the classic Z cars, Supras, GT-Rs...
| ebbi wrote:
| And restrained power figures due to the 'gentlemen's
| agreement' they had in Japan.
| LgWoodenBadger wrote:
| I can't think of any from the 90s that weren't 6 cylinders.
| Nissan 300Z, Nissan Skyline GT-R, Honda/Acura NSX, Toyota
| Supra, and Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4 were all 6 cylinders.
|
| The only exceptions I can think of are the Subaru Impreza
| WRX/STI, and the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution.
| xeonmc wrote:
| Toyota MR2, Honda S2000, Mazda MX-5, Nissan S13/14/15 and
| 180SX
| LgWoodenBadger wrote:
| A majority of those made in the ballpark of 150hp or
| less, with the exception of the S2000. A few variants of
| the MR2 and the Nissan made over 200, but not many.
|
| None ever came near Japan's gentlemen's agreement of
| "276" hp.
| olyjohn wrote:
| Yeah except the LS engine is still lighter than most 4
| cylinder turbos. It's lighter than a lot of NA 4 cylinders,
| in fact.
|
| The reason they stayed with smaller engines in Japan was
| because of taxes on displacement.
| officeplant wrote:
| Crazy thing is those numbers are low enough to actually be more
| reliable.
|
| We've got locals pushing 1,200+ HP out of K24's in their
| civics.
| driverdan wrote:
| People have been building 700hp WRXes (2L boxer) for decades.
| temp0826 wrote:
| BMW had a 1.5L turbo inline-4 that made 1300+ hp (called the
| M12) used in some F1 cars
|
| Edit- though, its redline was about double this Brat's...
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| You should look into what they were building for group B rally
| 40 years ago. Absolute monsters.
| spacecadet wrote:
| Waiting for my Honda Goldwing powered hybrid with 4-wheel hub
| motors in a Vanagon Syncro chassis.
| hoofhearted wrote:
| Here is a pretty recent and in depth video by Larry Chen of the
| Subaru WRX STI Project Midnight car built by the same company.
|
| For those who are underestimating just how advanced Vermont
| Sports Car is, this should open up your eyes.
|
| https://youtu.be/5GklA8AXQvU?si=9pZwanLVpbVw_cWq
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| Holy crap. Ken Block died????
| ge96 wrote:
| not a fan of the design but for rally I like the stratos or a
| Focus hatchback/Volkswagen style
|
| active aero seems silly on a truck-design but ehh
|
| regarding cars I did enjoy this video (comparing C8, GT3, GTD)
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw7tDXLyLVo
|
| admittedly not much of a track guy currently
|
| personally I drive a 2 liter 4 banger as well with a turbo,
| fastest I've gone so far is 150mph, next car I'm trying to get is
| a supercharged Lotus Exige in orange
|
| I know if you want speed it's cheap with a Corvette C6
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-19 23:01 UTC)