Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gymkhana's 1978 Subaru Brat with 9,500-RPM Redline, Active Aero

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 92 posts

Re: Gymkhana's 1978 Subaru Brat with 9,500-RPM Redline, Active Aero

#81

Post by amonks »

munificent wrote: post #71
bluedino wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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…

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.

Re: Gymkhana's 1978 Subaru Brat with 9,500-RPM Redline, Active Aero

#82

Post by olyjohn »

mc32 wrote: post #61
whartung wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

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…

The Tesla Model S has an optional third row that faces backwards.

Re: Gymkhana's 1978 Subaru Brat with 9,500-RPM Redline, Active Aero

#83

Post by [deleted] »

LgWoodenBadger wrote: post #60
redwall_hp wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Gymkhana's 1978 Subaru Brat with 9,500-RPM Redline, Active Aero

#84

Post by quickthrowman »

alistairSH wrote: post #45
throwway120385 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

If you’re a contractor or tradesperson, chances are you’re having sheet goods delivered to the job site by a supply house, unless it’s a tiny project/service call.

My electricians have pipe racks on their work vans, but if they’re buying 5,000 feet of 3/4” conduit (10’ sticks), you better believe a box truck will deliver it. If they need 40 feet for a quick service call, that’s what the pipe racks are for.

I agree with you though, the ability to move sheet goods flat in a truck bed is almost completely unnecessary.

If you really want to do this in a 5’ bed pickup, you can get a rack for above the cab and a crossbar with two posts that installs into the topper mounting holes near the tailgate to provide a 4’x8’ plane to carry sheet goods on. Here’s a universal example for $200, a nicer one meant for a specific truck is probably 3-4x more: https://wmastore.com/product/universal-drywall-plywood-mattr...

Re: Gymkhana's 1978 Subaru Brat with 9,500-RPM Redline, Active Aero

#86

Post by lewiscollard »

VintageRobot wrote: post #74
lewiscollard wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

> As someone building a particularly stupid car in a genre almost but not entirely unlike the OP (a turbo LS1-swapped Rover P5), I have no idea why people do this stuff to a nice car like a Rover P5. It isn't my car though. > Start somewhere, and the more you do, the more you can do. Obviously. But I had to do a lot of stuff that I wasn't prepared to do far quicker because the previous person who doing this took shor…

(I don't know why your comment got flagged. I vouched for it; whatever we might argue about here, I don't think you're out of line in any way.)

I actually feel everything you have said apart from this P5 being "nice" (it was fucked). Like turbo delays - I had that on my other project, and going from "I need a new turbo" to "I have a new turbo and things adjacent to the turbo" took damn near a year by itself. I know how this goes!

So I hope I did not appear to say that it's EASY. I've put in enough hours to know that it's not, and if it was everyone would be doing it anyway. It does in fact take a lot of time, and willingness to learn, and plain old determination, and money. I will say it's something that IS possible, and that I still agree with this:

> Honestly, just learn it like anything else.

But...I suppose we'll know that for sure once I have an actual working car, right? :)

Re: Gymkhana's 1978 Subaru Brat with 9,500-RPM Redline, Active Aero

#87

Post by [deleted] »

everdrive wrote: post #23
bluedino wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Gymkhana's 1978 Subaru Brat with 9,500-RPM Redline, Active Aero

#88

Post by alistairSH »

olyjohn wrote: post #80
alistairSH wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So then what the heck did you have a pickup for if you're not moving around large items?

Currently, towing a travel trailer and hauling filthy camping shit and mountain bikes. So nice to toss wet stanky shit in the bed instead of in the cab. I need the tow capacity either way, so may as well have a useful bed (vs an enclosed SUV).

Previous truck was to haul a race car on a trailer. Same fringe benefits for the camping shit, plus tools and spare parts for the race car (engines sometimes, wheels/tires, etc).

Re: Gymkhana's 1978 Subaru Brat with 9,500-RPM Redline, Active Aero

#89

Post by AngryData »

briffle wrote: post #78
AlexandrB wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 dies…

Total weight is up, but volume is not, and for most people volume is far more important because they aren't trying to put a full pallet of concrete in the back. The weight capacity of basic 90s and '00s trucks were already enough to fill it solid 3 feet thick of stacked wet treated lumber.

Re: Gymkhana's 1978 Subaru Brat with 9,500-RPM Redline, Active Aero

#90

Post by munificent »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #73
munificent wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

The answer is sad. Last year, I destroyed my left ankle when I slipped in a puddle while biking to work. Even after three surgeries and tons of physical therapy, the joint is falling apart. I drive a stick and it hurts every single time I push the clutch pedal in, so I've accepted that I have to move to an automatic.

> People would be lining up around the block for your truck.

You're not lying. I'm the only owner and it's got barely over 100k miles on it. Every few years, I find a note on it from someone asking if I'm interested in selling.

The kids joke that I love that truck more than them.

It has been a really amazing vehicle and I've had a ton of fun in it. But I'd be lying if I didn't say that it would be nice to have, you know, anti-lock brakes and a back-up camera.

Post reply on HN