Toyota.

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 02:54:54 +0000, Tegger wrote:

> =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= > wrote
> in :
>
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:51:38 +0000, Tegger wrote:
>>
>>
>
>>> Problem was, the Liftback looked vaguely like the Hyundai Pony, and
>>> people sometimes made the mistake of thinking I had a Pony. What an
>>> insult.
>>
>>
>> Now, did the wndow roll down on yours, or fixed? I had the "Trueno"
>> (what later became the "Hachiroku") that had the fixed windows behind
>> the doors.
>
>
>
> The window immediately behind the door windows? It rolled down, and ALL
> the way. The Liftback and the Notchback both had that.
>
> The Coupe had a thick black pillar behind the door windows, and a much
> more steeply-slanted hatch. Not nearly as useful as the Liftback.
>
>
>
>
>
>> That car cemented my relationship with Toyota. I traded it in '86 with
>> 244,000 miles on it for the Hachi.
>
>
> The AE86 was the generation after the TE72.
>
> Close to mine:
> <http://www.oldparkedcars.com/2010/05/1982-toyota-corolla-liftback-2.html>
> Mine was a metallic blue SR-5, and had the "petal" wheels with trim rings.
> Got photos somewhere...
>
> The Notchback:
> <http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?4468191-check-out-my-new-ride>
>
> The Coupe:
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/7977458@N08/4448508077/>
>
> The AE86:
> <http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1565944>
>
> The AE86 was pretty much an updated TE72 Coupe.
>
>
>
>
>
>> They need to get back to that way of building cars.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Oh yeah. If I wasn't in the rust-ridden North-east, I'd seriously consider
> getting another TE72 Liftback.

Mine didn't rust! It was one of the only Toyotas I ever had that didn't
rust. I can't remember if it was Rusty'd or not, or Waxoyl. Can't remember
if I paid the extra or not.

I had the coupe. It was definitely one hell of a car. It had a 1.8L Hemi,
however. No neck-snapping acceleration, but it would go pretty good and
hit 85 on the highway without breaking a sweat.

Highest I ever went with that was ~112. Not like the 129 in the Hachi...

Northeast? I thought you were out near Vancouver!

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 03:29:04 +0000, Tegger wrote:

> =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= > wrote
> in :
>
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 02:54:54 +0000, Tegger wrote:
>>
>>
>
>>> Oh yeah. If I wasn't in the rust-ridden North-east, I'd seriously
>>> consider getting another TE72 Liftback.
>>
>> Mine didn't rust! It was one of the only Toyotas I ever had that didn't
>> rust. I can't remember if it was Rusty'd or not, or Waxoyl. Can't
>> remember if I paid the extra or not.
>
>
>
> Mine died of rust. That's the only reason I had to buy something else,
> which turned out to be the Integra (which is 20-years-old this year!).
>
>
>
>> > I had the coupe. It was definitely one hell of a car. It had a 1.8L
>> Hemi, however. No neck-snapping acceleration, but it would go pretty
>> good and hit 85 on the highway without breaking a sweat.
>
>
>
>
> Guys used to laugh when I told them my Japmobile had a Hemi... But it was
> TRUE!

Yup. All "Hemi" means is Hemispherical head, and even my Corolla 1200 had
one of those!

>
>
>
>
>> Highest I ever went with that was ~112. Not like the 129 in the Hachi...
>
>
>
> That fast? Mine never managed anywhere near that.
>
> Take a look at this photo, snapped at-speed in 1987 in a Liftback:
> <http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/misc/howfast.jpg> The car was maxed in 5th
> gear. Nothing more left.
>
> Care to take a guess at decoding the Claybrook speedometer? Hint: It ain't
> impressive.

WOW! 140?!?!?! The Speedo in my Supra goes up to 240! I haven't had it
anywhere near that. I didn't realize they had that same stupid law in
Canada, too (or was it just that all NA imported cars were stuck at that?)

The Supra came from Downtown Toyota... An imported import.


It was a plain old DUMB idea, because if you exceeded the speedo, you had
NO CLUE how fast you were going. That played well...a friend of mine had a
Chevy "Monza" (the one that looked like a wedge) and I 'buried' the speedo
in about 6 seconds. Had NO IDEA how fast we were going, but it was at
least 120. He had the V8 version.

>
>
>
>
>> Northeast? I thought you were out near Vancouver!
>>
>>
>
>
> I'm in Ontario; never been anywhere close to Vancouver. My Usenet provider
> is in the Puget Sound area, though, hence my west-coast IP address.

Ah. Where in ONT? I have been to Toronto, Oshawa (immediately RIGHT BEHIND
the GM assembly plant) and Kitchener.

=?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= >
wrote in :

> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 03:29:04 +0000, Tegger wrote:
>

>>
>> Take a look at this photo, snapped at-speed in 1987 in a Liftback:
>> <http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/misc/howfast.jpg> The car was maxed
>> in 5th gear. Nothing more left.
>>
>> Care to take a guess at decoding the Claybrook speedometer? Hint: It
>> ain't impressive.
>
> WOW! 140?!?!?!



Yeah, in Metric. That's about 87mph.



> The Speedo in my Supra goes up to 240! I haven't had it
> anywhere near that. I didn't realize they had that same stupid law in
> Canada, too (or was it just that all NA imported cars were stuck at
> that?)



There wasn't any law up here. We tended to get the same speedometers as the
US, just with the Metric dominant instead of the miles.

As for that photo... When I worked the tach reading back with the 5th-gear
and rear-end ratios and tire circumference, I got 103mph.



>
> The Supra came from Downtown Toyota... An imported import.
>
>
> It was a plain old DUMB idea, because if you exceeded the speedo, you
> had NO CLUE how fast you were going.



That was Joan Claybrook's point.

She believed people were going fast for thrills, so if they didn't know how
fast they were going, they'd slow down because the thrill would be gone.



--
Tegger

On Jan 20, 1:50 pm, Brent > wrote:
> On 2011-01-20, N8N > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 19, 10:07 pm, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 19:18:59 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:
> >> > On 01/14/2011 06:49 PM, Tegger wrote:
> >> >> Nate > wrote in
> >> :
>
> >> >>> On 01/14/2011 03:18 PM, wrote:
> >> >>>> On the web,
> >> >>>> Aging, boring lineup of cars called problem for Toyota
>
> >> >>>> I am not bashing Toyota.I saw that article at,
> >> >>>>http://www.clarionledger.com
> >> >>>> (Business section)
> >> >>>> cuhulin
>
> >> >>> Toyota, the new Oldsmobile?
>
> >> >> I don't think so. Olds was just one of five GM divisions. Increased
> >> >> foreign competition eventually made Alfred Sloan's original vision
> >> >> impracticable, and some of those divisions had to go.
>
> >> >> Toyota only has three divisions, with one of them very distinct from the
> >> >> others marketing-wise (Lexus). If anything's going to die for Toyota, I
> >> >> think it's going to be Scion.
>
> >> >> But Toyota has /never/ had the most exciting image. They did go postal
> >> >> with the original MR2 and the FX-16, but kinda lost the plot after that.
> >> >> If you buy a Toyota, you're looking for boring competence: cars that
> >> >> just run and run and run and run.
>
> >> >>> quite possibly... wasn't the Cutlass the best selling car in the US for
> >> >>> several years back in the 70's?
>
> >> >> Yep. Those were /everywhere/ for a long time.
>
> >> > The point that I was trying to make was that somewhere along the line Olds
> >> > went from having a home run hitter (in the Cutlass - and even before it
> >> > was a best seller, it was still a contender - I remember seeing lots of
> >> > the 68-up ones on the road as a kid, along with other A-bodies, and our
> >> > own family car was a '67 which my dad had bought new) and the 88/98 were
> >> > solid options for larger families. Then somewhere along the way everyone
> >> > looked at Oldsmobile and just went "Oldsmobile...? meh." They weren't
> >> > particularly *bad,* but they had all the excitement of low-fat vanilla
> >> > pudding. And nobody but nobody bought them. Hope that doesn't happen to
> >> > Toyota, but frankly, most of their current cars have that effect on me.
>
> >> > I would really like a twin-turbo Supra, but there's two problems: 1) they
> >> > don't sell 'em here anymore and 2) I *hate* F&F-loving ricers, so the
> >> > styling of the last generation was a huge turnoff to me. They look
> >> > reasonably OK without the basket handle though.
>
> >> My Supra (88) isn't even a turbo, has a sluggish AT, but is STILL a blast
> >> to drive.
>
> >> I had to bring the Hachiroku in for service the day after the "new" Supra
> >> was released in '93 and there was one on the showroom floor. WOW! But with
> >> a sticker of $36,000 the best I could do was ask to sit in it. Fit like a
> >> glove.
>
> >> Toyota is a long, long ways away from the fun cars of the 80's...
>
> >> > Even an old RWD Corolla holds more interest to me than anything Toyota
> >> > currently makes...
>
> >> > always wondered if a Supra drivetrain transplant into an old Cressida
> >> > sedan would work? :P
>
> >> Um....you realize the Supra drivetrain IS in the Cressida, right...?
>
> > Not the twin turbo, nor a stickshift
>
> > I always wanted to build a "Fairmont GT" as well, so maybe I'm just a
> > little warped in the head. (not the one that's bolted to the block,
> > either.)
>
> As in the fox platform ford of the US or some aussie falcon variant or
> other ford from down under? I could understand the later, not really the
> former.

I was thinking the former, simply because it's such a bland, grandma-
looking car.

Of course, I used to have a '62 Studebaker Daytona as well, which was
essentially the same thing. (Studebaker Lark hardtop body =
definition of grandma car, but with a 289/4-speed)

nate

On Jan 20, 10:29 pm, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B > wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:09:33 -0800, N8N wrote:
> > I always wanted to build a "Fairmont GT" as well
>
> Why?!?!?!
>

see my reply to Brent.

> Wasn't the Fairmont based on the Mustang of the time, or vice-versa?

Yup, so lots of OTC performance parts easily and cheaply available.
Sort of like building a Factory Five roadster, but with the exact
opposite end result. (getting a completely boring looking car to
drive/handle acceptably well.)

nate

On 2011-01-21, N8N > wrote:
> On Jan 20, 1:50 pm, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2011-01-20, N8N > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 19, 10:07 pm, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B > wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 19:18:59 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:
>> >> > On 01/14/2011 06:49 PM, Tegger wrote:
>> >> >> Nate > wrote in
>> >> :
>>
>> >> >>> On 01/14/2011 03:18 PM, wrote:
>> >> >>>> On the web,
>> >> >>>> Aging, boring lineup of cars called problem for Toyota
>>
>> >> >>>> I am not bashing Toyota.I saw that article at,
>> >> >>>>http://www.clarionledger.com
>> >> >>>> (Business section)
>> >> >>>> cuhulin
>>
>> >> >>> Toyota, the new Oldsmobile?
>>
>> >> >> I don't think so. Olds was just one of five GM divisions. Increased
>> >> >> foreign competition eventually made Alfred Sloan's original vision
>> >> >> impracticable, and some of those divisions had to go.
>>
>> >> >> Toyota only has three divisions, with one of them very distinct from the
>> >> >> others marketing-wise (Lexus). If anything's going to die for Toyota, I
>> >> >> think it's going to be Scion.
>>
>> >> >> But Toyota has /never/ had the most exciting image. They did go postal
>> >> >> with the original MR2 and the FX-16, but kinda lost the plot after that.
>> >> >> If you buy a Toyota, you're looking for boring competence: cars that
>> >> >> just run and run and run and run.
>>
>> >> >>> quite possibly... wasn't the Cutlass the best selling car in the US for
>> >> >>> several years back in the 70's?
>>
>> >> >> Yep. Those were /everywhere/ for a long time.
>>
>> >> > The point that I was trying to make was that somewhere along the line Olds
>> >> > went from having a home run hitter (in the Cutlass - and even before it
>> >> > was a best seller, it was still a contender - I remember seeing lots of
>> >> > the 68-up ones on the road as a kid, along with other A-bodies, and our
>> >> > own family car was a '67 which my dad had bought new) and the 88/98 were
>> >> > solid options for larger families. Then somewhere along the way everyone
>> >> > looked at Oldsmobile and just went "Oldsmobile...? meh." They weren't
>> >> > particularly *bad,* but they had all the excitement of low-fat vanilla
>> >> > pudding. And nobody but nobody bought them. Hope that doesn't happen to
>> >> > Toyota, but frankly, most of their current cars have that effect on me.
>>
>> >> > I would really like a twin-turbo Supra, but there's two problems: 1) they
>> >> > don't sell 'em here anymore and 2) I *hate* F&F-loving ricers, so the
>> >> > styling of the last generation was a huge turnoff to me. They look
>> >> > reasonably OK without the basket handle though.
>>
>> >> My Supra (88) isn't even a turbo, has a sluggish AT, but is STILL a blast
>> >> to drive.
>>
>> >> I had to bring the Hachiroku in for service the day after the "new" Supra
>> >> was released in '93 and there was one on the showroom floor. WOW! But with
>> >> a sticker of $36,000 the best I could do was ask to sit in it. Fit like a
>> >> glove.
>>
>> >> Toyota is a long, long ways away from the fun cars of the 80's...
>>
>> >> > Even an old RWD Corolla holds more interest to me than anything Toyota
>> >> > currently makes...
>>
>> >> > always wondered if a Supra drivetrain transplant into an old Cressida
>> >> > sedan would work? :P
>>
>> >> Um....you realize the Supra drivetrain IS in the Cressida, right...?
>>
>> > Not the twin turbo, nor a stickshift
>>
>> > I always wanted to build a "Fairmont GT" as well, so maybe I'm just a
>> > little warped in the head. (not the one that's bolted to the block,
>> > either.)
>>
>> As in the fox platform ford of the US or some aussie falcon variant or
>> other ford from down under? I could understand the later, not really the
>> former.
>
> I was thinking the former, simply because it's such a bland, grandma-
> looking car.

The only thing that is interesting about a fairmont to me would be to
create a muntant car. There are a few projects displayed online...
start with fairmont put in various mustang running gear and suspension
(after market or stock), optionally replace the front clip with mustang
parts.

> Of course, I used to have a '62 Studebaker Daytona as well, which was
> essentially the same thing. (Studebaker Lark hardtop body =
> definition of grandma car, but with a 289/4-speed)

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 05:06:39 -0800, N8N wrote:

> On Jan 20, 1:50 pm, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2011-01-20, N8N > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 19, 10:07 pm, Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク > wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 19:18:59 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:
>> >> > On 01/14/2011 06:49 PM, Tegger wrote:
>> >> >> Nate > wrote in
>> >> :
>>
>> >> >>> On 01/14/2011 03:18 PM, wrote:
>> >> >>>> On the web,
>> >> >>>> Aging, boring lineup of cars called problem for Toyota
>>
>> >> >>>> I am not bashing Toyota.I saw that article at,
>> >> >>>>http://www.clarionledger.com
>> >> >>>> (Business section)
>> >> >>>> cuhulin
>>
>> >> >>> Toyota, the new Oldsmobile?
>>
>> >> >> I don't think so. Olds was just one of five GM divisions.
>> >> >> Increased foreign competition eventually made Alfred Sloan's
>> >> >> original vision impracticable, and some of those divisions had to
>> >> >> go.
>>
>> >> >> Toyota only has three divisions, with one of them very distinct
>> >> >> from the others marketing-wise (Lexus). If anything's going to die
>> >> >> for Toyota, I think it's going to be Scion.
>>
>> >> >> But Toyota has /never/ had the most exciting image. They did go
>> >> >> postal with the original MR2 and the FX-16, but kinda lost the
>> >> >> plot after that. If you buy a Toyota, you're looking for boring
>> >> >> competence: cars that just run and run and run and run.
>>
>> >> >>> quite possibly... wasn't the Cutlass the best selling car in the
>> >> >>> US for several years back in the 70's?
>>
>> >> >> Yep. Those were /everywhere/ for a long time.
>>
>> >> > The point that I was trying to make was that somewhere along the
>> >> > line Olds went from having a home run hitter (in the Cutlass - and
>> >> > even before it was a best seller, it was still a contender - I
>> >> > remember seeing lots of the 68-up ones on the road as a kid, along
>> >> > with other A-bodies, and our own family car was a '67 which my dad
>> >> > had bought new) and the 88/98 were solid options for larger
>> >> > families. Then somewhere along the way everyone looked at
>> >> > Oldsmobile and just went "Oldsmobile...? meh." They weren't
>> >> > particularly *bad,* but they had all the excitement of low-fat
>> >> > vanilla pudding. And nobody but nobody bought them. Hope that
>> >> > doesn't happen to Toyota, but frankly, most of their current cars
>> >> > have that effect on me.
>>
>> >> > I would really like a twin-turbo Supra, but there's two problems:
>> >> > 1) they don't sell 'em here anymore and 2) I *hate* F&F-loving
>> >> > ricers, so the styling of the last generation was a huge turnoff to
>> >> > me. They look reasonably OK without the basket handle though.
>>
>> >> My Supra (88) isn't even a turbo, has a sluggish AT, but is STILL a
>> >> blast to drive.
>>
>> >> I had to bring the Hachiroku in for service the day after the "new"
>> >> Supra was released in '93 and there was one on the showroom floor.
>> >> WOW! But with a sticker of $36,000 the best I could do was ask to sit
>> >> in it. Fit like a glove.
>>
>> >> Toyota is a long, long ways away from the fun cars of the 80's...
>>
>> >> > Even an old RWD Corolla holds more interest to me than anything
>> >> > Toyota currently makes...
>>
>> >> > always wondered if a Supra drivetrain transplant into an old
>> >> > Cressida sedan would work? :P
>>
>> >> Um....you realize the Supra drivetrain IS in the Cressida, right...?
>>
>> > Not the twin turbo, nor a stickshift
>>
>> > I always wanted to build a "Fairmont GT" as well, so maybe I'm just a
>> > little warped in the head. (not the one that's bolted to the block,
>> > either.)
>>
>> As in the fox platform ford of the US or some aussie falcon variant or
>> other ford from down under? I could understand the later, not really the
>> former.
>
> I was thinking the former, simply because it's such a bland, grandma-
> looking car.

Wouldn't the 50's kinda give it away?

>
> Of course, I used to have a '62 Studebaker Daytona as well, which was
> essentially the same thing. (Studebaker Lark hardtop body = definition of
> grandma car, but with a 289/4-speed)
>
> nate

What ever happened to Studebaker? I always thought they were actually
ahead of the curve. If they had hung on into the 70's they might have
fended off Toyota and Nissan in the smaller car market.

ALMOST bought an Avanti in the late 70's for near nothing, but I didn't
know a lot about cars them. Ditto for a 1953 "50th Anniversary" Ford
flathead F-100. Boy, kicking myself hard now. The truck was $50...

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:05:15 +0000, Brent wrote:

> On 2011-01-21, N8N > wrote:
>> On Jan 20, 1:50 pm, Brent > wrote:
>>> On 2011-01-20, N8N > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Jan 19, 10:07 pm, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B > wrote:
>>> >> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 19:18:59 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>> >> > On 01/14/2011 06:49 PM, Tegger wrote:
>>> >> >> Nate > wrote in
>>> >> :
>>>
>>> >> >>> On 01/14/2011 03:18 PM, wrote:
>>> >> >>>> On the web,
>>> >> >>>> Aging, boring lineup of cars called problem for Toyota
>>>
>>> >> >>>> I am not bashing Toyota.I saw that article at,
>>> >> >>>>http://www.clarionledger.com
>>> >> >>>> (Business section)
>>> >> >>>> cuhulin
>>>
>>> >> >>> Toyota, the new Oldsmobile?
>>>
>>> >> >> I don't think so. Olds was just one of five GM divisions.
>>> >> >> Increased foreign competition eventually made Alfred Sloan's
>>> >> >> original vision impracticable, and some of those divisions had to
>>> >> >> go.
>>>
>>> >> >> Toyota only has three divisions, with one of them very distinct
>>> >> >> from the others marketing-wise (Lexus). If anything's going to
>>> >> >> die for Toyota, I think it's going to be Scion.
>>>
>>> >> >> But Toyota has /never/ had the most exciting image. They did go
>>> >> >> postal with the original MR2 and the FX-16, but kinda lost the
>>> >> >> plot after that. If you buy a Toyota, you're looking for boring
>>> >> >> competence: cars that just run and run and run and run.
>>>
>>> >> >>> quite possibly... wasn't the Cutlass the best selling car in the
>>> >> >>> US for several years back in the 70's?
>>>
>>> >> >> Yep. Those were /everywhere/ for a long time.
>>>
>>> >> > The point that I was trying to make was that somewhere along the
>>> >> > line Olds went from having a home run hitter (in the Cutlass - and
>>> >> > even before it was a best seller, it was still a contender - I
>>> >> > remember seeing lots of the 68-up ones on the road as a kid, along
>>> >> > with other A-bodies, and our own family car was a '67 which my dad
>>> >> > had bought new) and the 88/98 were solid options for larger
>>> >> > families. Then somewhere along the way everyone looked at
>>> >> > Oldsmobile and just went "Oldsmobile...? meh." They weren't
>>> >> > particularly *bad,* but they had all the excitement of low-fat
>>> >> > vanilla pudding. And nobody but nobody bought them. Hope that
>>> >> > doesn't happen to Toyota, but frankly, most of their current cars
>>> >> > have that effect on me.
>>>
>>> >> > I would really like a twin-turbo Supra, but there's two problems:
>>> >> > 1) they don't sell 'em here anymore and 2) I *hate* F&F-loving
>>> >> > ricers, so the styling of the last generation was a huge turnoff
>>> >> > to me. They look reasonably OK without the basket handle though.
>>>
>>> >> My Supra (88) isn't even a turbo, has a sluggish AT, but is STILL a
>>> >> blast to drive.
>>>
>>> >> I had to bring the Hachiroku in for service the day after the "new"
>>> >> Supra was released in '93 and there was one on the showroom floor.
>>> >> WOW! But with a sticker of $36,000 the best I could do was ask to
>>> >> sit in it. Fit like a glove.
>>>
>>> >> Toyota is a long, long ways away from the fun cars of the 80's...
>>>
>>> >> > Even an old RWD Corolla holds more interest to me than anything
>>> >> > Toyota currently makes...
>>>
>>> >> > always wondered if a Supra drivetrain transplant into an old
>>> >> > Cressida sedan would work? :P
>>>
>>> >> Um....you realize the Supra drivetrain IS in the Cressida, right...?
>>>
>>> > Not the twin turbo, nor a stickshift
>>>
>>> > I always wanted to build a "Fairmont GT" as well, so maybe I'm just a
>>> > little warped in the head. (not the one that's bolted to the block,
>>> > either.)
>>>
>>> As in the fox platform ford of the US or some aussie falcon variant or
>>> other ford from down under? I could understand the later, not really
>>> the former.
>>
>> I was thinking the former, simply because it's such a bland, grandma-
>> looking car.
>
> The only thing that is interesting about a fairmont to me would be to
> create a muntant car. There are a few projects displayed online... start
> with fairmont put in various mustang running gear and suspension (after
> market or stock), optionally replace the front clip with mustang parts.

Don't you wind up with that era's "Thunderbird"?

>
>> Of course, I used to have a '62 Studebaker Daytona as well, which was
>> essentially the same thing. (Studebaker Lark hardtop body = definition
>> of grandma car, but with a 289/4-speed)

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 12:49:51 +0000, Tegger wrote:

> =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= > wrote
> in :
>
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 03:29:04 +0000, Tegger wrote:
>>
>>
>
>>> Take a look at this photo, snapped at-speed in 1987 in a Liftback:
>>> <http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/misc/howfast.jpg> The car was maxed in
>>> 5th gear. Nothing more left.
>>>
>>> Care to take a guess at decoding the Claybrook speedometer? Hint: It
>>> ain't impressive.
>>
>> WOW! 140?!?!?!
>
>
>
> Yeah, in Metric. That's about 87mph.
>
>
>
>> The Speedo in my Supra goes up to 240! I haven't had it anywhere near
>> that. I didn't realize they had that same stupid law in Canada, too (or
>> was it just that all NA imported cars were stuck at that?)
>
>
>
> There wasn't any law up here. We tended to get the same speedometers as
> the US, just with the Metric dominant instead of the miles.
>
> As for that photo... When I worked the tach reading back with the 5th-gear
> and rear-end ratios and tire circumference, I got 103mph.
>
>
>
>
>> The Supra came from Downtown Toyota... An imported import.
>>
>>
>> It was a plain old DUMB idea, because if you exceeded the speedo, you
>> had NO CLUE how fast you were going.
>
>
>
> That was Joan Claybrook's point.
>
> She believed people were going fast for thrills, so if they didn't know
> how fast they were going, they'd slow down because the thrill would be
> gone.


Makes about as much sense as anything else the Carter Administration did...

On 2011-01-22, =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= > wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:05:15 +0000, Brent wrote:
>
>> On 2011-01-21, N8N > wrote:
>>> On Jan 20, 1:50 pm, Brent > wrote:
>>>> On 2011-01-20, N8N > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On Jan 19, 10:07 pm, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B > wrote:
>>>> >> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 19:18:59 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>> >> > On 01/14/2011 06:49 PM, Tegger wrote:
>>>> >> >> Nate > wrote in
>>>> >> :
>>>>
>>>> >> >>> On 01/14/2011 03:18 PM, wrote:
>>>> >> >>>> On the web,
>>>> >> >>>> Aging, boring lineup of cars called problem for Toyota
>>>>
>>>> >> >>>> I am not bashing Toyota.I saw that article at,
>>>> >> >>>>http://www.clarionledger.com
>>>> >> >>>> (Business section)
>>>> >> >>>> cuhulin
>>>>
>>>> >> >>> Toyota, the new Oldsmobile?
>>>>
>>>> >> >> I don't think so. Olds was just one of five GM divisions.
>>>> >> >> Increased foreign competition eventually made Alfred Sloan's
>>>> >> >> original vision impracticable, and some of those divisions had to
>>>> >> >> go.
>>>>
>>>> >> >> Toyota only has three divisions, with one of them very distinct
>>>> >> >> from the others marketing-wise (Lexus). If anything's going to
>>>> >> >> die for Toyota, I think it's going to be Scion.
>>>>
>>>> >> >> But Toyota has /never/ had the most exciting image. They did go
>>>> >> >> postal with the original MR2 and the FX-16, but kinda lost the
>>>> >> >> plot after that. If you buy a Toyota, you're looking for boring
>>>> >> >> competence: cars that just run and run and run and run.
>>>>
>>>> >> >>> quite possibly... wasn't the Cutlass the best selling car in the
>>>> >> >>> US for several years back in the 70's?
>>>>
>>>> >> >> Yep. Those were /everywhere/ for a long time.
>>>>
>>>> >> > The point that I was trying to make was that somewhere along the
>>>> >> > line Olds went from having a home run hitter (in the Cutlass - and
>>>> >> > even before it was a best seller, it was still a contender - I
>>>> >> > remember seeing lots of the 68-up ones on the road as a kid, along
>>>> >> > with other A-bodies, and our own family car was a '67 which my dad
>>>> >> > had bought new) and the 88/98 were solid options for larger
>>>> >> > families. Then somewhere along the way everyone looked at
>>>> >> > Oldsmobile and just went "Oldsmobile...? meh." They weren't
>>>> >> > particularly *bad,* but they had all the excitement of low-fat
>>>> >> > vanilla pudding. And nobody but nobody bought them. Hope that
>>>> >> > doesn't happen to Toyota, but frankly, most of their current cars
>>>> >> > have that effect on me.
>>>>
>>>> >> > I would really like a twin-turbo Supra, but there's two problems:
>>>> >> > 1) they don't sell 'em here anymore and 2) I *hate* F&F-loving
>>>> >> > ricers, so the styling of the last generation was a huge turnoff
>>>> >> > to me. They look reasonably OK without the basket handle though.
>>>>
>>>> >> My Supra (88) isn't even a turbo, has a sluggish AT, but is STILL a
>>>> >> blast to drive.
>>>>
>>>> >> I had to bring the Hachiroku in for service the day after the "new"
>>>> >> Supra was released in '93 and there was one on the showroom floor.
>>>> >> WOW! But with a sticker of $36,000 the best I could do was ask to
>>>> >> sit in it. Fit like a glove.
>>>>
>>>> >> Toyota is a long, long ways away from the fun cars of the 80's...
>>>>
>>>> >> > Even an old RWD Corolla holds more interest to me than anything
>>>> >> > Toyota currently makes...
>>>>
>>>> >> > always wondered if a Supra drivetrain transplant into an old
>>>> >> > Cressida sedan would work? :P
>>>>
>>>> >> Um....you realize the Supra drivetrain IS in the Cressida, right...?
>>>>
>>>> > Not the twin turbo, nor a stickshift
>>>>
>>>> > I always wanted to build a "Fairmont GT" as well, so maybe I'm just a
>>>> > little warped in the head. (not the one that's bolted to the block,
>>>> > either.)
>>>>
>>>> As in the fox platform ford of the US or some aussie falcon variant or
>>>> other ford from down under? I could understand the later, not really
>>>> the former.
>>>
>>> I was thinking the former, simply because it's such a bland, grandma-
>>> looking car.
>>
>> The only thing that is interesting about a fairmont to me would be to
>> create a muntant car. There are a few projects displayed online... start
>> with fairmont put in various mustang running gear and suspension (after
>> market or stock), optionally replace the front clip with mustang parts.
>
> Don't you wind up with that era's "Thunderbird"?

not really. Not sure which 'bird you're talking about either. Some of
them were pretty much rebadged fairmonts.