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

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!

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ;)

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.