[Supras] car prices (now off topic)

Tue Aug 29 22:13:16 CDT 2006

Jeff and list:

    What we considered as "performance" cars in the '60's were standard
production cars with somewhat improved suspension, and considerably higher
output engines.  The Mustang continues that tradition, and in a way, it is
enticing as my GTO was 41 years ago.  Certainly it benefits from decades of
evolutionary improvement common to all production cars.  Of course the
Mustang serves well in its classes in competition.  But that qualification
is the key to interpretation of "performance" and the way in which
definition of the term has evolved.  A good friend I work with has a '05
manual transmission version, and his wife has an '06 with the new 3 valve
engine.  Both have had typical domestic car problems, including fit and
finish, leaky top (hers is a convertible), live rear axles, one piece
driveshafts (more prone to vibration than a two piece).  Take a look at the
interview with Bill Ford in the current issue of Business Week.

    Were evolutionary considerations of "performance" a non-issue, we would
not have this list and those dedicated to the Supra.  You would not have a
business selling Supra performance parts.  A more encompassing recognition
of what "performance" really means has developed in the last half century.

    "Performance" has come to mean more than straight line acceleration or
good cornering characteristics on relatively smooth surfaces.  Even back 50
and more years ago, ratio of sprung to unsprung weight was considered to be
one benchmark of a true "sports" car.  The same is true of engine evolution,
regarding power development by means other than use of 7 liter, low
technology engines.  Development in unibody construction (close to the first
monocoque construction used by the Chrysler Airflow in 1936, rejected as
"crazy"), later development of higher torsional stiffness in unibodies
(higher than 20 Hz resonant frequencies) lightened weight, were all
evolutionary contributions, not withstanding federal requirements for side
impact crashworthiness.  Antilock brakes, linearity of both front AND rear
discs, fuel injection to assure equal cylinder to cylinder fuel
distribution, are but a few of the improvements assisting "performance" in
addition to characteristics of cars for the common buyer.  You may be too
young to have experienced this but engines like the 348 Chevy (1958-1964)
had stagger jetted carburetors in the 3X2 bbl setup to attempt to get fuel
distribution right.

    When the Japanese entered the picture (with the 240Z and the very
limited GT before that), we came to know what "performance" in a more mature
way actually meant.  Yeah, there was a rare individual here and there with a
Mercedes 300SL.  Sure, I miss the GTO I had, but at the same time I realize
that 7" drum metallic brakes almost got me into trouble more than once.  By
1970, at least that was addressed, along with revised suspension geometry
(GM was a leader in that respect with "A" bodied cars in 1970.  I'm hanging
on to the '70 Firebird with the BB Chevy engine.)   But I realize that those
cars addressed the visceral outlook of the person I was 40 years ago.

    The Supra, properly modified addresses the want of power, but a lot more
at the same time, which is why this list exists, and why you have a business
serving those of us who are Supra enthusiasts.  It is also the reason why
low mileage, good condition 10+ year old MkIV's command close to or over
$30K.

    Let me wish you good luck with the RX-8 you spoke about in your last
posting.  I half considered buying one, but the small suicide doors for
"family" access were a real turn-off.  A "sports" or "perforamance" car
should have two doors, period).  Even BMW gets more money for the M series
than for equivalent sedans.

        Bernie

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Mohler" <speedtoys.racing at gmail.com>
To: <berniek at technicaldevelop.com>
Cc: "Rockey Fox" <supr91tt at yahoo.com>; <Supras at supras.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Supras] car prices (was valley plugs)

> The mustank is a performance car.
>
> Any car you race..-is- a performance car.  I dare you to tell those
> that are doing it, that its not.
>
> It just serves a market that you (subjective you) are not interested in.
>
> I might note, that that Mustank makes one hell of a spec racer in
> series such as AI/AIX or CMC within the NASA organization.
>
> On 8/29/06, berniek at technicaldevelop.com <berniek at technicaldevelop.com>
wrote:
> > BernieK responded to Rockey Fox:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
> > "My new '65 GTO tripower convertible when I was 22 was less
> > than $4000, only about 25% more than a Tempest.  Today, a reasonable
> > performance car is at 50% more than a Camry, let alone 65%-75% more than
a
> > decent Hyundai sedan or Chevy Cobalt"
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > Addendum:  Implied but not stated was a new-used comparision, eg., the
price of a 2002 3.6 liter Porsche 911 against a decently equipped new Camry.
When comparing new with new in each case, the price differences are
outstanding, let alone disgusting.  Why does performance need to cost so
much?  Our '95 Camry 4 cylinder is like 2/3 of the Supra engine, 4 valves
per cylinder, DOHC (one cam sprocket, with gear drive under the cam cover
for the second cam).  Except for the anciently engineered Mustank, any
"performance" car is overpriced (the Mustank IRS plans were dropped, so it
is not really a "performance" car).  The Chrysler (er, Dodge) Charger is
ugly.  Maybe the Challenger will be better if Walter P.'s legacy continues
the marriage to Diamler.
> >
> >    BernieK
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Supras mailing list
> > Supras at supras.com
> > http://supras.com/mailman/listinfo/supras_supras.com
> >
>
>