Now that the MR-2 has been mentioned...
I did a little research into that car recently. The 1st generation, called
the Angular look was originally a Lotus design. Yes, Lotus. They were
going to call it the X-100. Then before ever making a single production
car model, they scraped it and Toyota bought the plan work.
Toyota brought it to life on the drawing board and had Yamaha build it, and
piece it together by hand. Then the 2nd generation came out, it was an all
Jap design. My personal favorite as well. It's also known as a shrunken
Ferrari. Most especially the turbo 91 - 95 models. I think they even made
a supercharged model in 89 - 90.
Toyota stopped importing the car to the US in 95 but the car is still made
and exported to several other counties.
I read in Super Street mag, a 5 issue article where they took a 92 or 93
model and pumped out over 400 HP out of the little 4 banger. It's quite a
car.
Q
At 08:43 PM 11/28/97 -0700, Keith Wheeler wrote:
>At 10:19 PM 11/28/97 -0500, Michael wrote:
>>At 12:00 PM 11/28/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>>I think what was being pointed out Re: TR-7, shape of
>>>things to come was: X1/9, Fiero, MR2, loads of things
>>>with prancing horses on 'em...
>>
>>Sorry, X1/9 (among others) predates tr-7
>
>And postdates it. The point of discussion in this thread
>was the question of "the shape of things to come". Some people
>went straight from 1978 to 1997, skipping a few automotive
>styles. The X1/9 is quite representative of the "futuristic"
>wedge shape. Please note no where did I say the X1/9 predated
>the TR-7. Considering that we took a second place for the
>year in an X1/9 for the '97 autox season, I am a slightly familiar
>with that auto.
>
>> it is a simple fact that the TR-7 had
>>more warranty claims against it than any other BL product
>
>So? Your point is?
>
>To paraphrase Donald Healy: the enthusiests have rebuilt
>these cars far better than the factory built 'em to begin
>with. ...and he was talking about Healy 3000s and the like.
>
>The TR-8 was also the fastest BL built racer. Simple fact.
>And they made halfway decent rally cars. Warrenty claims are
>a sign of the horrible labor problems of the time, not whether
>the car was a design failure.
>
>> And it was UGLY, at least until the advent of the convertible,
>
>A matter of opinion. To me, an MG TC, while a really neat
>car, looks like a bloody *old*toy*. The TR-7/8 is just another
>sports car. It's not a supercar, but it's also not the
>total failure a lot of people claim. Once again, look at
>the competition capabilities. If your idea of sporting
>machinery is something that looks like it was made 60 years
>ago and can be outrun by a go-cart, have fun. TR-8s still
>are quite competitive in some forms of motorsport.
>
>Car snobbery is so hilarious. Everyone has to have someone
>to pick on, in order to boost their own ego. This is exatly
>the snobbery folks were complaining about, first attacking
>a car then attacking those that like it and bringing class
>arguments into the scene (i.e. Brady Bunch).
>
>The trick is to have fun with your car, and I know a lot
>of blokes that have a lot of fun with TR-7/8s.
>
>(and if you don't like plaid, tear the damn seats out!
> I hate stock seats anyways, they don't have enough
> support for hard cornering.)
>
>-Keith Wheeler
>
>Team Sanctuary
>
>
>
>
--
Jay Quinn
jpquinn@cyberramp.net
http://www.cyberramp.net/~jpquinn/index.htm
1962 Austin-Healey Sprite MKII HAN6L2874
|