Coming Soon.....

[GTX JOHN]

Originally Posted by doglover44

How hard/expensive is it to add a roll bar/cage to a Stocker ?

I look into that because my Valiant could run in the 10's thru
the mufflers if not detuned/weighted etc. to run mid 11s.

Probably about $3,000 if I removed and replaced the interior myself,
not counting the safety equipment. All for a car I paid $5,500.
with a lot of spare stuff included with it!

[Dan Bennett]

Just from reading him here and watching a couple of interviews Gump seems like a pretty good guy and I admire that he thrives on challenges and breaking new ground. But there's a couple of things in my mind about this whole deal.

So a T400 may have been used in BMWs. Stating the obvious, but the Supra is not a BMW. Toyota is one corporation, BMW is another whether they sometimes share technology or not. If he was building a Z4, I'd have no issue. This is just stretching the rules (and logic) much too far. I realize that when the factory cars were being introduced a lot of crazy thinking got approved.

Second, yes AMC did start using torqueflites but it was long before they were bought out. I owned a 68 AMX with a Borg Warner (T35?) which was nothing but problems. If my memory is correct, in 69 they started using the Mopar stuff. The pain from buying a year too early is still with me. I have a knack for that - I bought a new leftover 273/235 Barracuda in the summer of 67 just weeks before the 340 was introduced.

Finally, I know the horses left the barn, but there is no way this should be in the Stock classes.

[JP1738]

Originally Posted by FED 387

Trans problem solved as "corporate trans" and NHRA accepted adapters permitted per rule book under Stock/Trans.-- definitely a "paper one of car" in my opinion maybe belongs in SS but really pushing the rules here on Stock---FED 387

How is this a paper car? This is a factory car with a VIN and title. Yes the rear suspension had to be modified to fit the rules but everything I've seen/heard makes this as legit as any other stocker I know of. Might not be a typical stocker we are familiar with, but it wasn't supposed to be.

[GUMP]

Originally Posted by Dan Bennett

Just from reading him here and watching a couple of interviews Gump seems like a pretty good guy and I admire that he thrives on challenges and breaking new ground. But there's a couple of things in my mind about this whole deal.

So a T400 may have been used in BMWs. Stating the obvious, but the Supra is not a BMW. Toyota is one corporation, BMW is another whether they sometimes share technology or not. If he was building a Z4, I'd have no issue. This is just stretching the rules (and logic) much too far. I realize that when the factory cars were being introduced a lot of crazy thinking got approved.

Second, yes AMC did start using torqueflites but it was long before they were bought out. I owned a 68 AMX with a Borg Warner (T35?) which was nothing but problems. If my memory is correct, in 69 they started using the Mopar stuff. The pain from buying a year too early is still with me. I have a knack for that - I bought a new leftover 273/235 Barracuda in the summer of 67 just weeks before the 340 was introduced.

Finally, I know the horses left the barn, but there is no way this should be in the Stock classes.

Read between the lines. The Supra was built by.... I PROVED that to the NHRA....

[Rory McNeil]

Originally Posted by JP1738

How is this a paper car? This is a factory car with a VIN and title. Yes the rear suspension had to be modified to fit the rules but everything I've seen/heard makes this as legit as any other stocker I know of. Might not be a typical stocker we are familiar with, but it wasn't supposed to be.

It would be a "factory car", IF it used the same brand of transmission and rearend that the car came from the factory with, like every other factory built Stock Eliminator car, that is actually in the NHRA Stock Car Classification Guide, which last time I looked the other day, NO Toyota vehicle is in the guide. The factory car came with a transmission with several more gear ratios than a 3 speed Turbo 400. A Japanese Toyota car with a German BMW engine, and an American GM transmission, and a Ford rearend sounds like quite a stretch for a "Factory Stock" car, let alone a traditional Stock Eliminator car.

[BRETV]

I have been around Stock/Super Stock racing since my uncle gave me a ride up to the staging lanes in 1970 in his SS/G 69 CJ Mustang. I consider my self a purist of the sport and not to my liking it has evolved way past the point of no return. My family were Ford dealers since 1946 and we have seen over 75 years how the different manufactures have gone to bed with one another on many parts to build these cars to cut costs. It's not like the 60's, 70's,80's,90's etc. So we have to move forward with what the manufactures are doing today and try in some way to get new cars in the class. It was great when the Big 3 built the Copo's, CJ's and Drag Pak's, but they really weren't Stock Eliminator cars in the purist definition and should be in their own class, Kudo's for NHRA doing that. So to get new blood in the sport, which we definitely need, building a factory produced car that was produced by the thousands is a great move forward for our sport. Now, the rules are more gray in the areas everyone is talking about, trans, rear ends, etc. But these cars nowdays are Heinz 57's, like a dog with lots of breeds mixed in LOL. I take my hat off to GUMP for going thru the process with NHRA and Toyota, I know how hard it is. I'm the one that got the 2003 Mustang specs in the guides back in 2007, thanks to Jesse Kershaw at Ford, so I could build one of the 2003 Cobra's for A/S. Should have kept that car, but that's another story. Back to the Supra. Believe me you guys, you do not want to compete with any 6, 8 or 10 speed automatic car, they will run away and hide from any, Metric 200, Turbo 350, C4, Torqueflight out there. Gump actually slowed it down putting in the Turbo 400. LOL. As far as the rear end, I wish NHRA would have made an exception about the no truck rear end deal in this car instead of the 9 inch, but the new 2008 rule is in effect. The only thing I disagree with on all the new cars are the drive by wire throttlebody's, those should be a no-no, too much can be done with the computer to control the car. I'm finishing up a newer car and I made sure the throttle was a mechanical cable, also my car was massed produced with a vin and going to run in the regular classes. I love to see Bobby Brannon, Dan Zrust, Al Corda, Ponville boys run the production cars in the traditional classes. I can't wait to see the Supra, it's gonna be fast, just keep it out of I/J/K GUMP!!! LOL.




Bret Velde
2003 I/SA
Coming soon

[GUMP]

Originally Posted by Rory McNeil

"IF it used the same brand of transmission and rearend that the car came from the factory with, like every other factory built Stock Eliminator car...

Again, not one rule was changed to allow the Supra. In fact this statement is blatantly false. There's how YOU think the rules are written and what's actually in the rulebook.

I'm almost finished with a 2024 Camaro. It has a 9" rear and a transmission that has zero OEM parts (including the case). It was built from a CRC so it never had a VIN. It is also 100% legal.

History shows that I was against almost every "enhancement" over the years. All it does is drive up the cost and add complexity to the cars. But, I don't make the rules, I just do my best to roll with them.

[Dan Bennett]

Entered a like for this comment just to clarify I have no issue with Daren taking whatever advantage the rules give him, but rather that the NHRA started us down this very wrong road a while back. Yes, times change but the present state of Stock (and Super Stock) is so far away from what it was meant to be is more than annoying to me.

[GUMP]

Originally Posted by Dan Bennett

....times change but the present state of Stock (and Super Stock) is so far away from what it was meant to be....

I very much agree on this.