Originally Posted by Sieg (Post 587945)

My car has never been on track or entered in an AutoX, but it has been involved in a 15-20 mile AutoX on I-5 with a 458 Ferrari that resulted in a thumbs up from the Ferrari driver.........that qualifies as competition to me. :lol:

Gotta go walk my dogs now..........

Originally Posted by tyoneal (Post 587915)

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Greg:

Thanks for the input:

"Pro TOURING -- not Pro Racing... Touring means it has a lot of great attributes and is capable of being drivable"

Grand Touring 1 cars, Grand Touring 2 cars, Grand Touring 3 cars, are hardly cars you would or could drive on the street successfully with any modicum of comfort, they are full blown race cars.

I believe the PT cars should be proven/experianced to actually doing both, otherwise what is the point of all the Roll Bars/Cages, High Speed Tires, Double adjustable shocks, 600 to 900 hp engines, the 13-14 inch, 4 and 6 pot disk brakes, 6-Speed Transmissions?

It would seem without ANY taste of a high performance experience, the cars would be:

1. A waste of a ton of money

2. Pro Touring cars would also fall under the "Pro Poser" title. The requirements I mentioned were very meanial. It is basically any experiance off public roads where one can experience some of the fruits of all their labors and money.

Otherwise, what is the point? One can build a car that looks cool for a heck of a lot less money.

Is that really too much to ask of a car being in the "Touring" Category?

The highways in Germany, the middle east, and Italy are probably more of a challenge than doing a 30 second autocross.

Again, I do appreaciate your comments. I am taking this position so that the thread can possibly shed some more depth into this part of the hobby.

Do you agree with any of the other points I mentioned? If not, please state your thoughts on the subject.

Thanks again.

Ty ONeal

Originally Posted by tyoneal (Post 587916)

What would you think would be a better name for the cars we like?

Thanks again for your input.

Ty O'Neal

Originally Posted by clill (Post 587803)

I think there are plenty of Pro touring cars that have never been driven in competition and don't think that should be part of the requirement. Plenty of cars get built just so they handle well in street driving and never get to the track.

Originally Posted by clill (Post 587932)

Now we are "Pro Posers" if we don't at least do a 30 second autocross ?

Not at all, it was just a way (of absurdly) to bring attention to a what I would think would be a Hobbiest greatest day. The one in which we actually get to try/check the fruits of our labor and money.

Really ? No, I'm just being a bit sarcastic. (literally!) No offense intended, I was trying to dig into the depths of the hobby to just spur some lively conversation and thought.

I don't even like doing autocross. If fact the guy that came up with the name "Pro Touring" doesn't care for autocross either.

Autocross was just one example of giving your creation a bit of a "run about", for fun. As I mentioned earlier there was nothing formal about the test, it was just part of the exercise. In other words for the street, you would want your car to be able pass an inspection to run on the street, be able to get insurance, and be reasonably steetable. Right?

Wouldn't this be some kind measure of success of a Pro Touring car?
I was just asking, or rather thinking, a PT car should be able to show some measure of higher than average performance compared to other cars.

"A waste of money." Basically any car other than something like a Ford Focus, Toyota Camry etc is a waste of money but we build cars be cause we like them. They don't have to make financial sense.

Your right, but I'm sure you would expect your car to perform at least to some level, or I would think you would be disappoited in your purchases. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing most people on this site, regarding their PT builds, would be about more than just looks?

I have real race cars that I prefer to use on the track and would rather not destroy my street car on the track. That doesn't mean the street car does not get it's legs stretched on country roads etc. I might have to get into Pro dog walking or something because I'm wasting my money doing "fun stuff " with cars.

Originally Posted by SSLance (Post 587937)

I've ridden in $100,000 purpose built Pro-Touring cars that couldn't get out of their own way on an autocross course yet my sub $20,000 Pro-Touring car does very well at autocross. I don't see how that distinction proves anything one way or the other on what to call either one of them.

The amount of money doesn't necessarily make or break a car. (BTW: your car looks fast standing still. Great Paint job!) I would expect a lot more out of a $100,000 build than a $20,000 build. Guys who can put a great car together for $20K are awesome. I wish I could say all I had spent on my cars was $20k a piece.

I do think there is a difference on whether a car of this type is built to handle or built to look like it handles though, and putting one on a course or track to verify with a stopwatch is a sure and safe way to find out.

Originally Posted by kevin_l (Post 587942)

If a pro-touring car must have 6-800 horse, cage, 4-6 piston brakes and a 6 speed. Then what do we call the rest of our cars? Example, I am building a 66 nova, dse front and rear suspension. 18x9.5 and 18x11's. C6 brakes (only 2 piston) and slotted dba rotors. Stock (at least for now ls1 t56) and no plans on a cage.

Your Nova sound like it will be kick ass, and almost certainly do well in a performance setting. Certainly a Pro Touring car if anything.

Regarding the other specification, I was just using those as an example of some of the higher end builds being done by patrones of this site. Nova's are light cars you would need all that premium gear for your car to make it really be fun on a Track Day.

I am not arguing here or being defensive, but since I am not "racing" am I just "wasting money"? I don't think pro-touring really needs a set definition ether. but if it does I wouldn't make the ground rules be a race car with license plates.

Absolutely not, as long as your getting some increased performance potencial out of your car. As I mentioned on another post, I'm guessing that most people on this site would be hacked if they addressed all the items you did and could't tell the difference in handling after you bought and installed everything.

I don't think any of us are building race cars, if you really are striving for a PT car. Carpet, insulation, am/fm radio, a/c are certainly not race car oriented items. Our cars would most closely point to the style of an American Classic with as much streetable performance one could put in it. At the same time being comfortable enough to drive across country in.
Maybe an, "American Classic and Ferrari killer" at a fraction of the price. THAT sounds like a PT car.

I do agree completely that 69 camaro sbc with 20's & stock brakes isn't pro-touring.

Yes, definitely not.

However what do we call the cars with fully upgraded suspension, brakes & fuel injection? It certainly isn't the same class as the previously mentioned camaro, or is it?

Yes, definitely a PT car, I just mentioned some of the attributes of some of the higher end builds on this site. All of those particulars can be changed to accomplish basically the same thing.

It's not so much about the parts on the car as it is about the improved handling, quickness, and speed of the car. There are many upgraded stock front subframes in some really great PT cars.

Maybe mine would be a PEE-WEE touring

Originally Posted by Che70velle (Post 587944)

Found in Websters...

touring car noun

Definition of TOURING CAR

: an automobile suitable for distance driving: as
a : a vintage automobile with two cross seats, usually four doors, and a folding top : phaeton 2
b : a modern usually 2-door sedan as distinguished from a sports car

Originally Posted by Sieg (Post 587945)

My car has never been on track or entered in an AutoX, but it has been involved in a 15-20 mile AutoX on I-5 with a 458 Ferrari that resulted in a thumbs up from the Ferrari driver.........that qualifies as competition to me. :lol:

Gotta go walk my dogs now..........

Originally Posted by GregWeld (Post 588037)

We all know a hot rod when we see it... we all know a race car when we see it (even if it's at a street car event)... and we all know what a PT car looks like... and we all know what a Pro Street car looks like... I'm pretty sure anyone that spends any time on, or is a member of this site knows a PT car without having to check with Websters or Wiki.
......

Originally Posted by Revved (Post 587960)

While there will always be that 2% that purpose build their cars by any moniker for full competition, by saying that anyone who doesn't compete doesn't meet your standards misses the entire point of why we indulge this hobby.

I didn't say compete only, I said a open track day, trip down the drag strip, open auto cross event etc. I kept it loose point being that you car should be able to drive in a spirited form at least once showing some suspension, and engine improvements

One the reasons I love what I do is the people I meet, the stories they tell, and the new stories we make together; the cars are just a medium.

I agree 100%! I was just trying to define the PT cars specifically.

The cars are the reason that we come together. They are an extension of our passions for mechanical art an how we fulfill our innate need to build, improve, tinker, and create. I'm not a fan of lowriders and imports but I have to respect that they simply practice a different form of our art.

[B]Again I agree 100% The friends and memories we make together are the gold, and 100%, the PT cars are a specific Art form. An American Art Form, even the Volvo as you have a Vintage shell and an specific American Performance Art form.

By your definition it also begs the question...Is someone a "Pro-poser" because they can afford to pay someone like me to build a car for them?

No, of course not. I am a person who has some non fixable body damage myself, and there are a number of things I cannot do anymore, and thank god for those who can make our dreams come true.

I do drive the hell out of my cars (Not abuse, just very spirited driving) for fun and learning about the limites of the specific parts and set up. It's a blast.

All I was including is someone who has explored, even briefly, the advances there cars have made.

They just have talents in other areas that allow them to indulge their their hobby in a different way.

I am one of them. A PT Car certainly doesn't have to be driven even at all, however the people who supply the parts we use have generally taken a lot of time to benifit our cars performance to their best efforts. I do not understand how one can have this working "Art" and not learn anything about it? I'm not encouraging anyone to race their cars, I'm encouraging people to explore their cars a little bit. That is it, I don't think that is very harsh. I may be wrong, but that is the chance I took when I tried to spur a deeper conversation in the thread.

You are awfully presumptuous calling it a "waste of money" if the owner is enjoying his investment by his standards but not yours?

As mentioned in other post, I think just about everyone on THIS site who spent a wad of cash on their car's suspension, engine, wheels and tires, brakes etc. in an effort to increase the performance of their car, and discovered no improvements whatsoever in performance, would be disappointed and would probably think they "wasted their money". If they wanted there car to just look cool they could do so for a heck of a lot less money. That may sound presumptuous, but as I have worded the above paragraph, and the people who it was addressed to, I do think many would be bummed out to a point they felt like they, "wasted their money". Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think most of us have so much money that it wouldn't bother us if this happened while pursueing a good PT car. I don't mean to come off argumentative, I am just stating a hypothesis, in an effort through conversation to see if it is true, and also learn something in the process.

Your hardline definition is actually escaping the intent of the question.

Please read my intent, I'm not trying to make anyone mad, just exploring the question that was asked at the begining of this thread. Asking specific questions, or taking a specific position nurtures good educational discussions. (Hopefully not Arguments)

I try and defend specific position, even if it is found in the end to be flawed. It fosters a deeper understanding of the Question, because it really does make a difference. If someone doesn't worry about an actual meaning, there is certainly not anything wrong with that, After all we are just a bunch of people with a specific passion, that seek the company of like minded people.

Here is the question:

"Just exactly, what is Pro Touring? Defining the term Pro Touring is a tricky one. It’s like trying to explain to a blind person what the color red looks like. You can explain it, but they still won’t really understand. Definitions of Pro Touring are broad, and range from person to person, forum to forum. Even the name itself varies; pro touring, Pro Touring, Pro-Touring, pro-touring, what is actually correct?"

I meant to create a definite outline to challenge the gray areas of the definition. There are many people who have what they say is a "PT Car" with just a set glass packs, and a set of 14 inch Crager SS wheels. NOT!

It takes a lot of work and money to create a successful PT car, more so than many of the other types of classec/old car styles. Since this is the case, I have made an effort through discussion to see if a cleaner definition of a PT car could be found.

If no one tries to create a specific definition, then I think we all lose some of the design efforts that someone puts into their cars. The Auction's seem to treat true "Pro Touring cars different. They are appreciated by many people as they are not easy to build. Who would of thought that good '69 Camaro PT car would sell for $100,000+ dollars.<OMG>
===========================
While a Pro-Touring car is built with performance as a goal, not using it for performance does not make it less of a Pro-Touring car. A bow and arrow is made to hunt and kill, but using it for target practice does not make it any less lethal. IMHO what makes it a Pro-Touring car is its ability to perform, and the enjoyment of the owner in the way that he chooses to use it.
===========================
For the sake of discussion (please don't get pissed) I think your comparison of the Bow and Arrow is incorrect. I want to take a stab at it.

A PT car is built to drive with performance as a goal, not using it for performance does not make it less of a Pro-Touring car.

How would you know if it was a successful performance increase without seeing if it truly performs as it should?

Doesn't a PT car HAVE to show a significant performance increase?

How would a normal person know how it performs without some "pseudo" spirited driving? (Even a quick trip around a vacant parking lot would tell you quite a lot about the car.)

Calling a car a PT Car without seeing if it truly embodies the characteristics of a PT Car, doesn't necessarily make it a PT Car. Only if it shows an increase in performance can it truly be called a PT Car.

Otherwise, the only thing you can say for sure is, I have a collection of cool looking parts. It may not even run but it looks cool.

The Bow and Arrow: The Bow is designed to propell an arrow in a straight line at a high velocity. The arrow is made to be propelled by a bow. Where the arrow goes is not material as to whether it is a real bow or arrow. The bow may not be capable of bending enough to propell the arrow, the string may not be up to the job etc. ect.

Until one takes the bow and arrow and proves it is a functioning properly, then you can't be sure if is a Replica (Movie Prop) or it is a real Bow and Arrow. (I know this is tedious, please excuse me I'm trying not to make something easily really a hassle.) I do appreciate the position and questions you have posed. They do may one think.

The great thing I found while researching my definition was that I could always find an example of a car someone was building that didn't fit the "traditional definition." There is a thread on Lat-G with a guy building an older Volvo with an LS engine and beautiful metal work, there are Foxbodies with full chassis and TT engines, last OUSCI I attended in 2013 there was a C10 pickup that would outdrive most cars... point being is that by trying to put a hardline definition to what is notably the most pertinent form our our hobby that most of us will see in our lifetimes you lose the point of why we do it.

Originally Posted by tyoneal (Post 588040)

PT/Pt/Pro-Touring/Protouring/Pro Touring/protouring/pro touring/pro-touring???? :hello:

Thanks,

Ty O'Neal

Originally Posted by GregWeld (Post 588037)

Donny ---- I got a good laugh from your post. I call all my cars "hot rods" - to include the race cars... To me - they're just cars that have been hot rodded to various levels. I.E., "modified" in some way. If I'm discussing cars with someone and I say "I have race cars and hot rods" - their next question is "what kind of racing do you do"... then I have to back track to explain that we don't really "race"... and blah blah blah. If I just say - I have some hot rods... their next question is "what kind of cars are they".... and I can toss out a couple years - and leave it at that. If it's a car guy - they'll ask for more details.

We all know a hot rod when we see it... we all know a race car when we see it (even if it's at a street car event)... and we all know what a PT car looks like... and we all know what a Pro Street car looks like... I'm pretty sure anyone that spends any time on, or is a member of this site knows a PT car without having to check with Websters or Wiki.

I think I'd like to define Pro Poser as a car with wide tires on wheels that have incorrect backspacing. It has to sit funny, and still have drum rear brakes and stock suspension. The owner must be overheard telling the casual observer he has 650 HP because he's running a 350 (it's 9:1 compression) with camel hump heads, a Holley 750, and a "cam".

Originally Posted by Sieg (Post 588043)

Hey!

You left out my category which I've been attempting to perfect for over 30 years now with limited success...........Pro Tinkering. :hello:

:)

Originally Posted by ironworks (Post 588065)

First off, What does it really matter?

To say that a car is or is not anything because it has or doesn't have one thing is just Crazy. What does it matter if the car has competed in an autocross. Lots of people buy guns and never shot them. Lots of people buy food they never eat.

I have said that Pro-touring was the best thing that ever happened to amateur road racing. Lots of people have sold there super high end show car that they ran on the race course for race cars or built cars that are less show and more go because of this build style influencing them to try actual racing.

Pro-Touring is nothing more then a build style. To most people I think it means you have taken a muscle car and put some parts that modernize the handling and style in a direction toward a race car. Some are modified far more then others. With usually some kind of modern power plant for improved power and efficiency.

But with out the Muscle car part in the definition you could lump Greg or Gwen's 33 into that pile as it is modernized with suspension that works better and has a modernized power plant.

But saying something has to be raced on track to be a Pro-Touring car seems wrong. It seems to me it would now be a race car. I'm sure that is how your insurance adjuster would see it.

Pro-Touring is an adjective not a noun.

Originally Posted by Neil B (Post 588095)

But I call everything a Hot Rod and my 69 Z28 has stock brakes sitting behind Forgelines, so what do I know.

Originally Posted by tyoneal (Post 588027)

che70velle:

I think you went in the right direction, but missed the specific a small amount.

This is a bit long however, I think it hits the nail on the head. Let me know what you think. (You might need to make the window a bit larger.)

This describes what we strive for except I think we should be called:

American Classic Touring Cars or American Classic GT
===============================
Grand tourer/Grand Touring "Car", (not to be confused with a GT Race Car)
From Wikipedia,

"Gran turismo" redirects here. For other uses, see Gran Turismo.

Classic examples of Grand Touring Cars.

Porsche 911, a GT model built since 1964

A classic Gran Turismo, the 1962 Ferrari 250 GTO

1953 Bentley Continental grand tourer

A grand tourer (Italian: gran turismo) (GT) is a performance or luxury automobile capable of high speed or spirited long-distance driving. The most common format is a two-door coupé with either a two-seat or a 2+2 arrangement.

The term derives from the Italian phrase gran turismo, a tribute to the tradition of the grand tour, used to represent automobiles regarded as grand tourers, able to make long-distance, high-speed journeys in both comfort and style. The English translation is grand touring.

Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG

The Grand Tourer, Grand Turismo, Grand Routiere, or GT terms are the most misused and abused terms in motoring.[1] According to author Sam Dawson, "the ideal is of a car with the ability to cross a continent at speed and in comfort yet provide driving thrills when demanded" and it should exhibit the following:[1]

"Ideally, the GT car should have been devised by its progenitors as a Grand Tourer, with all associated considerations in mind."
"It should be able to transport at least two in comfort with their luggage and have room to spare - probably in the form of a two plus two (2+2) seating arrangement."
The engines "should be able to cope with cruising comfortably at the upper limits on all continental roads without drawbacks or loss of useable power."
The design, both "inside and out, should be geared toward complete control by the driver."
Its "chassis and suspension provide suitable handling and roadholding on all routes" during travels.
Grand tourers emphasize comfort and handling over straight-out high performance or spartan accommodations. Historically, most GTs have been front-engined with rear-wheel drive, which creates more space for the cabin than mid-mounted engine layouts. Softer suspensions, greater storage, and more luxurious appointments add to their driving appeal.

Thanks for reading, I look forward to your opinion.

Take care,

Ty
=================================

Originally Posted by ironworks (Post 588065)

First off, What does it really matter?

For some it doesn't matter, for others it does. If your selling it definitely matters, if you have bought PT parts, or a PT car and it doesn't perform than YOU do.

To say that a car is or is not anything because it has or doesn't have one thing is just Crazy.

The Definition seems to lean in favor of my statements as NOT being "Crazy".

What does it matter if the car has competed in an autocross. Lots of people buy guns and never shot them. Lots of people buy food they never eat.

It doesn't say it MUST compete, it does say it must PERFORM. (Fairly High)

Lots of people buy Gun and don't shoot them, TRUE. ALL manufacturers test fire Guns to make sure they work as intended. Otherwise, you might just have instead a, "Lock, Stock, and Barrel".

I have said that Pro-touring was the best thing that ever happened to amateur road racing. Lots of people have sold there super high end show car that they ran on the race course for race cars or built cars that are less show and more go because of this build style influencing them to try actual racing.

I agree 100%. I think it's been awesome for everyone!

Pro-Touring is nothing more then a build style.

I think the definition says it is more than a build style. (A static 69 Camaro with a big engine and lots of pricey go fast parts can ONLY be said it is in the "Style of" a PT car. A painting in the style of "Van Gogh", it not even close to a real, or proven "Van Gogh".

To most people I think it means you have taken a muscle car and put some parts that modernize the handling and style in a direction toward a race car. Some are modified far more then others. With usually some kind of modern power plant for improved power and efficiency.

It still must Perform to adhere to the specific definition.

But with out the Muscle car part in the definition you could lump Greg or Gwen's 33 into that pile as it is modernized with suspension that works better and has a modernized power plant.

I agree, I wouldn't throw their cars out either, I do think that part of the definition should be amended to Cars 25+ years old, then it would collect all the cars that are everything that seems to matter. Whether I like it or not since I didn't write the definition, I can only say '33's, P/U Truck's, Full Size 4 Door Cars etc. don't fall within the definition of a PT car.

I think that part should change, do you agree? Also, with 25+ y/o cars being the cut off there will always be a new supply of cars for people in the future. Isn't 25 years when the emission standards drop off for a lot of states?

But saying something has to be raced on track to be a Pro-Touring car seems wrong. It seems to me it would now be a race car. I'm sure that is how your insurance adjuster would see it.

It doesn't say it has to be raced on a track, it says, "it must perform as well as, or to surpass, the capabilities of the foremost modern performance vehicles." I doubt if you really brought your car up to much higher performance standards than it was, in all areas, you would probably get no fuss about it. (But to say that IS Presumptuous, I'm just guessing.)

Pro-Touring is an adjective not a noun.

Originally Posted by ironworks (Post 588312)

SO after its has proven it can run at this "level", does it get some kind of gold star or something saying it is a certified Pro-Touring car? :trophy-1302:

:hairpullout: :hairpullout: :hairpullout:

Originally Posted by camcojb (Post 588320)

I'm with Charley. The owner of the car gets to decide how it's used, it's his money and sweat that built the car. Whether it's tracked or not doesn't change whether it's a pro-touring car or not in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Che70velle (Post 588107)

So Ty, were a bunch of hobbyists. Nothing more. We come from all walks of life, and all of us share a common creed, which is a passion for cars. All we are doing here is taking an otherwise stock automobile, and transforming it into a better handling, more efficient running, safer to ride in car, while improving the looks somewhat, and that's (improving the looks) debatable to many. I don't really know how or why someone first called this "Pro-Touring", but to MOST people, it refers only to a style, and doesn't hold guidelines on how far you need to modify your car.

I certainly see you point. I have just tried to read the definition (That I didn't create) and understand what the original question was asking. Just because something might point to a direction, or level that is beyond what you would choose to do for your car for one reason or another is just fine.

Under the definition, None of my projects are currently at the true "Pro Touring" level. It doesn't mean I don't enjoy my cars. It is the segment of this Hobby that I enjoy and like the most. As time goes by, at least at this point, I will continue to would on my "Pro Touring" project, drive my "Pro Touring" project, and enjoy my "Pro Touring" project.

I know that I for one, would be outta here if I had to meet a criteria comparable to a Steilow build, with custom built, one off parts, and carbon fiber body panels. I simply am not willing to put that kind of money into a car.

I do understand and there is nothing wrong with that, nor should there be. This is just a Hobby we are passionate about, nothing that we would take food away from a baby over. All I have tried to do it look at the definition and understand what it means. I've just tried to break it down to it's purest form that's all.

I could replicate my home, for that kind of coin. What I'm trying to say is that we all have modded our cars on different levels, to the point of where there not really two cars exactly alike. So I suggest that we leave the title, or name of this hobby alone, before it becomes a formality of having to have an exact amount of certain items, in order to be accepted into the hobby. But you are suggesting that the HOBBY be renamed: AMERICAN CLASSIC TOURING CARS? or AMERICAN CLASSIC GT? :bang:

Originally Posted by GregWeld (Post 588477)

Having driven HellFire on the street... THAT is the best definition of a "pro touring" car I can come up with. It's truly long distance comfortable, easily driving in stop and go traffic, and we know it's track capable (far in excess of most drivers ability).