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