[Revved]

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. 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. 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.

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, they just have talents in other areas that allow them to indulge their their hobby in a different way. You are awfully presumptuous calling it a "waste of money" if the owner is enjoying his investment by his standards but not yours? Your hardline definition is actually escaping the intent of the question. While a Pro-Touring car is built with performance in 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.

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

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
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