What Is Pro Touring?

[Brewtal66]

We all define it differently. Here's my thoughts: http://lateral-g.net/what-is-pro-touring/

Do you agree? Disagree? Post up your opinion below!

[Vince@Meanstreets]

Oh no you didn't.

[Brewtal66]

Oh no you didn't.

I know it's been discussed before haha. Just trying to get a friendly conversation going. :) I think it's interesting to see people's different definitions.

[Che70velle]

I was kicked out of the Pro-Touring class long ago, because I read that my 17" wheels don't make the cut. Apparently you must have at least an 18" wheel.
I'm trying to use much sarcasm, as I write this, by the way.
I'm a car guy, and whatever this classification is, however you'd like to describe it, or implement specific guidelines in order to be a part of what we are doing, by capitalizing certain letters, or even using a hyphen between words...I like it all.
Great topic, and write up Tim.

[Blake Foster]

Oh no you didn't.

I WAS GOING TO SAY!!!! :waveflag:

[Al Moreno]

:y0!:

I believe in the UNIVERSAL principle of Pro-Touring is to make your car the best you can "IN THE UNIVERSE"





I'm out :tiptoe:

[tones2SS]

Oh no you didn't.

HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
:slingshot:

[Track Junky]

Poser race car ?????? :headscratch: :EmoteClueless: :underchair:

[Spiffav8]

I should probably just lock this thread now and save us all. :lol:

[Shmoov69]

It's another website dedicated to the styles of cars we like! LoL! :ohsnap:

[Brewtal66]

Poser race car ?????? :headscratch: :EmoteClueless: :underchair:

But if I'm in my Chevelle at a stop light, and that granny in the Civic next to me doesn't see the light turn green and I smoke her, that's still racing right???
:excited:

[Track Junky]

But if I'm in my Chevelle at a stop light, and that granny in the Civic next to me doesn't see the light turn green and I smoke her, that's still racing right???
:excited:

HAHA :lol:

Beautiful Chevelle BTW :thumbsup:

[SlowProgress]

Pro Touring ? Isn't that the other website because this is Lateral-G right ?

[Rick D]

Nope not even going to touch that one!! :shakehead:

[Shmoov69]

But if I'm in my Chevelle at a stop light, and that granny in the Civic next to me doesn't see the light turn green and I smoke her, that's still racing right???
:excited:

Only if you turn on your flashers afterwards!! LoL!!:sieg:

[ragz]

Depends on who you are, look in most classified ads,

For sale ,pro-touring , (insert model) , 17" torque thrusts, 350,the rest stock..

I don't think many people outside of these forums really understand what it is. But it does make me chuckle some times.


SM-G900W8, 0x1

[Schwartz Perf]

Pro street = pro touring = restomod = restorod = pro rod

Right???!?

-Dale

[economiser]

If it's more about enjoying every mile of a road trip through twisty canyons, than mega-horsepower, then even an '83 RX-7 with a 3.8L V6, big brakes, and full-custom suspension can qualify. I'd say the Pro aspect came from professional builders like Boyd Coddington and his fellow pioneers, but now it just needs to be results that work as well as if a pro did them. I'd like to do this for a living, but how many of us wouldn't? So it means making the extra effort to go way beyond what anyone else has ever accomplished before. My '86 Camaro combining 1200 HP with 35 MPG, Ultra Low Emissions, 14" brakes, tucking 10.5" front and 12" rear wheels, able to take a wife and 2 kids anywhere, anytime, for under $10,000 is my best bid, but the above RX-7 also being ULEV, under $ 5,000, and delivering 50 MPG is also better than any OEM has ever offered at any price, just like my Camaro. Just my Camaro is more Supercar than Pro-Touring.

[BMR Sales]

If it's more about enjoying every mile of a road trip through twisty canyons, than mega-horsepower, then even an '83 RX-7 with a 3.8L V6, big brakes, and full-custom suspension can qualify. I'd say the Pro aspect came from professional builders like Boyd Coddington and his fellow pioneers, but now it just needs to be results that work as well as if a pro did them. I'd like to do this for a living, but how many of us wouldn't? So it means making the extra effort to go way beyond what anyone else has ever accomplished before. My '86 Camaro combining 1200 HP with 35 MPG, Ultra Low Emissions, 14" brakes, tucking 10.5" front and 12" rear wheels, able to take a wife and 2 kids anywhere, anytime, for under $10,000 is my best bid, but the above RX-7 also being ULEV, under $ 5,000, and delivering 50 MPG is also better than any OEM has ever offered at any price, just like my Camaro. Just my Camaro is more Supercar than Pro-Touring.

How is a 3.8 V-6 getting 50MPG?

[Che70velle]

And I'd like to check out that Camaro! Do you have a thread on that car?

[DOOM]

I think there is only one person that can answer that question!

[DBasher]

Back in the day we just called em hot rods...anything that wasn't stock was either a custom, low rider or a hot rod.
Hard to explain but you know one when you see one.

Other spin offs used:
Rat rod
Panty dropper
Lead sled, bondo barge
Street freak
Kustom
Retro rods
Shaggin wagons...that ones for Lenie :thumbsup:
I'm sure I'm missing some:mock:

Economiser, I'd love to see that camaro and get the details. Heck I'd be happy with 450hp and 15mpg!

Dan

[MeanMike]

I think it's simple. Take an old car and make it do everything a new performance car can. Some people aimfor a new corvette. Some aim for a new Lamborghini.

[LS3torque]

Whenever the words pro touring enter my mind I think 4 door Bonneville with a 455 and very adaptable luxo suspension, tires fair...this is purely my humble opinion. I also believe no answer is really wrong...well maybe 22 inch wire wheels on a Corvette.

[Vegas69]

Epitome-Mark Stielow's builds in their genre. End thread.

[GregWeld]

Epitome-Mark Stielow's builds in their genre. End thread.




Fact.

[glassman]

What is "touring"?

What is "pro"?"

Ask Mr Lillard, he "toured" in a Steilow build and it was flawless.

I love driving these "old" things with the modern creature comforts, (power, braking, new seats, sound system, a/c, handling, etc...).

Therefore, I like to "tour", pro no, amatuer yes. And my pos is in the shop yet again (part by choice, part broken) and i just want to drive/race it again....

[Revved]

When I was redoing my website last year I tried to put a definition to Pro touring... This is what I came up with as a most generic yet encompasing definition...

Pro-touring: A style of building custom vehicles that integrates modern electronics, structural modifications, high performance engines, suspensions, wheels, brakes, and styling with the intention of driving them in conditions ranging from daily street use to high performance competition.


Depends on who you are, look in most classified ads,

For sale ,pro-touring , (insert model) , 17" torque thrusts, 350,the rest stock..

I don't think many people outside of these forums really understand what it is. But it does make me chuckle some times.


SM-G900W8, 0x1
I also get a kick out of what some people consider Pro-Touring... 20" wheels on a stock 69 Camaro with stock sized brakes, a lime green paint job, and a set of glass packs.

When the general population outside of the car world asks what I do I either say I restore cars or built racecars... it's just easier that way.

Epitome-Mark Stielow's builds in their genre. End thread.

The Godfather of Pro-Touring.

[GrabberGT]

Pro-touring: A style of building custom vehicles that integrates modern electronics, structural modifications, high performance engines, suspensions, wheels, brakes, and styling with the intention of driving them in conditions ranging from daily street use to high performance competition.



The most important part in my mind. Its just a Its just show car with fancy parts until you do.

[DOOM]

Epitome-Mark Stielow's builds in their genre. End thread.

Exactly as stated in post 21!!!!

[Vegas69]

Not exactly..:sieg:

[tyoneal]

To Everyone:

I have tried to be accurate in this definition, I'm sure some people will disagree with me because of the boundaries I put in place, but definitions have meanings. This is a relatively new word, and there should be a real definition associated with it.

Please take a moment and give this some thought, and ask yourself if these additions should be mandatory to truly satisfy the "Pro Touring" definition?

First, I believe the definition below is pretty accurate, but incomplete.

==================================
Pro-touring: A style of building custom vehicles that integrates modern electronics, structural modifications, high performance engines, suspensions, wheels, brakes, and styling with the intention of driving them in conditions ranging from daily street use to high performance competition.
==================================


These have to be a part of a Pro Touring Car:

1) I HAS to be drivin on the street, AND in some sort of competition at least once. (Drag Strip, Real Track Days, organized Road Ralley, Autocross, USCA event, other SCCA events) If you are not doing this, you don't know enough about your car for it to be "Pro Touring", until challenged in competition what you have is a Hotrod, Trailer Queen, Show Car, Custom, Vintage, Cruising etc. car. These are all wonderful parts of the car Hobby, But Pro Touring should be more specific.

Have you noticed the price difference between a recognized "Pro Touring" car and any other type car that has been customized someway? Done nicely they will almost always be worth more money, because of the time and effort someone has put into the car to "Make it work".

It's not unusual for a good 1969 Camaro PT car to fetch close to or above $100,000. That is more money than many used Exotic Cars. Porsche's, Ferrari's, Mercedes Benz, Lotus, Aston Marton's, plus most of the true stock Historic Vintage Street Cars that go to auction.
===============
2) A "Pro Touring" car MUST be at least Vintage in age, 25-30 year old. One does not go out and buy a New 2015 "Pro Touring" Car. A PT car MUST show a sizable effort to upgrade every aspect of a car to increase it's performance.

Cars like the new Camaro's, Corvette's, Challengers, Lotus, Ferrari's, Lambo's, Toyota (The Fast one from the factory) etc. Should NEVER be considered "Pro Touring" Cars!

With 25-30 year old cars one must really have a plan and execute it, and prove it, for it to be at least somewhat successful in the outcome.

Cars newer than this should never be allowed to compete in the same class as "Pro Touring" cars. Many new cars start out with traction control, ABS, Launch Control, terrific suspension geometry, great specially tuned shocks, Blowers, Turbo's etc. It is ridiculous to have these types of cars considered, "Pro Touring".

"Pro Touring" cars are a culmination of many hours of work, tons of money, artistic skill, problem solving, research, and so on. Clicking boxes and writing checks don't count unless you are buying an existing, or paying for a Vintage car to be assembled. I would like to do every part of my cars, but I have a bad back and replaced shoulder. There are just some things that I physically can't do, however there is much I can do and should. It could be that people don't have the time to build one. I know this sounds like going into a dealership for a new car, but it isn't because as stated above:

a) The principal base car is used. (ie. Vintage Car)

b) Many hours of work have to go into it.

c) Artistic Skills

d) Problem Solving

e) Research

f) Lots of money (probably at least $20-$30,000 in parts, more than likely a lot more than this.)

New cars are on a assembly line with everything already done and basically the same. To pay someone to build a custom car requires much more time and skill, as practically all these cars are customized with no two being the same, nor with starting with the exact same "Base" and quality of the car to work with.

I truly believe knowledgable people know there is a profound difference between a "Pro Touring" car and everything else. PT cars perform better, usually have very high quality parts throughout, and cost a lot more to build.

I think without specifics, the meaning of the word "Pro Touring" becomes "Watered Down", when newer cars, just older cars, restomods, Hotrods and the like are thrown in with the definition.

I really believe that even the Ultimate Street car competition should divide the old and the new cars. They are just totally different animals. You can always compare your times against them or compete with them directly, but that's as far as it should go. NEW CARS are never in competition in the "Pro Touring" class.

Believe me the after market builders that add to the new cars are terrific, they do a great job, however these cars are in a different league than the sucessful conversion of a Classic Car (over 25 years old) into a legitimate performing Pro Touring Car!

Please I really want to hear other opinions, I do believe these are very important differences. When you set out to build one of these cars, it is usually no small undertaking either in time or money. A lot of dedication is required to finish it.

Someone mentioned, "A protouring car is what you think it is". I believe this to be wrong. A Roush enhanced new Mustang, AMG Mercedes are both terrific top of the line car companies, but they start in most cases with cars that are already pretty hot performers from the get go, and thus do not conform with the definition of building/creating Pro Touring cars.

Thanks,

Ty O'Neal

Maybe at the different Venues, the organizers of the different car gatherings around the Nation could certify a true protouring car vs. a Modifiedcar of some kind. It is done for other groups of cars like the Corvettes. (Bloomington Gold, Silver, Survivor etc.)

If Judging is kept rigid and constant, it might actually become a certification that helps the value of your car if you want to sell it.

Made legitimate, it could help the continued justification to pay the higher price normally associated with PT cars.

[clill]

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.

[GregWeld]

Yep -- Have to agree (as distasteful as that is) with Charley... the name is Pro TOURING -- not Pro Racing... Touring means it has a lot of great attributes and is capable of being drivable - if not almost comfortable - on a longer drive.

[cluxford]

surely it's just evolution.

Pro-street was all the rage in the 80's / 90's. Why there were very few if any road race, circuit track style events for street driven cars. It was basically only drag style events.

Also emissions laws and registration laws meant there were few if any limits, so driving a back halved, massively blown car on the street was doable.

No longer.

Now restrictions limit that style of car.

Also there is way way more circuit track style events.

I hate the name pro-touring. To me it's evolution, and the thought leaders / pioneers will always be creating evolution long before it becomes main stream for us mere mortals.

[tyoneal]

Yep -- Have to agree (as distasteful as that is) with Charley... the name is Pro TOURING -- not Pro Racing... Touring means it has a lot of great attributes and is capable of being drivable - if not almost comfortable - on a longer drive.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
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

[tyoneal]

Cluxford:

Thanks for the input.
I know the answers to you questions/statements as I began driving "updated" cars back in 1977.

My first Camaro was a 1967, with 3 on the tree and a 327 2 bbl with 210 hp. Paid $500 for it and it was in pretty nice shape with no rust and 60k miles.

I searched every junk yard within 100 miles of my house looking for parts. Very rarely was anything available. (Remember no internet searching was around for a place to possibly look and most businesses at least early on didn't even have a computer so inventory look up of what they had was essentially non-existant.)

Please read below in your comments for some thoughts:

surely it's just evolution.

Pro-street was all the rage in the 80's / 90's. Why there were very few if any road race, circuit track style events for street driven cars. It was basically only drag style events.

Pro-Street, in my opinion, was almost the only thing you could do to car, but most of the cars never got off a trailer unless it was at a car show, or onto the streets, or a Drag Strip. They looked cool, but I didn't see any "All Around" reason to build one, and after I dropped a 454 LS-7 into my car, I'm sure I could run (with some decent tires) with most of them without all the expense. (Low 11 second 1/4 mile)

BTW: As a possible point of interest, the LS-7 was one of the earliest crate engines I can remember. You could buy one at the local chevrolet dealership. I bought mine used with only 12 runs on it from a friend of mine for $1000.

I wanted a corner carving cars. During the ladder 1970's through the 80's and early 90's, but No one made ANY parts. The cars were to old for the dealers to stock anything for them, and to young for them to be collectable, and they were not worth enough to justify anyone making parts for them.

A straight line/Pro Street Car was not really a rage as I remember it, it was the ONLY thing 99% of the people could do with their cars to make them sporty, cool and sometimes actually perform well.

There were a few tracks around the country, but nothing like it is today. We live in a automotive Utopia compared to 25 years ago.

Also emissions laws and registration laws meant there were few if any limits, so driving a back halved, massively blown car on the street was doable.

I live in Texas and it is not uncommon at the local burger joints now to see "Back Halved" and "Blown" cars. The Zoomies made now really sell the edgy looking cars. They are really cool and I love them.

Is Texas an anomily as far as street registration laws are concerned? I know California is bad about things, but are there a lot of states where you couldn't run one of those cars?

What part of them would be illegal? For instance I have seen some '33 3 window coupes with blown engines and very visible Zoomies. They look really cool.

No longer.

Now restrictions limit that style of car.

Also there is way way more circuit track style events.

Praise the Lord!, but what good are the tracks if people don't or won't ever put their cars on one?

I hate the name pro-touring. To me it's evolution, and the thought leaders / pioneers will always be creating evolution long before it becomes main stream for us mere mortals.

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

Thanks again for your input.

Ty O'Neal

[clill]

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

[SSLance]

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.

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.

[Shmoov69]

LMAO! I like it!

Waiting for the next big thing and then the discussions to follow: "define pro dog walking"!! LoL! :lol:

[kevin_l]

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.

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.

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

Maybe mine would be a PEE-WEE touring

[Che70velle]

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

[Sieg]

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..........

[kevin_l]

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..........

:lmao:

If we're voting I say yes

[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.


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

[cluxford]

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

Thanks again for your input.

Ty O'Neal

Why do we need a name ? Don't we just all like cars. I love cars, of all shapes, sizes, colour, style and purpose. I call them what they are. 33 Ford, 69 Camaro, C7 Vette, Shoebox Chevy. If there are 3 cars of the same year, lets say 57 Chev and one has his in concours, another highly modified, and another just bolt on's. why do we need to give them a name they are just 3 awesome interpretations of an awesome car. Each to be admired.

[MeanMike]

Looking at some of the builds here, Pro Touring could be defined as "art on 4 wheels".

[fleetus macmullitz]

Ask Stielow to sign your dash.

If he does, maybe it's a PT car.


:BlahBlah: :BlahBlah:


lol

[tazzz2_ca]

Pro-touring = A drinking club with a car problem,,,, just ask Bret he'll tell too LOL.

Guys this is like trying to find the corner in a round room to piss into,, find what pleases you and call it whatever you like.. Most of all as an enthusiast take pleasure out of your car, my car, and every car doing what pleases us in this carzy hobby....

[tyoneal]

Clill:

Thanks for the message.

I understand what you are saying, however I doubt very few high performance cars made to out handle other cars and run safely at speed without being tested?

Isn't testing your car a way to judge as to how successful your efforts have been?

Thanks,

Ty O'Neal
====================

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.

[tyoneal]

Clill:



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.

The object of a brief test is certainly not to destroy your car, I was thinking that would be part of the "Fun Stuff". I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to have to run a 24 hrs.race or something like that.

As far as "Pro Dog Walking".
This wasn't meant to become aurgumenitive, just a lively discussion regarding our automotive passions.

I think it might have become to personal. No offense intended, seriously.

Thanks for writing.

Sincerely,

Ty O'Neal`

[dontlifttoshift]

Another question I have been pondering.....How long is a piece of string?

I don't know why anyone would try to define it, as if it has some sort of usefulness other than describing a demographic that largely spends too much money on parts to go fast and still drive slow.:rolleyes:

It is Hot Rodding, it has been around for a 100 years.

[tyoneal]

SSLance:

Thanks for posting.

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.
That's exactly what I'm talking about!

Thanks again,

Ty

[tyoneal]

Kevin:

Thanks for your thoughts.

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

Only if you are baiting someone into a bet.:lol:

Thanks again.

Take care,

Ty

[tyoneal]

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
=================================

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

[tyoneal]

Sieg:

That's very cool as long as you don't endanger anyone while doing it.

It is fun to take a 50 year old car and be able to stay up with, or beat the snot out of a $200,000 European Supercar.

Very Tasty.

I bet he was in for a tune up Monday morning.:lol:

Thanks,

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

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..........

[GregWeld]

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".

[andrewb70]

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.
......

So it's like porn. We can't (nor do we want to) define it, but we know it when we see it.

Andrew

[tyoneal]

Revved:

Thanks for the comments.

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.

]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.

Would the definition of a Grand Touring Car, (earlier post) except it must have a Vintage Body, be about 90% correct?

I really appreciate your well thought out questions and positions.

Again, I'm just trying to stimulate a deeper conversation. Please don't get offended, as nothing I wrote is ment to make anyone mad or get their feelings hurt, or anything else, this is just a debate/discussion and the better ones are challenging sometimes.

If I have offended anyone please write me an email, and I'll be happy to apologize. This site has been a great place to put my mind into when things have been tough, and I really appreciate the knowledge and friendship everyone has shown.

Long Live,

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

Thanks,

Ty O'Neal

[Sieg]

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

Thanks,

Ty O'Neal

Hey!

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

:)

[tyoneal]

Greg:

Your comment is so true and so common. It gave me a good laugh. I'm glad I'm not the only one that encounters that.

Thanks,

Ty

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".

[tyoneal]

Sieg:

That is probably the truest statement I've heard.:lol:

Well done,

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

Hey!

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

:)

[Panteracer]

Greg said a car that is modified
I don't think I have owned one
other than the wife's grocery getters
that hasn't been hot rodded

I was looking at 67 Gt 500 years back
that had a 100 mile perfect restoration

My 16 year old son at the time said dad
what are you going to do with it?
Kid was a lot smarter than me because he
knew I modified everything I owned

Panteracer

[ironworks]

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.

[tazzz2_ca]

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.

What he said,,, enjoy the Dam things and share the passion with others...

[cluxford]

For all the Camaro PT owners

http://troll.me/images/redneck-toilet/hello-jegs-i-need-some-parts-for-my-camaro.jpg

[Neil B]

In my opinion, a build style usually has at least one defining characteristic:

Pro Street = wheel tubs with bigs and littles
Gasser = sky high front end
Lead Sled = lowered with chopped top
Hot Rod = no fenders and visible engine
Track Car = gutted interior with full cage
Low Rider = hydraulics
Resto Mod = restored car with period mods

For Pro Touring, it's a lowered suspension with upgraded wheels and tires.

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

[GregWeld]

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



Nothing wrong with that.... They're not Intros!! LOL

[Che70velle]

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
=================================

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 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 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:

[tyoneal]

Ironworks:

Thanks for the input. I think I would approach this in a direct manner.

Pro-Touring
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pro-Touring is a style of classic muscle car with enhanced suspension components, brake system, drivetrain, and aesthetics, including many of the amenities of a new performance car.

These modified muscle cars have been developed to function as well as, or to surpass, the capabilities of the foremost modern performance vehicles.

Functioning requires the act of trying it to see if the attempt was successful or not.

Pro-Touring cars are built with an emphasis on function and are intended to be driven.

(See Above)
====================================
Whether they are driven on the street, the race track, the drag strip, or through cones at an auto-cross is of indifference. Regardless of the location, pro-touring cars are destined to be driven.[1]

As I read this, apparently it is a car capable of doing any of the above. Unless you try, and are successful, doing at least two of the above, then it would not[B/] be a Pro Touring Car.

1) Every legal Street Car can drive on the street, so it must be able to pass inspection and [B]drive on the street.

2) Since (I think) we ALL agree that NOT ALL cars are Pro Touring Cars .....

then it must be able to

3) Be developed to function, ie. perform comfortably (Showing some kind of finness) at another activity/venue. The activities are listed race track, drag strip, through cones, auto cross, and the like. It doesn't say formaly, it doesn't say in competition, I think it could easily be said that it could stay ONLY on the street.

It just must perform as well as, or to surpass, the capabilities of the foremost modern performance vehicles.

A PT Car MUST prove it Runs, Can Run on the Street, and Perform at the minimum to a pretty high level.

It cannot be because you think it is PT.
It cannot be PT because it looks like it is PT.
It must Run AND be Street legal.
It must Run in such a way to establish it is/as PT.

That doesn't sound gray and nebulous, does it?



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.

This was a sticky one, I had to look it up. Evidently words ending in "ing", are pretty complicated. You decide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ing

Thanks again for the questions.

Ty

[ironworks]

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:

[GregWeld]

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:




At WHAT LEVEL does it need to perform? If your car runs a lap that is 10 seconds slower than mine - does it "perform"??

This whole question isn't worth the bandwidth it's taken up already. Sorry. It's just stupid to try to put definitions on something that doesn't need defining.


Let's try to define Tim's new all wheel drive '32 Ford.... WTF are we going to label that?

My personal label "BAD ASS HOT ROD!!"

[camcojb]

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.

[Stuart Adams]

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.

And that should wrap this segment up.

[ragz]

I am not to concerned if it (my car) measures up to anyone's but my protouring standard, as an informed car enthusiast, I realize there is a entry-level, and a very elite level of the Protour category. I would say we all know who we are, and where we fit in that category.
Describing that fit to the general public is a whole other subject, so I don't try, and where I live, there are about 5 true pro touring cars and that's probably optimistic by 2 cars.
All I care is that I can "SAFELY" cruise at a reasonable speed on the highway, handle corners at a reasonable pace that I don't feel like death is eminent. Stop without issue from any speed I choose, and also not feel like there is 40 years of technology separation when I get in my 03 z06.
I believe that the Safety, and technology put the Pro in pro touring our old cars.

Just my opinion.

[fleetus macmullitz]

Well, history repeats itself as we know, so if we meet back here in one year, we get t-shirts, right?

:lol:

[TheJDMan]

I think we need to ask Stielow, he first coined the term.

[tyoneal]

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:

All I was trying to do is to take what I thought were synonyms of the definitions we are given, and reword the stated definition, as to create a name that essentially said the same thing. I think I even broadened it a bit. It doesn't matter to me whether is stays the same or changes.
I have tried to encourage this the whole time, I tried to make the question more dynamic than it was as to create some real discussion and thought. I think for the most part, at least by looking at the answers, that many on this board have really given the original question, A LOT, of thought. I have learned many things about how the people, at least those here who are willing to voice their opinion, think what "Pro Touring" is and how to describe it.
I tend to agree with everyone. I am working on my cars to make them as close to true "Pro Touring" as possible within the time, personal preferences I have and financial constrants I have to work with.

I think that is what most of us are doing.

I don't think there would be many of us that would stay if it was so deeply regimented. We probably wouldn't qualify to begin with. I would be in this group as well.

Thanks agin for you thoughts, thay have certainly helped move the dialog further.

Take care,

Ty O'Neal

[GregWeld]

This is like trying to define what's a "STREET CAR" -- what's streetable to you might not be anything I'd consider streetable. Touring is equally difficult to define. I would not want to drive either of Hobaugh's cars on the street - nor Mike Maier's Mustang or several other cars that we all love, and would love to own.

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).

My point is that some people - in an effort to "beat" a car like HellFire on the track - will no doubt go "too far" and the ride or some other part will suffer. Still - that is what they wanted to build and it's still pro touring in our eyes.

It's like "having enough money". What's enough money? Put a definition on that. It's impossible but we'll know it when we see it. LOL

[fleetus macmullitz]

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).



That car seems to be the ultimate PT car...or at least until XVI? :)


And...it's extremely helpful that Dr. Stielow is a teaching physician on this board.

:thankyou:

[FETorino]

:lmao: :lmao:

Pro Tourning :headscratch: Its a street legal car of vintage decent modified by the owner, in the way the owner envisions it to be the ultimate roadworthy version of a car the owner has chosen.

PT is in the eye of the beholder.


People want to test the metal of their creations so cone dodging or open track days exist.

I can't knock someone for trying to make a few bucks by creating a series but a true PT car (not something built to win a "class") is a street, car not a race car, and ultimately is what the owner wants it to be.

Why not debate what the definition of the ultimate production car is? I'm sure we can agree on that. :lmao:

:popcorn2:

[tyoneal]

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:

Ironworks:

Thanks for the thoughts.

Perhaps not a Gold Star, but maybe a invitation to go to Vegas to participate in the OUSCA?

That seams to be where many of the best cars come together.

Ty

[Mkelcy]

Ironworks:

Thanks for the thoughts.

Perhaps not a Gold Star, but maybe a invitation to go to Vegas to participate in the OUSCA?

That seams to be where many of the best cars come together.

Ty

I don't get the track emphasis.

What part of "touring" don't people understand? I plan on taking my '68 Camaro to the east coast this fall - probably a trip of 6,000 to 8,000 miles - by myself. That strikes me as a "tour," much more so than a few hours on a race track.

Race track time, to me, only serves to demonstrate the capabilities of the car; it is not the raison d'être for the car.

[GrabberGT]

:lmao: :lmao:

Pro Tourning :headscratch: Its a street legal car of vintage decent modified by the owner, in the way the owner envisions it to be the ultimate roadworthy version of a car the owner has chosen.

PT is in the eye of the beholder.



Im with you for the first half of this statement but by the second half of the above definition, any restored vintage car can be a PT car. Even Jeff Lutz 57 Chevy Drag Week car. Perhaps the the roadworthy portion can be redefined as "with an emphasis on posting as many G's under both cornering and breaking as accelerating."

I'm not sure where the emphasis on racing came from. When I first joined, ProTouring was a style, not class. The first car I remember seeing and referring to as ProTouring was Stielow's Mule. To this day, I dont know if its ever seen a day of competition but yet I still consider it ProTouring. What it does have that makes it protouring in my eyes is the appearance of being able to take a corner at speed. Think of Hellfire... What makes it the ultimate protouring car. By GW's definition, "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)". If it never hit a track would we still think that? We know comfort and ease of driving are subjective criteria otherwise, the race car vs street car debates wouldn't be going on at events. Track capable however is objective. What would make a car have the appearance of being track capable yet still have the street manners GW defines. Big break kit, lowered stance, larger/wider than normal front wheels and tires (not too big) to fit the big break kit?

[Flash68]

The ironic thing is most of those insane Drag Week cars put their cars to the test in the touring sense a helluva lot more than most "Pro Touring" cars.

Carry on.... or not. :cheers:

[Vegas69]

Nobody knows...:D

Bottomless money pit that's lucky to ever get driven by its owner :y0!:

[fleetus macmullitz]

Why not debate what the definition of the ultimate production car is? I'm sure we can agree on that. :lmao:

:popcorn2:

That's easy enough...

:D

[tyoneal]

Mkelcy:

Sounds like a great trip, one I would enjoy myself.

You hit it right on the nose when you said, "Race Track time to me, only serves to demonstrate the capabilities of the car, ........".

Some of what DOES define a PT car is it's capabilities. Some which should only be tried on an off road venue to be legal and hopefully be safe(r).

It is simple, performance IS part of the definition. Until someone knows the prformance of their car, how can you tell is you were successful with the build?

Grand Touring:
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.

Thanks again for writing.

Ty O'Neal

I don't get the track emphasis.

What part of "touring" don't people understand? I plan on taking my '68 Camaro to the east coast this fall - probably a trip of 6,000 to 8,000 miles - by myself. That strikes me as a "tour," much more so than a few hours on a race track.

Race track time, to me, only serves to demonstrate the capabilities of the car; it is not the raison d'être for the car.

[tyoneal]

Flash:

Thanks for this post.

You Got It!

Yes, it is Ironic. Drag week could easily be a template for a PT adventure.

I am so surprised at the resistance to taking something you build and trying it out? I've tried to keep the "Proving grounds" limited to legal venues, and somehow that means Competitive Racing?

This is a nice topic for conversation, it's also too bad that when the name, "Pro Touring", was created, it wasn't closer to the already established name "Grand Touring" as they are essentially the same thing.

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.

Am I wrong on this? (Please respond to this, I would really like to know.

Take care, and thanks again.

Ty O'Neal

The ironic thing is most of those insane Drag Week cars put their cars to the test in the touring sense a helluva lot more than most "Pro Touring" cars.

Carry on.... or not. :cheers:

[tyoneal]

Chris:

Good post!

I would like to see what appears to be a Vintage car doing all that the best PT cars can. Looking fast is always cool, however looking stock would be a much more difficult way to roll.

Thanks,

Ty

Im with you for the first half of this statement but by the second half of the above definition, any restored vintage car can be a PT car. Even Jeff Lutz 57 Chevy Drag Week car. Perhaps the the roadworthy portion can be redefined as "with an emphasis on posting as many G's under both cornering and breaking as accelerating."

I'm not sure where the emphasis on racing came from. When I first joined, ProTouring was a style, not class. The first car I remember seeing and referring to as ProTouring was Stielow's Mule. To this day, I dont know if its ever seen a day of competition but yet I still consider it ProTouring. What it does have that makes it protouring in my eyes is the appearance of being able to take a corner at speed. Think of Hellfire... What makes it the ultimate protouring car. By GW's definition, "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)". If it never hit a track would we still think that? We know comfort and ease of driving are subjective criteria otherwise, the race car vs street car debates wouldn't be going on at events. Track capable however is objective. What would make a car have the appearance of being track capable yet still have the street manners GW defines. Big break kit, lowered stance, larger/wider than normal front wheels and tires (not too big) to fit the big break kit?

[tyoneal]

Cosmos Mentis: (Universal Thinker/Mind?)

Very cool car. The main reason it, it wasn't part of the original posters question.

Did I mention, that is a cool car?

Thanks, (Please let me know on your screen name, ok?)

Ty O'Neal


That's easy enough...

:D

[tyoneal]

Neil:

Thnaks for responding.

If this is the depth at which you classify Car types, I think there is nothing wrong with that. I do believe if you explore things a bit deeper you would find numerous differences in all the segments you mentioned, but then maybe not?

All I know is I am not trying to cut anyones car/car project down nor belittle their efforts, I am stating that words have meanings, the thread asked for meanings.

Thanks,

Ty O'Neal

In my opinion, a build style usually has at least one defining characteristic:

Pro Street = wheel tubs with bigs and littles
Gasser = sky high front end
Lead Sled = lowered with chopped top
Hot Rod = no fenders and visible engine
Track Car = gutted interior with full cage
Low Rider = hydraulics
Resto Mod = restored car with period mods

For Pro Touring, it's a lowered suspension with upgraded wheels and tires.

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

[tyoneal]

Greg,

Thanks for the post.
(Answers in your text.)

At WHAT LEVEL does it need to perform? If your car runs a lap that is 10 seconds slower than mine - does it "perform"??

How about to run essentually with or better than, a Ferrari 612.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_612_Scaglietti

This car would fall within the Protouring/Grand Touring Definition.

It is a Grand Touring car.

This whole question isn't worth the bandwidth it's taken up already. Sorry. It's just stupid to try to put definitions on something that doesn't need defining.

Why is it stupid to define a type of car, the Car Industry does it all the time. (and they test the limites as well)


Let's try to define Tim's new all wheel drive '32 Ford.... WTF are we going to label that?

My personal label "BAD ASS HOT ROD!!"

[fleetus macmullitz]

Ty,

Big 'Seinfeld' show fan (addict?) here. :_paranoid

Originally the screen name was 'compos mentis' aka 'sound mind', based on this scene with Larry David and his hilarious (IMHO) over the top portrayal of George Steinbrenner (see 1:15-1:50 min mark on vid if interested).

Then it went to 'cosmos mentis'...just to see who was paying attention.

:popcorn2:


L3eNPO8nAE0

[Che70velle]

:beathorse

[jarhead]

Ty,

Big 'Seinfeld' show fan (addict?) here. :_paranoid

Originally the screen name was 'compos mentis' aka 'sound mind', based on this scene with Larry David and his hilarious (IMHO) over the top portrayal of George Steinbrenner (see 1:15-1:50 min mark on vid if interested).

Then it went to 'cosmos mentis'...just to see who was paying attention.

:popcorn2:


L3eNPO8nAE0

Love that portrayal of him

Everybody out . I got eggplant on my mind . Costanza get me couple of those calzones right now . Pronto . Move out . Big Stein wants an eggplant calzone.

Must have one . Everybody out . Out .

[fleetus macmullitz]

Love that portrayal of him

Everybody out . I got eggplant on my mind . Costanza get me couple of those calzones right now . Pronto . Move out . Big Stein wants an eggplant calzone.

Must have one . Everybody out . Out .

Thanks, now fixating on eggplant calzones...lol.

Perfect use of a pro-touring car on a hot nite would be to turn on the a/c while making a run through a drive-thru place that has great food.

Rolling your power window down on one of these old heaps should impress too.

:D

[fleetus macmullitz]

Jay and Tim (at the 7 min mark) go for a short blast in Tim Allen's Bodie Stroud built '68 Camaro.

They describe how well it rides/drives/accelerates and the excellent build quality.

For Tim the ultimate compliment seemed to be when Jay said 'it's like something that would be built today.'

'Pro-touring' is never mentioned.

What world do they live in?

:D

Jay just calls it 'modern hot rodding'.

VxvAkUupnKw

[GregWeld]

Jay just calls it 'modern hot rodding'.




When you peel the layers back - that's all it really is. Hot rodding. The exact same goals teens, and young men, in the 40's/50's/60's/70's/80's had. Make it faster. Make it louder. Make it handle better. Make it lighter. They cut the roof - we cut the inner wheel wells... They put a Caddy in a Ford - we put an LS in a Mopar (well really only one guy is that stupid)... They put "bigs and littles" on - we put "staggered" sizes on.


Same **** different day.

[69hugger]

When you peel the layers back - that's all it really is. Hot rodding. The exact same goals teens, and young men, in the 40's/50's/60's/70's/80's had. Make it faster. Make it louder. Make it handle better. Make it lighter. They cut the roof - we cut the inner wheel wells... They put a Caddy in a Ford - we put an LS in a Mopar (well really only one guy is that stupid)... They put "bigs and littles" on - we put "staggered" sizes on.


Same **** different day.

Ain't it the truth!

I'd say one difference is the money involved. Even considering inflation, I'd bet a high dollar car of the 40's & 50's wouldn't touch an average car's cost today. Of course, they didn't have many of the type of products we do today, such as big brakes, electronic wizardry, sound equipment, et. al.
I think that's why the Rat Rod deal was born. Like them or not, they are more like many of the original rodders cars. Some of these cars are pure art, just without the shiny stuff. I am quickly becoming a fan.

Bill

[Try2paz]

I think Jay said it best! Modern Hot Rodding

[jarhead]

Jay and Tim (at the 7 min mark) go for a short blast in Tim Allen's Bodie Stroud built '68 Camaro.

They describe how well it rides/drives/accelerates and the excellent build quality.

For Tim the ultimate compliment seemed to be when Jay said 'it's like something that would be built today.'

'Pro-touring' is never mentioned.

What world do they live in?

:D

Jay just calls it 'modern hot rodding'.



Great Video!