Optimal Pro-Touring base car

[64Chevelle]

Hi guys,

just wanted to get some opinions on what car(s) is/are the best overall base for a pro-touring build. I am primarily thinking 60s, early 70s.

- Lightweight
- Good factory suspension geometry
- Frame/structural stiffness/integrity
- Easy to build, enough room for components
- Access to parts

All of these factors should be taken into consideration, if you got more, please tell me, I might have forgotten some... :)

Any unusual cars or cars that has been overlooked by the majority?

[Charley Lillard]

2nd gen Camaro-Firebirds handle great already, can be bought pretty cheap compared to other stuff, look cool and have some resale value.

[Nine Ball]

1st gen Firebirds. Easy to build like a Camaro, TONS of pro-touring parts, and cheaper than a Camaro.

[Rick Dorion]

Timely topic. When the 1st gens came out, we viewed the Firebird as a higher class car than the camaro.

What's the take on early chevelles?

[Yelcamino]

What's the take on early chevelles?

There's a lot of aftermarket support for the early A-bodies. I personally think they make a very good foundation for a PT car especially since they have a full frame. The stock suspension geometry is easy to improve upon with the numerous choices available today.

The 1st gen Camaro however, seems to be Pro-touring's bread and butter and I doubt that will ever change.

[compos mentis]

Rad Rides' Nova casts a whole different light on those cars...

The '65 Buick Gran Sport is an overlooked good looking car and seems more compact/lighter than the later GS cars.

BTW how much heavier are 2nd gen 'Birds and Camaro's then the 1st gens?

I'm partial obviously and its a '55, but those cars I think weigh 3150 and there is a ton of room. And talk about badd! Here's Doug Cooper's... http://media.putfile.com/Dougs--Alan-Johnsons-Hot-Rods--55

[Restomod]

2nd gen Camaro-Firebirds handle great already, can be bought pretty cheap compared to other stuff, look cool and have some resale value.

X2, the 69 Camaros and Fastback Mustangs are generally to much $$ to start with.

[blown9746]

I'd say 68 and up novas meet your criteria. Can be had cheap, subframe components from camaro can be used. resale is not really there.

[Neil B]

C3 Corvette - full-frame, IRS, fairly inexpensive, good aftermarket support, plenty of room for a big-block, etc. People either love or hate the styling though.

[compos mentis]

C3 Corvette - full-frame, IRS, fairly inexpensive, good aftermarket support, plenty of room for a big-block, etc. People either love or hate the styling though.
Agreed, you can get a nice driver for $7500. Need proof? Here's a nice looking black on black '80 L82. It should be sold quickly now since he dropped it from $9000.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=2043987

Not too many people will do these but another member (on here I think) had this drawn for his project. Until I saw it I never would have wanted a Laguna. Now I would build one.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2008/10/LagunaLoRes-1.jpg

[moreHP]

GM "A" body. But of course I am biased since I have one!:git:

[68Formula]

Since you put lightweight at the top of the list with the other criteria, I can't really see any American cars that would fit the bill. Even the "compacts" were usually over 3000 lbs.

[WS6]

I'm with Mike. What do you consider lightweight? The C3 vette is the lightest vehicle listed so far. 2nd gen Fbodies are upper 3000 lbs. I have no idea where all the weight is in these cars as A bodies weigh the same or less and are much bigger.

My suggestions are 2nd gen fbodies and 3rd gen Novas. Don't forget Buick Apollos, Pontiac Venturas(my favorite), and Oldsmobile Omegas were the same thing.

C3 vettes are great choices so long as you're ok with the later less valuable/desirable years. The chrome bumper cars bring money and are highly demanded. Be careful with the vettes though as their rust issues can be devastating, even compared to a rotted out rear frame rail on a 2nd gen.

You could also look to the mid 70s Abodies. These are cheap cars and can look great when done right. I believe they share the same components as the late 60s early 70s cars. Same frame basically, different body.

[SatisTraction]

sunbeam tiger
cobra kit car

[ScotI]

78-81 Malibus or their equivalent. Light weight, accept any traditional GM drivetrain easily, still fairly affordable, & semi-full frames w/4CL rear suspensions just like the a-bodies.

Aftermarket support is there for performance items & some sheet metal but interior stuff is cheap & not yet re-popped.

You could just about build an entire car for what some of the 'early' cars cost as a rough start.

[Dragonsnake]

Agreed, you can get a nice driver for $7500. Need proof? Here's a nice looking black on black '80 L82. It should be sold quickly now since he dropped it from $9000.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=2043987

Not too many people will do these but another member (on here I think) had this drawn for his project. Until I saw it I never would have wanted a Laguna. Now I would build one.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2008/10/LagunaLoRes-1.jpg

Cool rendering:worship: .It really depends on what you are gonna use the car for.

Is it a track day car or a cruising car?.

If it is a track day car,i can assure you that the 73-77 A body have the best handling platform of all the american sedans built before 77.

You start with a 8,5 axle and usually a 350 engine,and there are a lot of parts that can be bought cheap and will make the car handle better.

Lots of room for tires.No tubbing needed.

[XLexusTech]

c4 vetts are a great starting point

[Dragonsnake]

Probably one of the best platforms are the Corvette C4,but then you have reached 84 model at least.

He had the upper limit of early 70ies as a start.

[Randy67]

I'm with Mike. What do you consider lightweight? The C3 vette is the lightest vehicle listed so far. 2nd gen Fbodies are upper 3000 lbs. I have no idea where all the weight is in these cars as A bodies weigh the same or less and are much bigger.

My 67 all steel El Camino (heater delete, manual brakes & steering) weighs at 3320 lbs. That is fairly light for that size car. Could be lighter with a lighter hood and maybe fenders.

You could also look to the mid 70s Abodies. These are cheap cars and can look great when done right. I believe they share the same components as the late 60s early 70s cars. Same frame basically, different body.

I believe their front suspension is the same as the 2nd gen F-body, i.e. taller spindles and better geometry (not sure how much better), just a bit on the heavy side. Not all that heavy compared to some newer cars, like Challengers, Chargers, GTO, G8, upcoming Camaro and Mustang.

[Dragonsnake]

73-77 A-body shares the front suspension with 70-81 F-Body,and the 77-96 Impala-Caprice.

So all suspension parts,bolt on a 73-77 A-Body.

There are minor changes involved with the spindles,like bearing dimensions and so.

[gordonquixote]

3420# with a big block/4-speed

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

[64Chevelle]

Hi guys,

and thanks a lot for all the replies. A very interesting thread indeed. For it's looks I always dreamt of a mid/late 60's Corvette when I was a kid, but have grown to love the 2nd gen Camaros. I really love the aerodynamic and sporty look of the front combinded with the round taillights making up a pretty different look than most of the cars from that era.

I own a 64 Chevelle myself and it is not that heavy, 3280 lbs w/o driver, w/fluids. The drawbacks is that it is front heavy and don't have room for very large tires. A friend has a 65 Nova with heavy upgraded suspension, brakes and a 383 stroker. That car is almost the ultimate sleeper at just over 3000 lbs and would probably do great at the track. What seems like the ultimate Pro-Touring car for me right now is a C2 corvette that runs with and regularly beats the best tuned cars like Supras, Skylines and Porsches over here. Although you might argue that it is more a racecar than a street car, I think it is amazing that it is mostly stock (but with LS2 engine and aerodynamic mods though) and is still able to keep up with some of the best never cars. It's the white one with number "111" in the 4th and 5th picture: http://www.corvette-mjosa.com/valerbilder.php, some results here: http://www.specialsaloon.no/htm/lop2-08.htm

The 2nd gen A bodies never really occured to me to be a potential great Pro-Touring car, but I guess u'r right, it's got potential and would probably be one of the car with most bang for the buck with that nice stock susp. geometry and I would guess it can be had for cheap as well...

[SimplyKC]

I'm with Mike. What do you consider lightweight? The C3 vette is the lightest vehicle listed so far. 2nd gen Fbodies are upper 3000 lbs. I have no idea where all the weight is in these cars as A bodies weigh the same or less and are much bigger.

There is a pretty big difference in the factory weight of a 1970 1/2 car and an end of generation F-Body.

They gained weight from catalytic convertors, 5-mph bumpers, increased sound insulation, etc. The Trans Ams being the fattest of them all as they typically had leather and power everthing....oh, and those big blocks with Turbo 400s.

From 1969 to 1970 1/2 you are probably only looking at a 150 lb. difference when equipped the same.

On your second point, a unibody car is typically going to weigh more than a full frame car because of the extra metal it requires for rigidity.

In the end, just about any of the four seater cars mentioned here will be somewhat similar in weight when dressed out the same.

[64Chevelle]

3420# with a big block/4-speed

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

I love your car :) (split bumper would look even better, but that's just my personal taste) What rims are those and what size tires? That's pretty lightweight considering the BB, anyone KNOW how much a C2/C3 corvette weighs with a BB?

[Twentyover]

........On your second point, a unibody car is typically going to weigh more than a full frame car because of the extra metal it requires for rigidity.....



Think I'm going to disagree here. Unibody cars typically weigh less, since they don't have a frame. Sheet steel structures can be made of light gauge because they are depening on the shape of the part, rather than the thickness of a part, for structural properties. A flat piece of 20 ga will oil-can easily. Roll a few beads into it, or put an arc in it, and the propensity to oil can disappears.

My 70 1/2 Camaro (ZZ4, TKO, 12 bolt) rolls over the scales at 3600 lbs. I've made no effort to lighten it

[MrQuick]

I love your car :) (split bumper would look even better, but that's just my personal taste) What rims are those and what size tires? That's pretty lightweight considering the BB, anyone KNOW how much a C2/C3 corvette weighs with a BB?https://www.pro-touring.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35843

[68Formula]

Think I'm going to disagree here. Unibody cars typically weigh less, since they don't have a frame. Sheet steel structures can be made of light gauge because they are depening on the shape of the part, rather than the thickness of a part, for structural properties. A flat piece of 20 ga will oil-can easily. Roll a few beads into it, or put an arc in it, and the propensity to oil can disappears.

My 70 1/2 Camaro (ZZ4, TKO, 12 bolt) rolls over the scales at 3600 lbs. I've made no effort to lighten it

I think he meant in order to make it rigid you have to add a lot of metal (subframe connectors, rollbars).

[michael6372]

I had a 72 Nova that weighed in at 3200 lbs. It had a zz4 and a 4 spd.

How about a first gen Nova?

[slowcamaro]

do a maverick

[JohnUlaszek]

What is your budget?
Which performance aspects are most important for you? 1/4 mile, autocross, road course, ride comfort, etc.
Do you want to run big tires up front? In the rear?
Do you have a preference for manufacturer?
Do you have a decade in mind?
What kind of fab skills do you have? (see first question)

[Norm Peterson]

Think I'm going to disagree here. Unibody cars typically weigh less, since they don't have a frame. Sheet steel structures can be made of light gauge because they are depening on the shape of the part, rather than the thickness of a part, for structural properties. A flat piece of 20 ga will oil-can easily. Roll a few beads into it, or put an arc in it, and the propensity to oil can disappears.That's the theory. But in practical applications sheetmetal structures tend to require more stiffening against buckling, and heavier sections are still necessary where concentrated loads are applied (and one of the reasons why so many cars use subframes to carry powertrain and suspension components rather than mounting them directly to unibody panels).


Norm

[cdoggy81]

2nd gen f-body. What you start with is a much better platform that doesn't need as many aftermarket "tricks" to handle good. You can still go crazy & spend a ton of $$$ & have a slot car or you can do a very nice budget car that still performs. 70-72 are a little lighter than 73 & later due to impact ratings starting in 73. Oh yah, did I mention they look bad as he!! :)

[Twentyover]

That's the theory. But in practical applications sheetmetal structures tend to require more stiffening against buckling, and heavier sections are still necessary where concentrated loads are applied (and one of the reasons why so many cars use subframes to carry powertrain and suspension components rather than mounting them directly to unibody panels).


Norm

Local reinforcement is common practice. I'll concede that most cars use a thick section crossmember for lower A arm mounting (and frequently upper a-arm mounting, for manufacturing economies.)

I maintain that frames and subframes are not required for high power applications, it's just that they are a more economic solution than fabricating a well engineered monocoque.

Where weight is important (aircraft, for instance), and manufacturing costs less critical, locally reinforced thin sections are the norm. Couple years ago I worked on a wing section for an RV4, it was .020 alimunum with local ribs riveted on flat sections.

[Charley Lillard]

I had a 73 Trans Am and it handled great just the way it was. Probably better than half of the first gens you see that are so called Pro-touring. They are great cars.

[jackfrost]

how about a Javelin. :razz:

i think probably most of the domestic 2+2 cars are probably pretty close to each other in terms of weight and structure. just a feeling, but I would guess any year Corvette would be a step up, in terms of weight, equipment. they have been raced for many, many years.

[Rick Dorion]

I've always liked Javelin's. In the mid-70's a friend of mine had an AMX he'd run at time trials at Lime Rock. I had a Datsun 240Z. We both had fun.

Anyway, my 69 vert is sold and I need a new toy. I'm currently looking at a 240Z with an LS2 and T56. Thoughts?

[406 Q-ship]

This is my take on things. It depends on what I wanted to do with the car, a track car, a street car , or a show car, and what kind of cost I would be putting into the car. I have thought about a cheap daily driver touring car for awhile now, and this is based on price, best factory geometry, and parts availability. My choice is a 75 - 79 X-body (Nova, Apollo, Ventura, Omega), has the geometry of the radial tuned suspension (2nd gen F-body, 1977 - 1996 B-body, and 73 -77 A-body), and is basicly a 2nd gen Camaro underneath. Yes the looks (not a bad looking car just boxy) and big bumpers are a distraction. If looks had to be a factor then I would step up the price and go 1970 - 73 F-Body.

[Dragonsnake]

Good choice:cool:

[Scott Parkhurst]

If i could go all out, I'd build either a Monza Mirage with Vette suspension under the flared fenders, or a mid-engined Porsche 914 (also flared out).

Either would have an LS9 with a stick...under the hood.

But, they'd cost more than I have, so I'll keep working on what I've got.

[Lowend]

Based on those criteria...
Lotus/Caterham 7
http://www.uscaterham.com/

[Damn True]

Based on those criteria...
Lotus/Caterham 7
http://www.uscaterham.com/

I was going to suggest the Brunton Stalker version for more of a "stupid power in a tiny car" factor.

Seriously though...I'd love a 7.

[Norm Peterson]

Stupid power in a tiny car, part 2

Philly Region had a V8 Rotus show up to an autocross late last season . . . about 440 HP worth of LS1.

Look about 2/3 or so of the way down in the link (hold left mouse button and drag over "hidden" text to read it)

http://jalopnik.com/cars/part-ii%7C-the-dragon-caught%2C-captured-and-killed/jalopnik-presents-the-se7en-se7en-se7en-awards-277573.php

[Jim Nilsen]

I always thought a 75 Toyota Celica GT would have been the perfect car to make into a mini Mustang GT. They looked more like Mustangs that year and are just the right size to fit everything and hide it so well.

[jaybee]

Celicas that vintage drove really well stock, too, which would be another positive for that starting point. I remember a car mag article that called it a 7/8 scale Mach I

[yamadog]

I think a car that is way overlooked for its protouring traits is an early 240z. A stripper version can weigh as little as 2300lbs. Full independent suspension, With a JTR conversion, the water pump of a sbc is like six inches BEHIND the front wheel centerline. There are some great looking fenders available allowing a 12 wide wheel on all four corners. And did I mention 2300 punds?! Imagine how fast and reliable just 400 hp would be. Plus they are on Ebay all the time for just a few grand for a solid car. Jason

[Rhino]

I think a car that is way overlooked for its protouring traits is an early 240z. A stripper version can weigh as little as 2300lbs. Full independent suspension, With a JTR conversion, the water pump of a sbc is like six inches BEHIND the front wheel centerline. There are some great looking fenders available allowing a 12 wide wheel on all four corners. And did I mention 2300 punds?! Imagine how fast and reliable just 400 hp would be. Plus they are on Ebay all the time for just a few grand for a solid car. Jason

If I'm thinking of the same car, isn't the 240z a semi-trailing arm rear suspension? I remember something being really funky about it. It just didn't look like it would work that well. But with that said, I've never personally driven one.

[Norm Peterson]

Chapman strut (think MacStrut with a drive axle going through the knuckle, or a late-model FWD strut setup minus the steering).

Not that it matters since you'd probably be swapping it out for something a bit more durable and with better geometry anyway.

This one has crossed my mind more than once.


Norm

[Twentyover]

If I'm thinking of the same car, isn't the 240z a semi-trailing arm rear suspension? I remember something being really funky about it. It just didn't look like it would work that well. But with that said, I've never personally driven one.

ZX maybe- they were different rear suspensions

[Pagani]

What about a vw campervan
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2008/10/1916960028_b3861e3bde-1.jpg
Or a datsun 240z
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2008/10/1971_Datsun_240Z_Original_Restored_Front-1.jpg
Datsun 510
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2008/10/2506580985_e6440cd48e-1.jpg?v=0
Mk1 ford escort
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2008/10/70_fordescortmexicomk1-1.jpg
Mk2 ford escort
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

[jaybee]

There used to be a pretty good cottage industry in putting American V8s in early Z cars. If you're remembering something funky about the suspension it might be that handling of the early cars got pretty light and twitchy around 130.

[critter]

1973 Mercury Capri. ;)

[Lowend]

Yeah the V8 350 conversion has been done to death. A guy named Darius took it pretty far in the late 90's with a supercharged LT1 (http://videos.streetfire.net/video/Darius-240Z-Long-Version_53462.htm) (there is even an example of why I dislike roller dynos)


I do have a buddy who did a 3.8 liter V6 conversion on a Triumph and used a C3 rearend. REALLY fast car and I've never seen another.
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2008/10/DSCN2441asized-1.jpg

[64Chevelle]

One thing I forgot to mention in the initial post is aerodynamics... How do the 60s and 70s cars compare in terms of drag coeficcient and high speed stability. I know the first and second gen camaros handled quite differently with and without the front and/or rear spoiler f.ex.

Also, those Datsun Z's are quite cool cars and would probably be a fun project too. I've also thought about a Porsche 944/924, those cars handle really well stock, at least the turbo versions.

[Norm Peterson]

Most 60's and 70's cars are bricks when it comes to aero. Big bricks with at least front end aero lift at speed.


Norm

[Dragonsnake]

A man once said..Aerodynamics are for those who cant build engines:twothumbs hehe..

[gen3bu]

510 With An Ls2 Swap!!!???!!!

[Memphis]

I keep thinking one of these with the all aluminum 5.3 and a 5 speed out of a Camaro would be a ton of fun. Theres plenty of suspension pieces out there for them and I think a stock 5.3 would be plenty enough power.
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2008/10/IMG_0166_Custom-1.jpg

[Scott Parkhurst]

Stock engines only have enough power until you learn to drive the car to its limits.

You'll want more power. Always.

(Unless you're fruity or something...LOL!!!)

[Rick Dorion]

Scott, how's the wagon? I have a bead on a 69 chevelle wagon!

[Scott Parkhurst]

Scott, how's the wagon? I have a bead on a 69 chevelle wagon!

Hey Rick!

I've been driving it all summer- it's been awesome! I'll be heading out to gather track data on it next year. I've been fixing little things that didn't work (like windsheild wipers and door locks) and getting it all dialed in. I'm really happy with it, and it's delivering more than 20mpg on the freeway now (T56 in 6th, 3.89:1 gears) so that's really cool too. I've added some new details I don't have photos of yet (headlight screens, front spoiler, hood pins) so I'm due to snap a few new ones before I put her in for the winter.

Thanks for asking!

~SP~