Enter your username:
Do you want to login or register?
  • Forgot your password?

    Login / Register



    Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
    Results 1 to 20 of 103
    1. #1
      Join Date
      Apr 2001
      Location
      The City of Fountains
      Posts
      15,971
      Country Flag: United States

      Pro-Touring defined?

      First of all I would like to say that none of this is personal between Steve and me. I want everyone to know that Steve and I have never met or even talked on the phone. Having said that let us dig deeper into what defines a Pro-Touring/G-Machine car.

      I think to understand this build style we need to look back about 20 years. This is about the time that this concept started to evolve and the magazines started featuring cars that reflected this build style. I will mostly speak about GM A-bodies, but similar concepts were being developed for F-bodies as well as non-GM vehicles. The concept and recipe was simple back then. Start with a classis muscle car and apply modifications that will make the car handle as good, or better than modern day sports cars, such as the Corvette or even Porsche. The recipe was also simple. Replace the rubber bushings with poly bushings. Install some stiff springs. Install big sway bars. Bolt on some 16 inch wheels with 255/50/16 Goodyear Gatorback tires and you were all set. Those were the basics. This gave birth to several companies that provided products and guidance. H.O. Racing, Global West and Hotchkis were all born as more and more people embraced the concept. If you were really into it, you took things a little further. The spindle on the A-body can be swapped for one from a B-body or second gen F-body. This mod accomplished two things. It resulted in a much more desirable negative camber curve and it upgraded the stock drum or small disk brakes to the B-body’s big 12 inch rotors. The things listed above are not my opinion. It is a slice of history that anyone who has been into this long enough will remember very clearly. If you want to, look up terms like “Strong Arm Suspension” and “Knuckle Sandwich” in your Primedia library.

      As you can see, none of the things that I have talked about so far has anything to do with looks, comfort or style. The heart of pro-touring is the desire for better handling, braking and an overall better driving experience. Things like A/C and sound insulation were added later as little niceties so that cars can be comfortably driven on events like The Power Tour. Let us also not forget that Pro Touring/G-Machines were around WAY before the concept of The Power Tour ever came about. As an unforeseen side effect, the “Touring” in Pro-Touring came to be associated with “Tour” in Power Tour. The two things really don’t have much to do with each other. As a bi-product of these modifications a certain “look” developed. Cars were lowered, wheels and tires got wider on the front as well as rear and big brakes started to peek out from behind the spokes of wheels. So you see, the Pro-Touring/G-Machine “look” came about as a result of the performance modification, form followed function. It is not MY definition of Pro-Touring/G-Machine that relates to something more RACEY. It is the roots and history of the concept itself that focused on performance from the very beginning. And I think the cars that I had on my original list were all built in the spirit of the original Pro-Touring/G-Machine concept.

      A simple concept, really: take an old car and make it accelerate, brake and corner like a modern day sports car. There are no wrong or right parts as long as they somehow contribute to the acceleration, braking and cornering of a vehicle. There are definitely compromises like adding weight with A/C and a stereo system and sound insulation, but those are the realities of a street car. While these things may hinder ultimate performance they do contribute to the overall driving experience of a vehicle.

      This is also why 20+ inch wheels and tires are not useful on a Pro-Touring/G-Machine. They somehow crept into being a part of the concept under the guise of “bigger is better”. Unlike A/C, sound systems, and sound insulation, 20+” wheels have no positives in exchange for their negative effects on performance. And so, they aren’t a compromise of increased driving comfort in exchange for ultimate performance. They are merely visual.



      Finally, it is not merely my opinion that large/heavy wheels and tires hinder all of the things that a Pro-Touring/G-Machine is supposed to improve. It is just physics.

      There obviously a huge interest in this topic since the last thread got over 1600 views. Please keep it on an adult level.

      Andrew
      Last edited by andrewb70; 10-27-2005 at 04:53 PM.
      1970 GTO Version 3.0
      1967 Cougar build
      GM High-Tech Performance feature
      My YouTube Channel Please Subscribe!
      Instagram @projectgattago
      Dr. EFI
      I deliver what EFI promises.
      Remote Holley EFI tuning.
      Please get in touch if I can be of service.

      "You were the gun, your voice was the trigger, your bravery was the barrel, your eyes were the bullets." ~ Her


    2. #2
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      Anaheim Hills, CA
      Posts
      11,967
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by andrewb70
      First of all I would like to say that none of this is personal between Steve and me. I want everyone to know that Steve and I have never met or even talked on the phone. Having said that let us dig deeper into what defines a Pro-Touring/G-Machine car.
      I don't have time to respond right now.. but I would also like to add that I have the utmost respect for Andrew and harbor no ill will towards him. I respect his views even though I have a slightly different definition of the term Pro-Touring

      Although I might have ticked him off yesterday. If so then it was unintentional and I would gladly make up for it with a beer or his choice.

      You can continue with the regularly scheduled thread..
      "A ship in port is safe, but that's not what ships are built for."

      1968 Track Rat Camaro:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGHJ5c1yLIo&t=2s

      1971 Chevelle Wagon with a few mods:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBVPR3sRgyU

    3. #3
      Join Date
      Mar 2003
      Location
      Kirkland, WA
      Posts
      884
      I think we all need a hug

      Personally I see what both of you are saying. At some point, rim size does get to a point where it no longer is a performance enhancement, but is pure performance the only measure of a pro-touring car? Does any lowered car with big wheels become a pro-touring car, or does it have to exhibit some kind of actual performance? If there is no room for anything but handling, breaking, and acceleration, why not just build a race car, aren't the comfort and appearance aspects important in their own way?

      To me, a pro-touring car is all about balance. The touring part of it is the ability to drive the car every day if you want, to have the same level of refinement and all round performance as a modern car. Touring is a drive up a twisty road for the fun of it. To me, touring means that you actually drive your own car.

      Anyway, just my opinion, andas long as we can all play nice, I'd like to hear what others have to say as well.
      James
      -1969 Camaro Sport Coupe
      -1996 Z28
      -2005 Silverado
      Webpage

    4. #4
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Location
      Hamilton, NJ
      Posts
      4,291
      Country Flag: United States
      I was going to post this in the other thread, but here goes.

      Can a noob without a great car chime in on this definition thing?

      Definition? I thought a pro-touring car was a well balanced, well built driving machine . Not a pastel pro-streeter. Not a trailer queen; a true driver. It is built to be driven hard, and actually is driven hard, at least once in the while. Turning, stopping, driving, idling, starting, etc. Taking a car and making it perform better in every way you can without upsetting the balance of the machine. Balanced streetability is the heart of the matter, as I understood it. Reliability goes hand in hand with well built. How reliable is the average trailer queen pro-streeter? Or a numbers match, concours restored 1969 427 3x2 Corvette on them skinny bias plys? (Yes, I am sure some are reliable, but I got $1 that says most are not. And I do not dismiss even for a minute the effort & skill required to do cars like that. That is not the point here.) Just read the thread about the trip the guys in the NE took last summer. They drove their cars and had a great day. Isn’t that why we look favorably upon cars that pull off the whole Power Tour without a hitch (at least I do)? Because they drive the damn things without incident?

      Looks? A solid appearance is my only real requirement. And all primer qualifies as solid. A clean OE appearance qualifies. And a Foose style paint job does not disqualify (even though it is often not my taste). It just has to look solid, like it won’t fall apart at 100 MPH and it wasn’t assembled by blind chimps. Back to that functional, balanced thing.

      Variation? Why can’t I have AC? Why can’t you have 19” wheels? They are our cars. To me, as long as they don’t disrupt the balance and performance of the machine, what the hell?

      Compromise? The biggest one I know is car money vs. everything else money. Really though, like with anything else, there are degrees. My 77 will be better than most other 77 Z28s (even a good % of second gens). But it will be long time, if ever, before it is as good as Yody’s Firebird. To be honest, with kids, mortgage, etc., it isn’t in the cards right now. Does that disqualify me? Gee, I hope not. I’m happy being like the little tag along brother. But I will tell you I will try to learn lessons from the advanced cars, and try to adapt the principles they have proven.

      I also think a g-machine and a p/t machine are different, at this point in the evolution of the concepts.

      My $.02
      Scott from NJ.

      Vent Windows Forever! ...

      Feather-light suspension, Konis just couldn't hold
      I'm so glad I took a look inside your showroom doors

    5. #5
      Join Date
      Nov 2001
      Location
      Sacramento Ca
      Posts
      6,827
      Country Flag: United States
      Actaully Andrew, the term 20 years ago was "road racer" The term "pro-touring" was developed by jeff smith and mark steilow when the "thrasher" camaro was being built. (someone with back issues correct me if I'm wrong) However, the point is still the same. A pt car was defined as a older muscle car that was refined to match or better the performance, reliablity and "confort" of the current offering. Big brakes, bigger wheels, low profile rubber, upgraded suspension, and fuel injection seemed to be the basics.

      however, by that definition, one cannot rule out someone rolling 20s. Now, we have established that 20s certainly are not better than 17s or 18s but, we are shooting for an established benchmark. The performance of a current (camaro, we'll say)

      So, an example.

      lets say that joe tourer has a 68 camaro, a TBI small block with cast iron heads (ported, garage style) and the usual performance upgrades = 400 crank hp

      He's also plunked down the cash for all the latest global west and hotchkis goodies.

      He's bolted up a Nice Baer system also. Welded in a roll bar, some subframe connecters, and put some nice seats he found at a junk yard.

      He's also plunked down some change on 20" TTIIs 20x8s all around.

      Now, lets say his best friend has a very well maintained 2002 camaro z28.

      they head out to the track, and the 68 bests the newer car in every catagory.

      Now, Is joes car pro-touring or not? He's met the goal. His car has bested a newer one. The answer'd be yes. case closed. Could he wring even more out of his car? Sure.
      Tony Langlois
      1966 Corvair Monza

    6. #6
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Location
      SoCal
      Posts
      489
      The wheel thing is rather subjective and IMO you can't base a "lable" solely on a given wheel dia. Take Scott W (not streetking) black 69, he's got a 19/22" wheel combo that looks AMAZING for cruising/show purposes. That who's to say he doesn't have a set of 4 18x12's hiding in the garage with a set of hoosiers mounted up to go turn some 1:4x's around buttonwillow?

      On the same token if you slap some 20's on Mule is it no longer PT?, on those 20's it would probably embarrass 99% of the cars we call "pro-touring" on any track you can think of.


      And waaaay out of left field, what about Chad's Viper? Runs 8's on pump gas and drag radials, will comfortably cruise long distances, and with a wheel change will easily run laps around a road course. Is that PT or just an awesome modern car?

      IMO we should not be so critical of what is or isn't and appreciate the blood, sweat, and cubic $$$ we dump into these things. Heck I have a flippin pickup truck right now

      edited: smileys are http:, not https.
      Last edited by derekf; 08-14-2006 at 03:15 AM.

    7. #7
      Join Date
      Aug 2003
      Location
      Prescott Valley, AZ
      Posts
      820
      I think defining pro-touring is pointless and we should drink more. Having said that, we all like things different and we also know how to build a car that will perform to the highest standards. We also can tell who will be going to the track and who will be putting folding chairs in the trunk. Does it need to be pointed out? No. Is it progress to point out what products will slam your Starbucks into the passenger side window? A hearty hell ya will do. However lets have the individual builder determine which products to use. I also believe that it is our responsibility, as fellow builders, to point out items and ideas that are potentially dangerous to the builder or others. Having fun and being safe should always be the ultimate goal. Quite frankly I don’t care how much of a pric Yody can be, he has a bad ass car and I appreciate his build, style, stance, in your face power and what not. Would I do the same thing – No. This discussion will continue until someone goes extreme and then gets pissed off. Is that progress? No.

      I must say that one who professes to have products that will get them into the nines ought to have a current time slip within two seconds of said goal. Otherwise it is the beer that’s talking.
      It's shake and bake!!! and i helped!
      Drewco Homes

    8. #8
      Join Date
      Jun 2002
      Location
      Long Island, NY
      Posts
      11,320
      Country Flag: United States

      Pro-touring Defined

      I wasn't going to post this yet, as it is still a working (and rough) draft, but here is a definition of Pro-Touring, and the sub genres that I have written up, with some contributing help from the moderators. When completed, this article will have a permanent place on our new home page. Keep in mind though, it is a rough draft:--------

      Pro-Touring Defined

      Defining the term "Pro-Touring" is perhaps one of the single most difficult things to do regarding the hobby. It is a genre like no other, taking performance aspects and styling cues from several types of motor sports, and other genres of car culture. The fact that the term Pro-Touring is ever evolving makes it even more difficult to define; freshly built cars and new ways of thinking are constantly blurring the lines of what it is and what it once was. With that being said, we felt the need to clear up some confusion and provide our best definition as to what pro-touring and its sub-genres really are. When writing these definitions, we tried to remain as objective as possible, but there are always exceptions to the rule, or in this case the definition. Rather than getting caught up on makes, models or specific years, we chose to focus on that which means the most when building a pro-touring car--function. Contrary to popular belief, there is no set standard or rules defining pro-touring, save for one: the car be built with an emphasis on function. (Example, tailoring your car to a show 30 miles away for fear of getting a rock chip is NOT pro-touring. Pointing out rock chips and dead bugs on your freshly painted ride that you drove 3 hours to an auto-x event IS pro-touring.) Some will say that your car must have X size wheels, or ABC motor, and power adder, but we at pro-touring.com do not feel that way. We do however feel that any modifications done to the suspension, brakes, wheels, tires, or interior be made in an effort to better then performance and drivability of the car. (Example: swapping out your heavy 15" rallies and bias ply tires for a set of light-weight forged wheels, and sticky tires is pro-touring)There are an infinite number of ways to build a pro-touring car, and perhaps the single greatest thing about the pro-touring genre is the fact that the term is always open to interpretation.

      Pro-Touring: A classic muscle car with upgraded and updated suspension components, brake system, drive train and aesthetics, including many of the creature comforts of a new car. Built to function as well or better than some of today’s best performance cars. Pro-Touring cars are built to be driven. Driven on the street, on the race track, on the drag strip, through cones at an auto-cross, no matter the setting, pro-touring cars are meant to be driven. [Generally speaking, late model cars are not considered pro-touring due to their factory designed suspension and brake packages.]

      g-Machine: [once considered to mean the same thing as pro-touring, the term has now evolved to mean a slightly less refined pro-touring car] A classic muscle car with upgraded and updated suspension, brakes, drive train and aesthetics, generally lacking some of the creature comforts one would find in a pro-touring car, such as cup-holders, leather seats, etc., otherwise identical to a pro-touring car.

      Street Fighter: (The term is adapted from a European genre of stripped down street bikes to mean stripped down pro-touring cars.) A classic muscle car with heavily modified and upgraded suspension and brake system components, powerful yet functional drive train, and little to no creature comforts. Most Street Fighters lack A/C, big billet wheels, chromed-out engine bays and navigation systems, but sport forged wheels, a roll cage and fabricated parts. Anything not necessary to make the car accelerate, decelerate, or handle better is stripped from the vehicle. Street Fighters are Pro-Touring counter-culture at its best; drivability is sacrificed for performance and function. In the simplest of fashions, Street Fighters can be equated to street legal race cars.


      ------------------

      The key word(s) in this definiton is the car be built with an emphasis on function.

    9. #9
      Join Date
      Apr 2005
      Location
      Fife, WA
      Posts
      887
      Quote Originally Posted by harshman
      I think defining pro-touring is pointless and we should drink more. Having said that, we all like things different and we also know how to build a car that will perform to the highest standards.
      .......... Otherwise it is the beer that’s talking.
      Well said....I'll drink to that!

    10. #10
      Join Date
      Dec 2002
      Location
      Lost Wages, Nevada
      Posts
      2,683
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by harshman
      I think defining pro-touring is pointless and we should drink more.
      I'll second that.......

    11. #11
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      Anaheim Hills, CA
      Posts
      11,967
      Country Flag: United States
      To some the mere fact that he has 20's would disqualify him.. race cars don't run 20's and they dont make race tires for 20's.. why? because 20's are a compromise of form OVER function. The same could be said of 19's and even, to a lesser extent, about 18's.

      Using this logic a big block engine would be a disqualifier as well since you can make plenty of power with a small block and the add weight is detrimental to handling.

      Here is how I see it.. Pro-touring is the modernization of the drivetrain, suspension and braking of a car that was originally lacking in these areas. The car has been made more enjoyable to drive so you could also improve the creature comforts of the car, to a point. My definition is more broad than Andrews so more people can sit at the PT table. Tossing 18's on your car and dropping the stance does NOT a PT car make. That woud be a classic street machine.

      Here is a hypothetical.. take any car from Andrews list of PT cars.. put it on the track against a car like Chicayne.. If Chicayne has faster lap times then which car is the real PT car? The one that "looks" more like the definition of a PT car or the one that performed better?

      We all make sacrafices on our rides to suit our tastes and desires. Hell, I am gonna put dynamat in Penny cause I like how solid it makes the car sound. I am adding 30lbs of weight for no performance gain. Then again, I have no AC, Heat or stereo so I figure I can take the weight.

      If we make the definition too tight then nobody will want to play in game and if we make it too vague then it will become a cluster f#^@ like pro-street did.

      There was a time when 16's were huge.. now they are accepted.. I wonder if 19's and 20's will be viewed the same in 10 years (yes, I know the laws of physics don't change).. but still, we have come to give 18's a pass with the "excuse" that you can fit bigger brakes. The truth is that you could be just as fast with lighter 17" wheels and a quality braking system to fit behind them. After all, less rotating mass requires less brakes. But HUGE brakes behind 18's just look so friggin cool, so we give them a pass.

      My old '67 looked like a pro-touring car way back in '86 but it wasn't.. we didn't have the technology back then to make the car perform like you can today. It is about more than just looks, it is about the essense of the car. I was treated back then, with my 16" wheels, like guys with 20's are treated today.. it was like.. "what!! you don't need wheels that big!" lol

      Times change.. Maybe the term pro-touring was a bad term since, to me, it conjures driving a car through rolling alpine forests, which is what this hobby is really all about. Driving our cars and increasing thier potential.

      Ok.. next guys turn..
      "A ship in port is safe, but that's not what ships are built for."

      1968 Track Rat Camaro:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGHJ5c1yLIo&t=2s

      1971 Chevelle Wagon with a few mods:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBVPR3sRgyU

    12. #12
      Join Date
      Dec 2003
      Location
      lost
      Posts
      2,607
      I have come to find that everyone has their own opinion of what defines pro-touring (go check ebay, any car with bigger than 16" wheels is pro-touring) BUT, in the following example joe tourer doesn't have a chance against an 02 camaro.
      Quote Originally Posted by TonyL
      So, an example.

      lets say that joe tourer has a 68 camaro, a TBI small block with cast iron heads (ported, garage style) and the usual performance upgrades = 400 crank hp

      He's also plunked down the cash for all the latest global west and hotchkis goodies.

      He's bolted up a Nice Baer system also. Welded in a roll bar, some subframe connecters, and put some nice seats he found at a junk yard.

      He's also plunked down some change on 20" TTIIs 20x8s all around.

      Now, lets say his best friend has a very well maintained 2002 camaro z28.

      they head out to the track, and the 68 bests the newer car in every catagory.

      Now, Is joes car pro-touring or not? He's met the goal. His car has bested a newer one. The answer'd be yes. case closed. Could he wring even more out of his car? Sure.
      The 400HP TBI was his first mistake and the 20X8 are really going to hurt on the track...which brings up another point. "Does adding 20's make your car NOT a PT car anymore", yes. Anything done that hurts performance in the name of bling is anti-touring (I'll take credit for the new label).

    13. #13
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Location
      Hamilton, NJ
      Posts
      4,291
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by harshman
      I think ... we should drink more.
      I agree!
      Scott from NJ.

      Vent Windows Forever! ...

      Feather-light suspension, Konis just couldn't hold
      I'm so glad I took a look inside your showroom doors

    14. #14
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      Anaheim Hills, CA
      Posts
      11,967
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by chicane67
      I'll second that.......
      I will third it and first round is on me.. (note. offer good for first 10 guys.. Im not made of money)
      "A ship in port is safe, but that's not what ships are built for."

      1968 Track Rat Camaro:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGHJ5c1yLIo&t=2s

      1971 Chevelle Wagon with a few mods:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBVPR3sRgyU

    15. #15
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      Anaheim Hills, CA
      Posts
      11,967
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by dennis68
      which brings up another point. "Does adding 20's make your car NOT a PT car anymore", yes. Anything done that hurts performance in the name of bling is anti-touring (I'll take credit for the new label).
      So would that apply to 19's as well? Just curious what the cut-off is.. lol
      "A ship in port is safe, but that's not what ships are built for."

      1968 Track Rat Camaro:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGHJ5c1yLIo&t=2s

      1971 Chevelle Wagon with a few mods:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBVPR3sRgyU

    16. #16
      Join Date
      May 2002
      Location
      Northern California
      Posts
      10,715
      Country Flag: Bosnia Herzegovina
      damn did I miss something again?!?! F-it. You know the only thing classifying stuff does is alienate others...I say build it the way you like and if it can handle an weekend afternoon of thrashing via drag strip,road coarse and an auto cross then you fit in. We are all car guys and that should be enough. : ) !!!-
      MrQuick ΜΟΛ'ΩΝ ΛΑΒ'Ε

      https://www.pro-touring.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=4&dateline=1323422564
      Follow us on Facebook

    17. #17
      Join Date
      Jun 2002
      Location
      Long Island, NY
      Posts
      11,320
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by MrQuick
      You know the only thing classifying stuff does is alienate others...
      This is so very true. I should note that my only intentions in writing the above article was to give newbies an idea of what pro-touring was and help to settle disputes such as this. It was never to alienate others, and I tried hard to keep it as vague as possible, while still maintaining some structure.

      I don't think we will ever find the ideal archetype of Pro-touring. The Mule is very close, though. This is a good thing in that it keeps people building new cars with new ideas.

    18. #18
      Join Date
      Dec 2003
      Location
      lost
      Posts
      2,607
      Quote Originally Posted by Steve1969LS1
      So would that apply to 19's as well? Just curious what the cut-off is.. lol
      IMO-yes. Cut-off is 18's, and no time will not evolve the sport enough to accept bling as a performance add-on. Nothing can be done short of making wheels of carbon fiber and tires of single layer fiberglass to justify the added weight of those size rollers.

    19. #19
      Join Date
      Nov 2001
      Location
      Sacramento Ca
      Posts
      6,827
      Country Flag: United States
      it was just a hypithetical situation dennis. Supposing that the car i described was capapble of besting the newer version of itself. even with 20s.

      Like was stated above, what if charley slapped 20s on the mule? would it stop being a pro-touring car then? I think not.
      Tony Langlois
      1966 Corvair Monza

    20. #20
      Join Date
      May 2002
      Location
      Northern California
      Posts
      10,715
      Country Flag: Bosnia Herzegovina
      IMO-yes. Cut-off is 18's, and no time will not evolve the sport enough to accept bling as a performance add-on.
      Thats a pretty closed minded statement, (no disrespect intended)
      The Porsche Carrera GT runs 20's in the rear,the C6 Z06 runs 19's as does the Viper GTS. To say they are not perfomers is a blind assumption. I think it has alot to do with cavman no like fire. Only because he doesn't understand. ; )

      I don't think we will ever find the ideal archetype of Pro-touring. The Mule is very close, though. This is a good thing in that it keeps people building new cars with new ideas.
      Amen brother!
      Last edited by MrQuick; 10-27-2005 at 07:38 PM. Reason: caveman no can spel
      MrQuick ΜΟΛ'ΩΝ ΛΑΒ'Ε

      https://www.pro-touring.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=4&dateline=1323422564
      Follow us on Facebook

    Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast




    Advertise on Pro-Touring.com