Pro-Touring Show Cars?

[JohnUlaszek]

I couldn't disagree more about the LSx being a requirement. I love the LS series engines, but you can't beat the sound of an old style small block due to its firing order, and at the end of the day any engine that sounds cool and has at least 300 or so horsepower or less for light cars should be a blast
Heck that 403 olds they ran in PHR this month would kick ass. I don't even see EFI as a requirement, carbs are just as cool when done right.

[Steve1968LS2]

I couldn't disagree more about the LSx being a requirement. I love the LS series engines, but you can't beat the sound of an old style small block due to its firing order, and at the end of the day any engine that sounds cool and has at least 300 or so horsepower or less for light cars should be a blast
Heck that 403 olds they ran in PHR this month would kick ass. I don't even see EFI as a requirement, carbs are just as cool when done right.

Yea, carbs are cool as heck.. the big advantage of LSx engines is the weight. Oh, and EFI is more efficient..



Pro-Touring is more about suspension than engines.. too much hp is actually a waste on most tracks (well, except drag strips ;)

[Bill Howell]

Yea, carbs are cool as heck.. the big advantage of LSx engines is the weight. Oh, and EFI is more efficient..

Pro-Touring is more about suspension than engines.. too much hp is actually a waste on most tracks (well, except drag strips ;)

I think alot of folks go the LS route because that is "the right thing". A typical efi set up is what? Fifteen hundred to two grand more than a carb set up? That money will go a long way towards a nice (not all out, but decent) suspension setup. How many here have fell for the hype that they had to go with a LS and then did not have the coins to spend on their suspension or some other area they had planned to work on?
I hope that as a forum dedicated to pro-touring, we don't run off lurkers and newbies because they think if they can not or will not spend X on a particular part or area of their car, we will not welcome them here. As someone has already said-BALANCE is the key.
I have been around here for awhile now, but after this thread, I feel that my ride will probably not qualify as Pro-Touring. Maybe I need to start a new trend- "Decent-Tourer"
Bottom line, like slownova, I built my malibu suit me, not to be critiqued by someone who will probably never see it in person. It probably will not accel in any one area, but like some other things I can think of, it pleases me just fine and that is what really matters.

[parsonsj]

Gen III isn't a requirement. In fact, I regret going LSx. I'm committed now, but a good ole' small block would have been less money and made just as much power.

I really don't care about emissions or gas mileage. That's why EFI is on newer cars; they don't necessarily make more power. I went LS1 for the aluminum block, not EFI. Now that World Products has a 400+ cid aluminum small block, that's what I'd do if I could do it over.

jp

[Nine Ball]

Bill, sounds like you are labelling the LS1 engine as a fad. I hardly would consider the LS1 a fad engine, since I've been on the forefront of LS1 development and record setting since they came out. The LS1 wasn't always popular when it first came out, there were tons of skeptics out there, and the LT1 guys even hated us. The LS1 has earned its reputation, and proven itself. Why? Because it does just about everything better than a traditional SBC, in terms of street cars.

-much lighter weight
-reusable o-ring type gaskets, better machined surfaces, and less leaks
-easy to work on. Cam swaps in less than an hour - without pulling an intake off.
-big power gains with hardly any sacrifice in drivability or fuel economy
-can be sleeved to a 4.155" bore diameter, and handle a 4.25" stroker crank

If I had to, I'd opt for more engine than suspension anyday.

[JohnUlaszek]

Personally I think the LSX is without a doubt the future. But, the older smallblocks will be around for a long long long time. It's kinda like when we had Dale Sr. and Dale Jr. running together, if you were a Chevy fan it was the coolest damn thing.

[Steve1968LS2]

I think alot of folks go the LS route because that is "the right thing". A typical efi set up is what? Fifteen hundred to two grand more than a carb set up? That money will go a long way towards a nice (not all out, but decent) suspension setup. How many here have fell for the hype that they had to go with a LS and then did not have the coins to spend on their suspension or some other area they had planned to work on?
I hope that as a forum dedicated to pro-touring, we don't run off lurkers and newbies because they think if they can not or will not spend X on a particular part or area of their car, we will not welcome them here. As someone has already said-BALANCE is the key.
I have been around here for awhile now, but after this thread, I feel that my ride will probably not qualify as Pro-Touring. Maybe I need to start a new trend- "Decent-Tourer"
Bottom line, like slownova, I built my malibu suit me, not to be critiqued by someone who will probably never see it in person. It probably will not accel in any one area, but like some other things I can think of, it pleases me just fine and that is what really matters.

Well bill, I don't know.. I got my LS1 and trans from a junk yard for $2800 delivered.. I think that is pretty cheap for the performance you get.. how much is a complete ZZ4 motor with carbs? Heck, I even got exhuast manifolds power steering pump, water pump, starter..

My point is that it is as expensive as you make it.. A pull out LS1 is the cheapest way to go EFI and in many cases it is cheaper than a small block alternative once you add up all the stuff you need. Of course the cheapest route is to rebuild whatever you have.

Like everything in life it's not expensive unless you make it that way

[Nine Ball]

My setup was even cheaper. I bought a complete pull-out long block from a local guy that needed the cash and garage space. I paid $900 for my long block, sold all the Corvette stuff I couldn't use (harness, t-body, engine mounts, alternator, oil pan, fuel rail, LS6 intake, power steering pump, crank pulley, tensioner, etc...) and got about $800 for all that stuff. So, I had a low mileage long block for $100 cash.

Deals come around, you just have to be ready for them!

[Bill Howell]

Bill, sounds like you are labelling the LS1 engine as a fad.

Tony, absolutely not. There is no doubt that LS1 is the future. My concern is people think LSx are the only option to be considered a pro-touring car.There are two types that will not have an LS in their car. The first are those like me who are unwilling/too stupid to convert. My concern is not for them. I worry about the other type. Those who can not afford an LS setup. Those are the ones I fear will feel unwelcomed here if they think Gen III are the only thing considered acceptable. I can remember back in the early 80's when I was too young and dumb to realize that I could have a nice ride even if it was not on par with what I saw in Hot Rod or Car Craft. Back then, I thought $20,000 was all the money in the world and there was no way I would ever be able to spend that kind of money on a toy.

If I had to, I'd opt for more engine than suspension anyday.

That statement shows that you are as passionate about engine performance as Katz is about suspension. Both of you are respected on this board for your knowledge in your area of expertise. Of course you tend to be more on the drag racing side of things where he is more of a road course guy.
The whole point to this post is both of you are great examples of Pro-touring. If I have a question about LSx, you can believe I will ask you since you probably have forgotten more than I will ever know. The same with suspensions and Katz. That is what makes this site so great-knowledge.
I just hate to see us get so hung up on setting perimeters about what we are or have to be.

BTW With all I read about the new LS-6 in the new Z06, I think in a couple years ya'll might just win me over. Don't tell the posse but as soon as the supply can catch up with the demand and I can get a deal, you will probably see me in a (gasp) new Z06 anyway.

[Nine Ball]

Bill, your posts are really going to alienate the MOPAR and Ford guys. I bet they don't want LS1s under their hoods. LOL!

[Bill Howell]

I think that is pretty cheap for the performance you get.. how much is a complete ZZ4 motor with carbs?

I bought a ZZ-4 block and all edlebrock top end and yes it was double what you spent. However, if you read my previous post, I am one of the dumb ones who has a hard time with change. I know the efi is more efficient, and all that too, but I don't know anything about them where I know a good bit about the old stuff. I am too old to teach new tricks. This discussion has been beat to death too though as far as total cost when converting. It's not just the price of the motor.

EDIT:Steve, if you were to part your car out, would you take $2800 (no wait $6000) for the motor and trans? I bet the answer is no. I would guess after the rebuild, you are way north of what I have in my brand new motor. Nothing wrong with that but when looking at options, I think we need real numbers, not what you paid for an engine you then rebuilt. I seriously doubt many just buy a motor and trans at a salvage yard and then install it without at least a few mods.

[Nine Ball]

Sadly, most LS1 swappers think stock 300 rwhp is plenty. I'd venture to say that 90% of the LS1 swappers I've spoken to on Power Tour or at shows think a stock LS1 is the nuts. They often have no idea that a simple cam and header swap would net them another 50-60 easy rwhp.

Steve HAD to modify his engine. He is a moderator on LS1TECH and we would have ragged on him if he had left the engine stock. hehe

[baz67]

Holy crap! How did I miss this? Too busy working I guess. At any rate I will not add anything as it has been beaten to death.

Brian

[baz67]

Holy crap! How did I miss this? Too busy working I guess. At any rate I will not add anything as I could not have said it any better than Mr. Tsubi.

Brian

[Salt Racer]

Ah, I see another fellow member of Society of Performance Snobs chiming in! Maybe I'll have some SPS stickers made

...i guess i don't know alot about cars and im trying to learn. maybe i made a mistake using the rims i did, maybe i didn't, however it is my car and my goals.

Good! I wish you would have said that sooner.
Don't take people's suggestions/comments as negative (at least try not to). Like I said, this is PT.com so many people come here in the interest of improving their cars' performance and many of them are speaking from experience.

Hear them out, and if you still feel you 22" wheels suit better for what you're after, you should go with 22s.

You can laugh at our cars at car shows all you want for having 17s and 18s. In return, we'll laugh at you when you hit a pot hole LOL. Seriously, watch out for curbs and pot holes. Just a friendly advice.

Ok, Since it looks like ths thread will never die, let me open a new part of the equation.

Kats, no doubt you are one of the more vocal members when it comes to suspension and it's role in pro-touring. Denny is another, but I know where he stands on this question.
Does your car have a LS1 or if not is it fuel injected or carb?
What is your opinion about that aspect of the sport?
This is in not way meant to put you on the spot, I am just curious. There are some here that think LSx is a must. While I would love to have one, I know I will probably always stick to the carb. way of doing things. Since your car actually sees the track and you also drive it on trips, I hope you tell me it has a carb.

I too feel an LSx engine, or EFI for that matter, is necessary. I'm not saying that just b/c I have Nailhead with a Holley 750. It gets lousy gas mileage (16mpg on highway), though not terribly bad for a 40-year old engine. I'm in the middle of cam & heads swap right now - hopefully that will boost the mileage to 17~18mpg. The transmission is a 2nd-year TH400, and 3.25:1 posi in a massive Buick 9.38" axle.

Anyway, if anything I'd put more emphasis on the level of tuning whether EFI or carb. Just like I try to preach the importance of tuning suspension.

I have a '69 Nova sitting in my garage. The car served as my DD from June '94 through October '01. It had a 377ci SBC with carb blow-through Procharger backed by Richmond 6sp. The car ran [email protected] at drag strip (as driven on street trim), and routinely got 21mpg on freeway sipping 92-oct gas. On one occasion driving to ocean beach, I got 22.3mpg driving at 55~60mph pace. For not much of an engine guy, I'm pretty handy with Holley carbs.

On the other hand, I bet there are many cars with aftermarket EFI that get less gas mileage than my Nova did due to poor tuning.
I'd rather see a well-tuned carb setup on a PT car than poorly executed EFI setup.

That said, I would like to swap in an LSx engine in my Riviera one of these days. LSx attracts me b/c of their weight and efficient cylinder heads. It's hard to find SBC heads that match LSx heads (flow per port volume).

As for your car not qualifying as a PT car, who cares? My car isn't exactly a PT car. I have no A/C or radio, which some people may feel as requirements. I'd like to put a radio in, but I have no need for A/C. Nothing beats driving through deserted highway in Mojave/Death Valley area in the middle of summer with windows rolled down (that's just me), and I don't need added weight on the nose.

It doesn't matter to me how people classify my car. I just build it the way that makes sense for what I do. Of course, a 2-ton Riv isn't a good choice for road course duties however it does better job at showcasing my ability to design/tune suspension than doing the same thing in a Camaro. And my car has the coolest hideaway headlights known to mankind (OK, so I have some desire for good aesthetics). If someone thinks my car as a PT car, great! If another thinks it as just POS (which I really can't argue back), I'll surprise him on a road course.

[parsonsj]

I just figured something out. First, Steevo's sig: "4 fat tires are better than 2". What does that mean? Motorcycles are more fun than cars? Nope. I finally get it: drag cars have 2 fat tires and 2 skinny ones. Road racing cars have 4 fat tires. That makes them more balanced, right Steve? So 4 fat tires are pro-touring, 2 fat tires aren't.

Damn. That had bugged me for months.

Second, I was generally perplexed about why these definition threads so often got out of hand. People saying things, others arguing. Then name-calling, etc.

I finally figured it out: it's that people are concerned that the definition will leave them out (thanks Dark Buddha ... your post yesterday got my brain going on this).

My take is this: the definition threads are fun to bs over and talk about what makes a car a certain way: A way to give a car a general classification. But that's all they do. Each person gets to decide how much of the group definition they wish to meet. Some will get in all the way. Some won't. I consider it a guideline, or a measuring stick, and only that. Does it influence what I do on my car? Sure. However, I'd like to think that what I'm doing is because its what I want, and not for some arbitrary definition.

So let the definition threads continue. They are fun to think about and write about. They are used to define us collectively. They shouldn't be used to define us individually.

jp

[David Pozzi]

JP,
Thanks for that last post, you hit the nail on the head, we all aren't going to agree on an exact definition because we all don't like the same things.

My car does not have a name, it's just "My Camaro" It will be what I want it to be and probably not fit any of the definitions to a T. It will probably be more of a Street Fighter with no air conditioning, but mainly because I live in a coastal area and have other cars to drive on longer trips on hot summer days. My car will not have a lot of eye candy on it, mainly because I lack the interest to make it that way, not that I don't enjoy cars that look nice. To please me, it has to be fast, but doesn't have to have 900 hp, it has to be BALANCED, I like that term!

My "project" isn't listed on PT.com and I don't have a rendering of it. Maybe I'll list something when there is something that looks interesting enough. I'm not knocking others who have done more planning and concept work, I guess I'm just lazy or very buisy with other things. If I took the hours I spent here and worked on my car instead, I'd have it DONE!

I think the "Pro" in Pro-Touring, or Pro-Street implies high quality of build, - a car that looks like a professional shop like DSE built it. "Touring" implies the car can/should be streetable. The more general we keep the blasted defintion, the more room there is for everyone. We may not achieve the full effect of a "Pro" build, but it's a good goal.