BANGshift.com

Written by Brian Lohnes Nov 23 2009

It would be bitchin' if a car like Herb Adams' Fire-Am and a couple others that were build to turn from way back got to square off against the modern stuff to see how they'd stack up.

Brian

Written by 79TA Nov 22 2009

[quote author=Speedzzter.blogspot link=topic=17015.msg329438#msg329438 date=1258730976]
Nothing.  Just don't expect a 3,500 pound car to out-handle or out brake a well-sorted 2,200 lb sports car that's packing only about six pounds for every horsepower. [/quote]

Nothing?  Good, then there's no need for "pro-wank" type sentiment.  No one was expecting that, so what's your point?  Again, this isn't news to the pt community.  Oddly enough, some cars came very close to doing just that.  While 3500 pounds is terrible in a world of sub 3000 pound track cars, in a world where the new Nissan Z weighs in at  3500 pounds, it doesn't seem so bad.  That and many of the cars weigh closer to 3100-3200. 

[quote author=Speedzzter.blogspot link=topic=17015.msg329438#msg329438 date=1258730976]
While I've never owned a Miata, I certainly respect those folks who autocross and race them.   We've got to look for more "common ground" among automobile enthusiasts.  But that doesn't mean ignoring the laws of physics. [/quote]

Pro-touring builders don't ignore and surely don't defy the laws of physics.  What part of the car not being an all out track car did you not understand?  With people hauling their old muscle cars out to autocrosses, this sort of common ground is more likely to be found than if they had holed up at the drag strip.

[quote author=Speedzzter.blogspot link=topic=17015.msg329438#msg329438 date=1258730976]
F1 car with headlights. ;D   As to a truly competitive car, you've got to read the rules and maximize all areas affecting performance.   A competitive "ultimate street car" in my mind would be as light as reasonably possible, have the minimum amount of "street" equipment necessary to be event legal, have  low polar moment of inertia,  provide near race car levels of grip from huge, soft tires spread out over a reasonably wide track and have proper suspension geometry, have the most aggressive heat dissipating brakes possible,  be easily adjustable, and have a minimum of useless, money-wasting bling.   WAIT!  That sounds a lot like a POWERED BY FORD VINTAGE-STYLE COBRA! [/quote]

Fortunately, since this is a young event, there aren't yet people building cars specifically to win this single event.  A car on the bleeding edge of the rules and streetability really isn't within the spirit of the event.  Events are fun until the rule-bending pricks come in and ruin the point of it all.  As you know, this results in expensive builds (as if SEMA builds weren't expensive enough) and impractical cars.  No one wants to see this event end up looking like a road race form of the NHRA pro stock class.  Well, at least I don't.  Some of the most fun in pro-touring is exceeding people's expectations.  Too often people will write off a street driven muscle car as any kind of serious contender. 

[quote author=Speedzzter.blogspot link=topic=17015.msg329438#msg329438 date=1258730976]
Is it really a street car if you're trailering it?   Anticipating your response,  is it really reasonable to drive a $500,000 one-owner aluminum-bodied vintage Cobra on the mean streets? [/quote]

I'm just saying, you don't seem to see any point in tracking a car that's not going for the outright win.  You even talked down class racing by saying muscle cars would need their own set of rules to win anything, as if it wasn't as real of a win.  And I'm glad you see my point about the Cobra.  With about 10k on the odometer after 43 years of ownership, it's safe to say it's not as much of a street driven car.  I don't blame the owner for that either.  Even if he did want to drive it on the street, it is obviously is sacrificing a ton of comfort and livability that would be had in the other pro-touring cars. 

[quote author=Speedzzter.blogspot link=topic=17015.msg329438#msg329438 date=1258730976]
I certainly hope Mustangs (new and old) dominate AI and AIX until the end of time.  But I suspect that somebody will figure out how to diet those "Brand X" "Guv-ment" Pony Cars enough to race them NASA-style.  [/quote]

I'm sure they'll get raced, just not in any sort of terribly competitive manner.  3rd and 4th gen Camaros will likely always hand the 5th gens their lunch in AI and AIX. 

[quote author=Speedzzter.blogspot link=topic=17015.msg329438#msg329438 date=1258730976]
Now that seems to contradict the "no handicap needed" point, at least in spirit.   The Cobra was "less of a street car" so its victory is tainted.  That's ex post facto handicapping.   A better and more fair solution would be to have a class structure and a road driving component, similar to Hot Rod Magazine's Drag Week (tm) [/quote]

Except it doesn't.  The results speak for themselves.  Look at the road course times.  Look at the autocross times.  The Cobra owned the day, but not by nearly as much as you'd expect.  One would think it could put a little more ground between itself and a'73 Camaro on leaf springs in the autocross (Mary Pozzi on page 2 of the results.)  You already conceded my point about the Cobra being less of a street car.  That's not meant to take anything away from the legitimacy of its victory.  Is the victory less surprising?  Absolutely.  Less legitimate?  Absolutely not. 

A road driving component may or may not become part of this event in the future.  At this point, I don't suspect any of the cars competing would have any trouble with such a drive.  Also, a roadcourse and autox based car isn't going to have the same problems on the street that an extreme drag car might.  Forget the class system.  Run watcha brung and have fun.  If one needs a class to win to help one's ego, the attitude isn't right for this type of fun event. 

[quote author=Speedzzter.blogspot link=topic=17015.msg329438#msg329438 date=1258730976]
That's good.  But a "thinly veiled rule-exploiting race car" should win everytime.   [/quote]

Yea, that's pretty apparent. 

[quote author=Speedzzter.blogspot link=topic=17015.msg329438#msg329438 date=1258730976]
What does that really mean?  How close do you have to run to the winning Cobra to "be a factor?"  And were any of the late model cars optimized to take full advantage of the rules?  [/quote]

Forget how close they were to the Cobra, look at the pro-touring cars they were trailing.  None were in contention for the win in any dynamic category.  That is, had the Cobra not been running, none of the modern cars were lapping quickly enough for one to expect them to have a shot at the top spot.  And yes, the modern cars came armed with appropriate rubber. 

[quote author=Speedzzter.blogspot link=topic=17015.msg329438#msg329438 date=1258730976]
Who suggested that pro-touring cars were in any way "unfair" to production Mustangs? [/quote]

"Moreover, the average OUSCI car ought to be a lot more "edgy" and "sorted" than a mass-produced Pony Car. "

^ Whoever said that.   ::)



[quote author=Speedzzter.blogspot link=topic=17015.msg329438#msg329438 date=1258730976]
But then no pro-touring car has to put up with the compromises necessary to stay together during the factory warranty period, avoid products liability lawsuits, be totally forgiving in the hands of ham-fisted "appliance motorists," have anvil-like 365-day-a-year all-weather reliability, etc.  [/quote]

Yea, that's true.  Maybe that has something to do with them not having the tremendous resources behind them that a production car does.  Nevertheless, that doesn't prevent people from roadtripping in their pro-touring cars. 

[quote author=Speedzzter.blogspot link=topic=17015.msg329438#msg329438 date=1258730976]
Other than possibly aerodynamics, I'm not sure that's true.  What I do know is that it will take a LOT more work and money to eliminate the compromises of vintage designs.   I'm fully in favor of folks attempting it.  But they should not delude themselves that the end result will have a larger performance envelope than the same time and effort invested in a lighter sports car.
[/quote]

One might also add that old structures weren't designed with harmonic frequencies in mind, atleast not to the extent of any modern car.  So you're fully in favor of people attempting it.  Good.  I'll keep that in mind should you be tempted to call the trend "pro-wank" again.  I agree, no one should delude themselves in such a way, and so far, I haven't met anyone who has.  I'm not sure what your issue is here. 


[quote author=Speedzzter.blogspot link=topic=17015.msg329438#msg329438 date=1258730976]
I'm not smug about anything . . . other than perhaps a POWERED BY FORD COBRA won the whole shebang.  [/quote]

Yay for Cobras.  Boo for arguing as if the pro-touring crowd routinely overrates their own cars.  Pro-touring builders don't live in a bubble and actually drive *gasp* other types of cars sometimes. 

[quote author=Speedzzter.blogspot link=topic=17015.msg329438#msg329438 date=1258730976]
Well isn't objective testing what it all comes down to.  Certainly a well-funded GM engineer (Steilow) ought to be ashamed if he couldn't build a car that would outrun a ZR-1. And the results from the various Camaros cited are impressive.  But the bottom line is that a "thinly veiled FORD race car" from the 1960s won it all. [/quote]

Is that the bottom line?  I understand a win is a win.  Winning by a hair, a second, or a mile are entirely different.  Just look through the results and notice how well the pro-touring cars represented themselves.

[quote author=Speedzzter.blogspot link=topic=17015.msg329438#msg329438 date=1258730976]
Why do you assume I haven't? [/quote]

- because you seem to always talking about them as if they overrate their cars with unrealistic expectations.  I've experienced nothing but the opposite. 

[quote author=Speedzzter.blogspot link=topic=17015.msg329438#msg329438 date=1258730976]
But probably for every quality, results-oriented Steilow or DSE build, there are 10 "faux touring" posers with huge "dubs" affixed to a floppy, antique, unsorted suspension, mountains of useless "boy racer" bling, and packed with heavy audio equipment and other non-performance luxuries.  In other words, late model "street rods."   These are the cars that discredit the "pro wank" movement.  [/quote]

First, those cars are obnoxious.  One of my pet peeves in that trend is drilled rotors which are absolutely useless (go slotted or don't bother.)  Secondly, not all cars with large wheels are trying to be pro-touring (even if pro-touring is in large part responsible for the wheel trend.)  If you want to be technical about your statement, a dub is a 20" or larger wheel, and thankfully, most of that crowd has little to no pretentions about handling or racing.  I hope you don't hate people who move up to a 17" wheel.  It's pretty much necessary in order to get any kind of decent rubber on one's car.  And that gets to my point; every trend has its posers for different reasons.  Why hate on pro-touring specifically? 

For every one of the hardcore builds you mention, there are countless cars like Schtauffer's.  Are Schtauffer, rebeldryver, and myself pro-wanks for throwing our cars through some corners even though we haven't done full builds?  Should you just assume that we think of our cars as the greatest track machines ever?  I'm assuming your answer is no, but realize that that is what low buck pro-touring is all about.  One's car doesn't need to be "finished" (can a car really ever be finished?) in order to have some fun with it.  Hopefully you don't confuse such cars for posers or assume that their owners have unrealistic expectations. 

While I was expecting to see many cars at the event expose themselves as high dollar fakes, that was really not the case.  Instead, most of those who showed up proved that they had a reason to be there.  I was impressed by the depth of the field.

[quote author=Speedzzter.blogspot link=topic=17015.msg329438#msg329438 date=1258730976]
Why be so defensive about it?  I've not seen a huge backlash against "muscle cars that handle."  And most of the "smugness" seems to come from the faux touring segment of the hobby.  I suggest we all just get along.  ;)
[/quote]

I've not seen a backlash against muscle cars that handle either . . . until this thread.  Go figure.  I'd say most of the smugness comes from anyone who arbitrarily bashes on an entire trend. 

Written by dagenesta Nov 20 2009

17x8 w/ 245/45 BFG KDW front, 18x10 w/ 275/40 rear.  The car is very balanced with them, though it does get a little loose on exit.

Pushes like a mother when I bolt the 15x5 Welds on the front.  :D

Written by Speedzzter.blogspot Nov 20 2009

Schtauffer, it sounds like your having lots of fun and you've got no illusions about what you've got.  Other than dumping the airshocks for for some new Konis or Bilsteins or something else, and running late-model spindles to improve the camber curve, why not just leave it alone and have fun?

BTW, how big are those wheels?  Repeated testing has shown that wheels larger in diameter than ~ 17-18 inches tend to hurt performance because of weight.  20s and larger wheels are just a fashion statement.

Written by dagenesta Nov 20 2009

As an owner of a muscle car with big wheels but not a lot of suspension work, I'd like to weigh in here.

My '67 Malibu has the factory control arms in the front with 2" Hotchkis drop springs, used shocks donated by Monk, a slightly sloppy 12.5:1 GM steering box, and an 1 1/4" sway bar from a '78 Firebird.  The rear control arms are factory pieces that have boxed, the springs are 1" Hotchkis drop, a factory sway bar is in place, and the shocks are.... air shocks.  As in skyjacker air shocks from the 70's.  In other words, the car shouldn't handle all that terribly well.

It is true that the driver makes a ton of difference.  At the Pocono GG Xcross there was a guy with the full Ridetech package in his 67 Chevelle; my car was several seconds quicker.  When another guy drove the car, it then went almost 2 seconds quicker than mine.  ;D  I felt bad for the owner of the car; he was a super nice guy, he just wasn't real quick behind the wheel.  He was surprised to find that my car is basically stock-suspended.  He thought for sure I had some custom-built deal.  ;D  I think the poor fellow became of aware of his skill behind the wheel a little.  No worries, being a good driver doesn' make anyone a better person.

Still, my car with minimal suspension work placed third in my class.  Furthermore, it was about 3-4 seconds slower than the vendor cars, and about 8-10 seconds quicker than the stock musclecars that were making laps.

It was the most fun I had with my car this year.  Cruising Woodward was cool (and the 1200 mile road trip to get there and back), but there's nothing like steering, gassing on it, and braking hard.

Would I like it to handle better and run with the big dogs?  Sure!  Will I put a real suspension in it at some point?  I hope to, someday.... But for now, the car is what I want it to be-- a heck of a lot better than stock.  It's just... fun.  Even if it weighs 3400 lbs.

Written by Speedzzter.blogspot Nov 20 2009

[quote author=79TA link=topic=17015.msg329346#msg329346 date=1258707597]
So what's wrong with making a muscle car turn?
[/quote]
Nothing.  Just don't expect a 3,500 pound car to out-handle or out brake a well-sorted 2,200 lb sports car that's packing only about six pounds for every horsepower.

[Quote]   Saying your car turns better than it runs the 1/4 mile is really only saying something if it runs quickly in a straight line (not that I don't respect spec Miatas and whatnot) [/quote]  While I've never owned a Miata, I certainly respect those folks who autocross and race them.   We've got to look for more "common ground" among automobile enthusiasts.  But that doesn't mean ignoring the laws of physics.

[quote] Inherently uncompetitive.  Right.  So what is competitive?  Modern cars?  Purpose built race cars? 
[/quote]  F1 car with headlights. ;D   As to a truly competitive car, you've got to read the rules and maximize all areas affecting performance.   A competitive "ultimate street car" in my mind would be as light as reasonably possible, have the minimum amount of "street" equipment necessary to be event legal, have  low polar moment of inertia,  provide near race car levels of grip from huge, soft tires spread out over a reasonably wide track and have proper suspension geometry, have the most aggressive heat dissipating brakes possible,  be easily adjustable, and have a minimum of useless, money-wasting bling.   WAIT!  That sounds a lot like a POWERED BY FORD VINTAGE-STYLE COBRA!

[quote] If speed is the only objective, I hope you trailer a Radical SR8 or something else absolutely insane to the track, because anything else would just be a waste of your time since you couldn't win overall. [/quote]
Is it really a street car if you're trailering it?   Anticipating your response,  is it really reasonable to drive a $500,000 one-owner aluminum-bodied vintage Cobra on the mean streets?

[quote] If you want to talk weight and weight alone, that's actually an advantage for older muscle cars over the new ones.  Somehow I don't think the '10+ Camaros and '08+ Challengers will ever be really popular in the American Iron Series (a NASA series)[/quote]  I certainly hope Mustangs (new and old) dominate AI and AIX until the end of time.  But I suspect that somebody will figure out how to diet those "Brand X" "Guv-ment" Pony Cars enough to race them NASA-style. 

[quote]In this particular event, the pro-touring cars needed no handicap.  None of the modern cars were at all in contention for the win in any dynamic event.  And yes, this is the Ultimate STREET Car Invitational.  Of course something purpose built is going to have an advantage.  The Cobra, though legal and perfectly legitimate, was certainly less of a street car than the many of the others.  [/quote]  Now that seems to contradict the "no handicap needed" point, at least in spirit.   The Cobra was "less of a street car" so its victory is tainted.  That's ex post facto handicapping.   A better and more fair solution would be to have a class structure and a road driving component, similar to Hot Rod Magazine's Drag Week (tm)

[Quote] Some people actually drove their cars all the way to the event, 4 of which drove over 2000 miles one way.  Such is the beauty of pro-touring: a track capable and reliable car that still has good styling and soul.  [/quote]

That's good.  But a "thinly veiled rule-exploiting race car" should win everytime. 

[quote] If you people would just look at the results, you can see how modified '10 Mustangs performed.  They weren't a factor.  [/quote]  What does that really mean?  How close do you have to run to the winning Cobra to "be a factor?"  And were any of the late model cars optimized to take full advantage of the rules?

[quote]The idea of a pro-touring car being well-sorted or somehow unfair to a production Mustang is just plain wrong in some cases. [/quote] Who suggested that pro-touring cars were in any way "unfair" to production Mustangs?

[quote]  Some are sorted and well-driven.  Others are not.  At all.  Some are really only marketing tools.  Some are new builds that have barely had time to let the paint dry.  Some are not even pricey.  None of these pro-touring cars have the kind of resources behind them that a modern production car has. [/quote]  But then no pro-touring car has to put up with the compromises necessary to stay together during the factory warranty period, avoid products liability lawsuits, be totally forgiving in the hands of ham-fisted "appliance motorists," have anvil-like 365-day-a-year all-weather reliability, etc. 

[quote] There will always be more compromised (in terms of comfort and safety etc) in an older car to acheive a certain level of performance than in a newer car.  [/quote]  Other than possibly aerodynamics, I'm not sure that's true.  What I do know is that it will take a LOT more work and money to eliminate the compromises of vintage designs.   I'm fully in favor of folks attempting it.  But they should not delude themselves that the end result will have a larger performance envelope than the same time and effort invested in a lighter sports car.

[quote] This isn't news to any of the pro-touring builders, so I'm really wondering what you're so smug about. [/quote] I'm not smug about anything . . . other than perhaps a POWERED BY FORD COBRA won the whole shebang. 

[quote] And despite all of this, the results speak for themselves.  The pro-touring cars were among the fastest cars in all the dynamic events.  Jackass, the 1969 Steilow built and LS9 powered Camaro was outrunning the ZR-1 chase car.  That was not the quickest pro-touring car there.  The '69 DSE Camaro was only about a second off of the Cobra's time.  The 1970 DSE Camaro is usually quicker than the '69, but it ran KDW's, a less aggressive tire, for this event.  Even so, the '70 DSE Camaro ran a 1:53.0 while the Granatelli GT-R with more aggressive rubber ran a 1:52.9. [/quote]

Well isn't objective testing what it all comes down to.  Certainly a well-funded GM engineer (Steilow) ought to be ashamed if he couldn't build a car that would outrun a ZR-1. And the results from the various Camaros cited are impressive.  But the bottom line is that a "thinly veiled FORD race car" from the 1960s won it all.

[quote] If you were to actually meet a pro-touring enthusiast . . . [/quote] Why do you assume I haven't?

[quote], you'd find they're like any other reasonable hot rodder.  They just want their muscle car to turn adequately.  There are posers, but that's true for any type of car build.  Just look back to the '60's when kids would put big block air cleaners on small blocks in an attempt to hide what was really under the hood.  In many cases, it's not even posing, but rather an incomplete build limited by the common man's budget.  [/quote]

But probably for every quality, results-oriented Steilow or DSE build, there are 10 "faux touring" posers with huge "dubs" affixed to a floppy, antique, unsorted suspension, mountains of useless "boy racer" bling, and packed with heavy audio equipment and other non-performance luxuries.  In other words, late model "street rods."   These are the cars that discredit the "pro wank" movement. 

Why be so defensive about it?  I've not seen a huge backlash against "muscle cars that handle."  And most of the "smugness" seems to come from the faux touring segment of the hobby.  I suggest we all just get along.  ;)

Written by Brian Lohnes Nov 20 2009

[quote author=79TA link=topic=17015.msg329346#msg329346 date=1258707597]
If you were to actually meet a pro-touring enthusiast, you'd find they're like any other reasonable hot rodder.  They just want their muscle car to turn adequately.  There are posers, but that's true for any type of car build.  Just look back to the '60's when kids would put big block air cleaners on small blocks in an attempt to hide what was really under the hood.  In many cases, it's not even posing, but rather an incomplete build limited by the common man's budget. 
[/quote]

79 -- great points all the way through. I found this last paragraph to be compelling as well. I wish I could have been up at the event but I had already locked down my ticket home before Chad found out he was announcing the deal.

I agree 100% about what you're saying with respect to the dedicated vintage iron/pro-touring enthusiasts. Not really a lot of difference mentally from the drag strip guys, or any other dedicated genre of hot rodding/car crafting. It's about making it faster and better, nothing wrong with that.

I think there was early vitriol towards the pro touring stuff in the enthusiast media and some of it is clearly lingering. The companies that are manfacturing quality components and parts to make old cars do amazing things are lightyears ahead of where they were even five to 10 years ago. It's no longer about a car with "stiff springs" and huge wheels. The evolution of the engineering has reach a point where these cars, even the old tanks, can hang with some of the best supercars the world has to offer.

Brian

Written by 79TA Nov 20 2009

So what's wrong with making a muscle car turn?  You're on this forum, so I assume you have some kind of interest in old cars.  Why not make them turn?  No one said they were out to build the world's fastest track car.  If that's all anyone ever meant to do, production car racing would not exist.  Saying your car turns better than it runs the 1/4 mile is really only saying something if it runs quickly in a straight line (not that I don't respect spec Miatas and whatnot)


Inherently uncompetitive.  Right.  So what is competitive?  Modern cars?  Purpose built race cars?  If speed is the only objective, I hope you trailer a Radical SR8 or something else absolutely insane to the track, because anything else would just be a waste of your time since you couldn't win overall.  If you want to talk weight and weight alone, that's actually an advantage for older muscle cars over the new ones.  Somehow I don't think the '10+ Camaros and '08+ Challengers will ever be really popular in the American Iron Series (a NASA series)


In this particular event, the pro-touring cars needed no handicap.  None of the modern cars were at all in contention for the win in any dynamic event.  And yes, this is the Ultimate STREET Car Invitational.  Of course something purpose built is going to have an advantage.  The Cobra, though legal and perfectly legitimate, was certainly less of a street car than the many of the others.  Some people actually drove their cars all the way to the event, 4 of which drove over 2000 miles one way.  Such is the beauty of pro-touring: a track capable and reliable car that still has good styling and soul. 

*insert conversation about the differences between an honest street car vs a thinly veiled rule-exploiting race car with references to pro-stock drag racing competitions*


If you people would just look at the results, you can see how modified '10 Mustangs performed.  They weren't a factor.  Here's a description of one of them:

http://www.classicdesignconcepts.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=109&Itemid=1

The other was the Flowmaster Mustang as given away by the Powerblock TV show, Musclecar

Here's the direct link to the results PDF, which judging by some of the comments, some of you weren't ambitious enough to find through my previous link. 

http://www.optimainvitational.com/media/results.pdf



The idea of a pro-touring car being well-sorted or somehow unfair to a production Mustang is just plain wrong in some cases.  Some are sorted and well-driven.  Others are not.  At all.  Some are really only marketing tools.  Some are new builds that have barely had time to let the paint dry.  Some are not even pricey.  None of these pro-touring cars have the kind of resources behind them that a modern production car has.  There will always be more compromised (in terms of comfort and safety etc) in an older car to acheive a certain level of performance than in a newer car.  This isn't news to any of the pro-touring builders, so I'm really wondering what you're so smug about. 

And despite all of this, the results speak for themselves.  The pro-touring cars were among the fastest cars in all the dynamic events.  Jackass, the 1969 Steilow built and LS9 powered Camaro was outrunning the ZR-1 chase car.  That was not the quickest pro-touring car there.  The '69 DSE Camaro was only about a second off of the Cobra's time.  The 1970 DSE Camaro is usually quicker than the '69, but it ran KDW's, a less aggressive tire, for this event.  Even so, the '70 DSE Camaro ran a 1:53.0 while the Granatelli GT-R with more aggressive rubber ran a 1:52.9.  (and no, that's not because the GT-R was poorly driven.  How do I know this?  Maybe it's because I was there.)


If you were to actually meet a pro-touring enthusiast, you'd find they're like any other reasonable hot rodder.  They just want their muscle car to turn adequately.  There are posers, but that's true for any type of car build.  Just look back to the '60's when kids would put big block air cleaners on small blocks in an attempt to hide what was really under the hood.  In many cases, it's not even posing, but rather an incomplete build limited by the common man's budget. 

Written by Speedzzter.blogspot Nov 18 2009

Sorry my comments were irritating. 

I'm not down on the whole Pro-Touring idea at all.  I shot a lot of photos (mostly bad because of a camera equipment problem) of the 2009 Optima Ultimate Street Cars.  And I'm quite familiar with the "twisty" worlds of open track, NASA, SCCA, vintage racing, time attack and autocross. And I've got a car or two that better at handling than the 1320.

On the other hand, if you're going to a competition and you intend to win it,  doesn't make much sense to start out with a vehicle that's inherently uncompetitive.  Giving up 1000 pounds in a handling and start-stop competition makes about as much sense as entering a 300-pound jogger in a marathon.

If it's just for fun and exhibition, however, then build whatever strikes your fancy.

If these sorts of events catch on(which I don't really expect), somebody will devise a handicap or "bracket" system so that the "American Iron" and the more luxurious, street-oriented cars can snag a little glory.

[quote author=mike343sharpstick link=topic=17015.msg327669#msg327669 date=1258499679]
Competitions like this will legitimize the the Pro-Touring movement and I hope these sorts of things continue and grow.
Also, I would like to see comparisons in lap times of the Pro Touring cars present to say a new, stock 3,800 lb 2010 mustang GT?
[/quote]

It might be closer than a lot of folks think with a "Track Pack" Mustang GT, notwithstanding that most of the OUSCI cars I saw at SEMA would have a significant power-to-weight advantage.  Moreover, the average OUSCI car ought to be a lot more "edgy" and "sorted" than a mass-produced Pony Car.

Written by 79TA Nov 18 2009

Win a Goodguys autocross and you'll be invited . . . but that means you have to beat me  ;D . . . and more importantly the likes of Mary Pozzi, the One Lap Camaro, and Bad Penny.  Maybe get some KDW's or Kumho Ecsta XS's and see how much more your Impala sticks. 





[quote author=Speedzzter.blogspot link=topic=17015.msg327547#msg327547 date=1258486807]
Almost 45 years later and Powered by Ford Cobras are still laying waste to the Chevrolets!

Well said!  Pro Wank . . . uh . . . Pro Touring is often too much about "boy racer" stylin' over actual performance.   Appearance is not factored into the results of a drag racing competition. So why should they be a factor in other forms of vehicle dynamics competition?
[/quote]



I don't understand the pro-touring hate . . . faux touring and arbitrarily large wheels are annoying but not representative of the pro-touring community.  You should know that the Cobra, while it was the real deal, was very much modified, not unlike any other pro-touring car. 


While I find myself moaning about the styling section, your response has me defending it.  The event is tied to SEMA.  It caters to the aftermarket suppliers so things are encouraged to look modified just for the sake of looking non-stock.  Again, the event is tied to SEMA, no revelations there.  There are other events, just go to an autocross or NASA or SCCA driving event. 



[quote author=Speedzzter.blogspot link=topic=17015.msg327547#msg327547 date=1258486807]
There should now be some disappointed Pro Touring car owners with a new understanding of concepts like power-to-weight, weight distribution, center of gravity, roll axis, and polar moment of inertia. "
[/quote]



Really?  No one was so utterly surprised.  It's also idiotic to think that most pro-touring folks don't understand the limitations of their cars.  You pretty much listed things a pro-touring build addresses and improves.  I guess it'd just be better to have a muscle car that only really works well when going straight?