PTT Pro Touring Tour

About the only reason I built ahead of schedule was because of the surprise that we needed to cover 800 km on a tank. Even then, I wasn’t fully optimized for the run. (was testing to see if there was any way to get the required mileage, rather than seeing how much power I could get. Even at that, I was doing most of my checks on a spare car and not on the Captain)

With the intent mentioned to cut the distance down from 800 km, I would have run the Captain. Heck, as I’d said a few times, I’d have been willing to eat the penalties for running the car out of gas. Yes, I would have wanted to change the car because suddenly a fuel-efficiency requirement came up that most modern cars couldn’t do, but if that’d been brought down to something more reasonable, I’d have put it in role-play that my rescue van has a carrying tank big enough to hold one gas-tank’s worth of fuel. And I’d probably have made efforts to drive efficiently, if not the fastest between tracks.

Was the Captain optimized for racing? No. It’s a family car at the core, with McPherson struts in the front and semi-trailing arms out back. It’s meant to be comfortable and durable, yet inexpensive. Yes, I changed my engine plans from the V6 to the V8 because with another car, I tried tuning a V6 and found it to be something I need to work on. If this challenge does continue, I will be sticking with my 5 liter DOHC V8, because that is what Storm Automotive is good at: DOHC engines, even when it’s not the right choice to make. Yeah, for an American car company, I should be using OHV, but I didn’t feel it was the right choice on a reliability standpoint.

Again, there were two reasons I built my Pro Touring model ahead of schedule. The first was to see within a rough approximation where my gas mileage would end up, and whether it would pose a problem. The second was so that I could get a rough idea of what I wanted the car to look like. And if this competition continues, then yeah, I’ll complete the build of the Pro Touring car. Right now, it’s at a point where I know kinda what it’s going to look like, but completely unoptimized. And it does awesome burnouts because the tires are too skinny. When we get the rules sheet for what we’re allowed and not allowed to do on the second part of the build, then yeah, I’ll finish it.

Actually there were 3 reasons I did it. The third reason was because I wanted to remind myself that this car is in fact in a challenge. That instead of it just being one of my lineup, it’s one of my lineup with a purpose.

Now, yes, there were lots of questions asked. I think half of that was the fact that people somewhat wanted to know the rules for which we had to build to. That we were given rules for what we were allowed to build (Car of 1975 vintage or older, less than 12000 total cost), but also because some rules from the later half of the challenge were present and causing confusion. Things like finding out we’re limited to +10 quality is fine. Suddenly finding out part-way through a huge debate about gas-tank travel distances that anyone who picked OHV would get +15 engine quality overall, I think it kicked a hornets’ nest without being intended.

Would I have complained about OHV cars getting +15 quality? No. They have so much limitation because of their valvetrain that they’re not going to easily overcome. I picked DOHC because I didn’t want the reliability penalty caused by OHV. If I’d have known that in the later build I could get an extra 5 quality with OHV, would I have switched? No. In my designs, OHV is reserved for really cheap engines that go in little eco-cars that putter about a city, can’t break 80 miles per hour, and get 40 MPG.

Now I understand this is a bit long winded, but my point is, I’m willing to run in this, tiny gas tank and all. My major experiments were done just to see the feasibility of the 800 km gas range, and if it’s cut down to 600 or less, then I’ll be quite fine with it. Someone provided evidence of the longest distances between gas stations, and I’d be willing to go with that plus a little extra (because no one, and I mean no one, checks to make sure their tank is 100% full after a race.) as the accepted range. As for having built my Pro Touring car, the only thing I’ve done that’s of questionable legality is to put a wing on it because I thought it looked better with it. Otherwise, it still has the stock 4 speed manual, a basic limited slip differential, tires that are too skinny for the power it’s making (and it’s not making much), and a stripped interior. Which means, in the end, I’ve got a crap-load of tuning to do once we get the rules list for the Pro Touring cars.

Like madrias I had two cars from the outset, I wanted to build a standard low budget muscle car but I also wanted to try my hand at a Datsun 240z style coupe , so I built both and found that the Datsun had far higher Scores in the market so I went ahead with that design. The original 1966 trim only had a 2.7 straight six with just shy of 200hp it was a fun sporty gt car and I had tuned it for the highest market values, not for the contest. Now yes I did build a fully developed pro stock version, I bored stroked and boosted that old engine up to 3.2 liters and 700 hp I added AWD and spent some time balancing the gearbox and suspension. why? Because I thought it would be cool, fun to do, and I didn’t have another car I liked tuning as much. I built fully thought out trims for that car at 5 year intervals and newer engine variations as needed up to the early 80’s when the body age made it so undesirable that no amount of tuning could get a 80 or better in a market category. I’m still using the engine in other ideas. I made a history for the Cyclone far outside the scope of this contest, but I was fiddling with the pro street the whole time and wondering how I’d want the car to feel and run, by the time the fuel tank question came up I already had the history and the extra trims, I was just trying to keep my costs low and my power at 700 while still dealing with this unexpected twist. It was a fun build challenge to me, make this car to these criteria while staying cheap and not compromising on the power. i’m totally fine with just submitting my 1966 trim for this contest and finding out the rest of the rules at pro stock time, I’m sorry if my enthusiasm has made this a less fun challenge for you.

I would have submitted this car. I originally wanted to use something different but everyone already did and I am not really used to build sedans. Plus I would have finally gotten to use my 3.6L I6.

i.imgur.com/PKynpkbm.png?1

and i made an FF mini cooper-alike car. with only 46hp.

like who the hell built FF race cars?
(aside from nissan and their LMP car)

[quote=“koolkei”]and i made an FF mini cooper-alike car. with only 46hp.

like who the hell built FF race cars?
(aside from nissan and their LMP car)[/quote]

Not counting Touring Car series cars, of course.

I get this completely. That’s going to be a difficult aspect to balance out if there’s any competitiveness to it, which is why in the BSLL I actually integrated various ‘crapness’ factors into the scoring (though the strongest racers still won out in the end).

I want to make sure it’s known that I did not want this competition to stop. I really wanted to compete in it and I built a very targeted car for it as far as the vintage rules were concerned. I had yet to fully build my 2015 version, however I had dropped my updated motor into an updated chassis to get an idea on my prospective horsepower, reliability, and speed. I hadn’t tuned it at all. It wasn’t until we were informed that there was a long distance between fuel stops that I really went to work adjusting my motor and aero to see if there was even a possibility that my Boss Big Block could compete. I really wanted to use that motor because that’s my company’s original flagship engine. I just might have used the old school 302 and dropped my modern flagship 5.0 block into the new car if I was made aware of the fuel restrictions.

I now fully understand that this is about more than racing on a track, and I would have designed a different car if the whole scenario was laid out in front of me. I went into this thinking “retro racer” and I didn’t build a classic car that brings back nostalgic thoughts which was given a new shot at competitiveness by a race tuned engine and suspension. I built a gutted sports car with a monstrous motor that I knew could be tuned to own a track. I’m not entirely sure if my misunderstanding or the clout of rule discrepancies caused that, but it’s irrelevant now.

I think everyone who was commenting on this thread and who have asked specific questions genuinely want to compete in a challenge like this. I want to see this played out and I want to understand fully what the expectations of the challenge should be. I think a clear explanation of what all of the rules are (variations depending on valve train, wheel base, etc.) will be the first step in clearing this up. I also think a very detailed and complete explanation of the story we’re about to embark on will help us design the proper type of car as well as allow us to become fully immersed in the development of this saga as it goes forth.

Hm,mm I am seriously considering to reopen this (3rd is a charm) and have it ALL laid out now that the spirit of the even is a bit more clear

Yes please! You have more than enough interest, and we’re all willing to provide ongoing feedback (before entries are open).

Good, i’ll do it

Don’t forget that a good, clear visual presentation of the rules would help a lot. Use the list tool and bigger letters to make different sections easily distinguishable, for example.

and maybe add a benchmark car from the get go

I rather prefer the vagueness of the rules upfront. Nobody knew in 1975 that in 2015 this car would be used in a “Gumball Rally” type of race. Design it for the times. Then turn around and update it for the rally!

What I mean is, we build a car that would have been present in its given year of production for less than $12,000. Then the race announcement presents us with a set of rules to go by for the challenge set in present day. The only issue I have seen so far is the 800km (497 miles) on a single tank! That’s an awful long way to go for any car. 40+ years ago it was probably damn near impossible with anything but a Euro city car (or the Toyota Corolla I mentioned in an earlier post).

It gets boring sending cars built for pure speed around a track. Mixing it up with non-traditional style racing keeps life exciting!!!

[quote=“07CobaltGirl”]I rather prefer the vagueness of the rules upfront. Nobody knew in 1975 that in 2015 this car would be used in a “Gumball Rally” type of race. Design it for the times. Then turn around and update it for the rally!

What I mean is, we build a car that would have been present in its given year of production for less than $12,000. Then the race announcement presents us with a set of rules to go by for the challenge set in present day. The only issue I have seen so far is the 800km (497 miles) on a single tank! That’s an awful long way to go for any car. 40+ years ago it was probably damn near impossible with anything but a Euro city car (or the Toyota Corolla I mentioned in an earlier post).

It gets boring sending cars built for pure speed around a track. Mixing it up with non-traditional style racing keeps life exciting!!![/quote]

That’s what I aimed for for the most part, like doing some sort of Top Gear challenge the idea was to gather all the participants in the city of Montevideo (the role-play would start there) and give them a week or so to modernize their beaters making them faster and more relaible in the process while being capable of traveling far

PS since you are the track queen i should ask you or anyone else to make some race tracks from Argentina (Buenos Aires and Pampa zone) and chile (any track near Santiago)

In this case, instead of having a badly worded email, I think you should have laid your ideas clear and explained them thoroughly. You should have said “Firstly, you need to make old cars that comply with (insert set of sensible rules here). And then, later, I will reveal the limitations you have for the second part of the challenge”. Had you explained that, and made it clear that the rules would be secret, and hadn’t mentioned how the rules would work for the second part, I reckon that people wouldn’t have gotten angry. And if they were clearly written from the start, I would have taken part in this, but I didn’t want to have to search for the rules and then have to spend more time trying to understand what you were trying to say or trying to imagine what the implications on the future would be.

I will do another round of this once i have all sorted out

[quote=“Manche”]

I will do another round of this once i have all sorted out[/quote]

[size=200]YAY!!![/size]

I’ll be there with a new design I came up with. Nope, it’s not going to be sporty, just something I thought of in the instant of a moment.

Edit: Well, um, this is awkward. Looks like I’ll probably return with the Captain. Found out that sadly, you can’t put a rear-longitudinal engine in a station wagon. Really wanted to, as well.

Edit #2: Ah, found a way to do it with a body style I wasn’t expecting. Not exactly the neatest way to do things, but I did manage to put an engine in the back of a big boxy vehicle. I’ll probably run it because I’ve wanted to do something outright crazy at least once, and this will force me to learn how to make a 2 liter V6 perform.

Edit #3: Scratch that. Worked fine until I saved it and tried to load it afterward. Then it threw up and complained about my cheeky bit of fun with getting a rear-mounted engine working. Looks like it’s back to the drawing board.

I’ll be sure to bring something ludicrously ludicrous!

We’ve seen your work before. It isn’t ludicrously ludicrous if you do it more than once. You’re going to top the previous “ludicrously ludicrous” scale? :smiley: