Grand Touring Cars

[LosAngeles]

Usually front-engine 2+2s, fastback or notchback, meaty engine, nice long hood, packed with creature comforts and bang for the buck. Pure style, absolute driving pleasure. The ultimate true personal car. A grown man's sports car in every respect.





The great GM V-8 powered Bitter SC

Not to be confused with the Ferrari 400i

[Flybrian]

That dropped SC looks like crap. They're quite slick unmodded.

[pow]

I love GTs, but heh, calling a Toyota Supra one kinda dilutes and kills the it. That's more of a sports car.

[LosAngeles]

I love GTs, but heh, calling a Toyota Supra one kinda dilutes and kills the it. That's more of a sports car.

[post="11195"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

You ever live with one long enough, it's definitely a GT (I had and loved an '82)....it can be both, but when thought of beyond the context of drag ricing, Supras are as grand touring as they come.

Plus you have pricks saying that the current GTO or an F-body can't be GTs because we like to call anything American with a V-8 and sportiness a "musclecar," which is kind of a derogatory term IMO. Edited September 8, 2005 by LosAngeles

[Variance]

*Homer Simpson drooling sound*

[razoredge]

GT = highly open to interpretation, conception, perversion, and who knows what other corruption. Im not sure where it began first. But the various 250, 275 and 330 GT_ Ferraris are and always will be my favorite. Its admitted that even at this time Ferrari put GT initials many various types of cars. Im not sure how much water the GT thing holds but I guess we all get the drift. Its not the plain jane model. However - I didnt know you could get GT Riceroni.

[LosAngeles]

Lotus Excel:


Edited September 8, 2005 by LosAngeles

[LosAngeles]

Aston Martin Virage Vantage

Edited September 8, 2005 by LosAngeles

[thegriffon]

Mustangs, Supras, F-bodies, 928 etc are generally considered too small to be true grand tourers. So is the Aston Martin really. The late Soarer coupe and the Jaguar XK8 are bigger, but rear seat legroom and trunk capacity are marginal. Grand tourers aren't really sports cars either, but "big" coupes for fast, long distance cruising. They need large trunks and ideally a back seat large enough to be comfortable for several hours. The abbreviation "GT" has been applied more widely to smaller coupes and 2-seat sports cars such as those used in long-distance "touring car" races, where speed and endurance were far more important than the practical requirements of llong-distance travel. Current "grand tourers" include the GTO, BMW 6-series, Ferrari 612, Bristol Blenheim, Bentley Continental GT, and Mercedes CL-Class. Classic grand tourers would include the the big Ferraris such as the 356GT and 456GT, Virage, Eldorado, and American muscle cars such as the Challenger, Monte Carlo and Riviera. Edited September 8, 2005 by thegriffon

[Turbojett]

F-bodies, Mustangs, GTOs, and Supras are not GT cars. They are Muscle cars.

some of my favorites.





(token X-246. Corvette's don't really count, but XLR's do!)

Edited September 8, 2005 by Turbojett

[ocnblu]

Porsche Cayman is hot.

[LosAngeles]

Mustangs, Supras, F-bodies, 928 etc are generally considered too small to be true grand tourers. So is the Aston Martin really. The late Soarer coupe and the Jaguar XK8 are bigger, but rear seat legroom and trunk capacity are marginal.

WHAT?!?

Grand tourers aren't really sports cars either, but "big" coupes for fast, long distance cruising. They need large trunks and ideally a back seat large enough to be comfortable for several hours. The abbreviation "GT" has been applied more widely to smaller coupes and 2-seat sports cars such as those used in long-distance "touring car" races, where speed and endurance were far more important than the practical requirements of llong-distance travel.

Current "grand tourers" include the GTO, BMW 6-series, Ferrari 612, Bristol Blenheim, Bentley Continental GT, and Mercedes CL-Class.

Classic grand tourers would include the the big Ferraris such as the 356GT and 456GT, Virage, Eldorado, and American muscle cars such as the Challenger, Monte Carlo and Riviera.

[post="11209"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Oh, come on....Monte Carlo, Riviera, Eldorado, CL? Those aren't GTs of any kind, they're personal luxury cars.

A Challenger is a GT, but F-body and Mustang, the cars that inspired it, are not?

My definition of grand tourer may be as skewed as the at-large view that a coupe is a two-door car. But to say that cars as monstrous as Monte Carlos are GTs, one may as well call a Camry a sports car.

F-bodies, as long as later version were, are too small? They're longer than Soarer, XK8, and XJS. While I'll admit that F-bodies and Mustangs are pretty low-tech, just because a car is embraced by the boy-racer crowd doesn't take away its GT status. Same with Supra and 928.

To me, if it's a 2+2 with a grown man's engine and a laid-back feel, it's definitely a GT. The back seat, by and large is window dressing, but if it wasn't there, it would take away from the car.

Disliking Toyota, thinking Chevy and Pontiac can only make muscle cars, and prices under 40K don't take away from a car being a grand tourer either.

And to Turbojett, 2-seaters, 4-doors, and cars that aren't front-engine don't count IMO. Edited September 8, 2005 by LosAngeles

[Turbojett]

Challengers and Cudas are mucle cars too.Eldos, Montes and Rivieras aren;t GT's either because they're just there as personal luxury coupes. They aren't particularly sporting at all. And I consider a GT to be an expensive car that has performance and luxury on the same plane. A car that can hit insane speeds without breaking a sweat, yet has a well-apportioned interior, and maybe an accomodationg trunk, no matter how many people they seat, how many doors they have, or where the engine is located. That's why I consider all the V12-engined Ferraris, the Porsches, and the Quattroporte to be GT cars. If you asked any of the manufacturers of these cars, they'd probably tell you the same thing. Edited September 8, 2005 by Turbojett

[razoredge]

You guys are nuts and got it all screw up and out of proportions. Porsche 911 and all its varients have always been a GT car. In fact they have dominated GT class racing for "ever" and will continue to do so. I might be strange but I know the 911 is a small car. Its also rear engined RWD and at one time was air cooled - oh my god! I think its a bad topic because GT is so open to interpretation. American GT cars were way different from European GT cars and still are. Size meant nothing just going by that. Nyther did rear seat leg room or even if it had a rear seat. Cripes some of the tiny Italian cars like ASA and Abarth were GT cars. Its a bad topic, doomed from inception because there is no true defination or discreption of GT car. It seems to just mean that touring in it is grand if its the car of your desires.

[HarleyEarl]

The 'GT' label has been so watered down now, nobody knows anymore what it means. Probably the most abused label for a car. I like FIA's definitioin: FIA Grand Touring Car definition 'An open or closed automobile which has no more than one door on each side and a minimum of two seats situated one on each side of the longitudinal centre line of the car; these two seats must be crossed by the same transversal plane. This car must be able to be used perfectly legally on the open road, and adapted for racing on circuits or closed courses'.

[razoredge]

Once again heres a picture of the 57 250 GT California, a two seat convertable, and what constitutes a dash/interior to get excited about :P I think these GT Ferraris pre date any GT term used in America or riceville ( does rice really come in GT flavor :P )

heres a 66 275 GTS....convertable

66 330 GTC

the popular 67 275 GTB


In Ferrari terminology
S=Spyder
C=Coupe
B=Berlinetta
GT=??????

and various other "greek" terminology.

I really think its a bad topic because of the interpretation thing.

Edited September 8, 2005 by razoredge

[HarleyEarl]

Razor, those are proper GTs.....and probably able to race as they came from the factory.

[Flybrian]

FIA Grand Touring Car definition
'An open or closed automobile which has no more than one door on each side and a minimum of two seats situated one on each side of the longitudinal centre line of the car; these two seats must be crossed by the same transversal plane. This car must be able to be used perfectly legally on the open road, and adapted for racing on circuits or closed courses'.

[post="11471"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

By that definition, everything from an Echo to an Eldorado is a Grand Touring Car.

[razoredge]

Exactly - sort of Bri, however ? Thanks for that defination Harley, that sounds right. It means a car is race bred but road legal. Not your average Cutlass Ciera Cruiser ;-) And American GT or GS or SS or RS or GTX or GTO ect.ect.ect were GT cars because they could go do the demanding big 1/4 miler on Sundays ;-) Its a bad topic, Im tellin ya :-)

[HarleyEarl]

You are right Razor, it will be an uphill battle. Just say no. Don't go there. Most people now have an image of GT as something that is sporty or has a sporty image. It really has lost all meaning. Razor, just say no lol. Edited September 8, 2005 by HarleyEarl

[razoredge]

Hows about another of my all time favorite cars and moments in time

The finish of the 1966 LeMans with a 1-2-3 Ford GT40 MkII
2 seats, mid engined, needed to be seriously detuned and modified to be road worthy ( I watched this on Wide World of Sports at age 8 and will never forget it)


OK no more questions about what constitutes a GT car.

[HarleyEarl]

lol...case closed.

[LosAngeles]

Well, I know this much A. Every car pictured is still worthy of GT status B. "Muscle car" is not a segment. Edited September 9, 2005 by LosAngeles

[razoredge]

Well, I know this much

A. Every car pictured is still worthy of GT status
B. "Muscle car" is not a segment.

[post="11539"][/post]

LA I just wanted to say I figure you are right (A.) but what do you mean by (B.) "not a segment"? Do you mean that just say a Cuda is not really a GT car ? I ask because there is or was I should say quite a difference between the European and American idea of greatness in an automobile at that period of the 50's,60's,70's. This has created quite a bit of grief for me in certain topic's here from time to time. I figure understnading the different views and accepting what "drove" the automobile industries "on both sides of the pond" is half the battle to keeping an open mind. (which as you can see I dont have with Asian cars but that is really a National financial issue with me not a true dislike for "riceroni". Except for the ZX's or 2+2's I have always loved all "Datsun" Z'z, The 3000/Stealth, not as big on the supras styling as some guys seem to be, anyhow it has been a good picture topic even with the confusion of what GT really is.

My LSS is a Luxury Sport Sedan :P I suppose that does describe it fairly well.

Now if LSs was used on an Italian car it would be a Leggero Sports Salon :P

ah, what the heck, heres a period correct photo of a 68 GT500 American style


I loved Mustangs right up until 71. A serious strong influence in my youth. Which is that answer to another one of your topics. These Shelby guys were out in full force last weekend at Limerock Rolex Historic weekend.

[LosAngeles]

LA I just wanted to say I figure you are right (A.) but what do you mean by (B.) "not a segment"? Do you mean that just say a Cuda is not really a GT car ?ah, what the heck, heres a period correct photo of a 68 GT500 American style

[post="11997"][/post]

I don't believe in the least that Barracudas aren't GTs. Hell, Barracuda was the first pony car. And a pony car to me is when a GT is created from the chassis of a volume compact, just slightly more stripped and butched up.

That was just me addressing where people kept saying "that's not a GT, that's a muscle car"....grand touring car is asegment, sports coupe is a segment, minivan is a segment, subcompact SUV is a segment, muscle car is not. Anything with a murderous engine can be a muscle car. It doesn't have to be American-branded with a pushrod V-8 to be a muscle car. But again, IMO "muscle car" is not a segment, it's an era, or simply, a slang term.

[razoredge]

I see, thats interesting. I also like your reference to Pony cars because that was what they were called long before this muscle car this and muscle car that became the word on the tip of everyones tounge. However we can picture exactly what everyone is talking about when they say muscle car. We really dont consider the 440 New Yorkers muscle cars, though a ebay seller might try to boast or boost his car by calling luxury muscle, same with Riv which was technically an American Grand Tourer but not really a muscle car because it was heavy and soft sprung. Yea the muscle car thing is as confusing a segment as GT when you think about it. Where does it begin and where does it end ? Early 60's Galaxy, Impala, muscle cars ? grand tourers ? 86 2.8 powered Camaro, muscle car ? Grand Tourer ? 512 Berlinetta Boxer, Muscle car ? Grand Tourer ? Its so confusing. Muscle car is oing to have to have a faily solid defination someday or like a list of cars that make it and cars that dont. I myself dont like the term because I predate it. Pony car I like but then we can pretty much make a list of the Pony cars. Im my opinion the larger Chargers and Torinos do not make the list. I consider Camaro, Cuda, Firebird, Challenger, AMX, Mustang to be Pony cars. but maybe Im worng and GTX and all the larger cars belong there too? Are all Muscle cars grey ?