does this stance look right?

[Don C]

When you go with tires that size the backspacing on the wheels has to be correct. They will be tight on the inside and outside.

You can play around with the tire sizes and wheel backspacing to check the approximate tire clearances in the "Clearance" tab in the spreadsheet in this thread:

https://www.7173mustangs.com/thread-tire-sizes--11566?pid=115406#pid115406

Forum members have used that tire size and post the wheel specs on our forum. You can find them by searching the forum for tire sizes or wheel sizes.

 

[Ed Raver]

I am 72 and I can remember these cars when they were new. The front end was a little high. I watched an interview with Carroll Shelby years ago, and he didn't like that either.

Ed

 

[donkost]

I'm odd man out- I always preferred the stock look with the front end a little higher. Makes the car look like it's about to pounce. Not as high as a gasser of course, but the stock ride height.

 

[71coop]

I actually prefer to see these cars with a rake (rear slightly higher), but I have always thought 1st-gen Mustangs in general had a slight nose-up stance (or at leastlevel with no forward rake).

It almost makes sense when you look at the profile of the car's namesake, the P-51 Mustang.

 

[Mister 4x4]

yeah, but they don't look like that when they're flying.

 

[donkost]

There were a lot of 60's / early 70's cars with a factory stance favoring the front of the car. My '68 Pontiac GTO was the same way back in the day. I replaced the coil springs with factory replacements, and the car was only 12 years old at the time. The car still had a slight ready to pounce look in the front. Also installed Monroe gas shocks all around and got rid of the Hijackers which were in the rear when I bought the car. Never liked those things and there was a "Y" to a single Schrader valve behind the license plate. The left side of the car always drooped a little with those things, even without my lightweight 175 lbs. (at that time) in the driver's seat.