Rear wheel/tire

[Muswagon]

I have 5.5 inch offset, 10" rims with 295/50/15's in the rear.

I don't like the offset, 6.5 would be better for starters.

The 295's are useless. I want drag radials of some sort. I would also like to get some more rear ride height and fill the wheel well at the same time.

The tires I have are basically 26.8 inch diameter, the MT 295/55/15 drag ET are 27.8. I would pick up .5 inch ride height and eat up .5 inch wheel well space. I dont want to run these on the 5.5 offset rims, as I already kissed the tire before I put on my longer shackles (not 70's style, they are 1" longer giving .5" ride height).

I would actually like to go even bigger for drag radials cuz I like the fat and high look, but I dont want to be rolling the lips on the quarters.

Thoughts?

 

[Silverback]

Pics of what you have now?

I'm assuming that you mean backspacking and not offset, a 10" rim with a BS of 5.5" should have a 0 offset, and 6.5 should have 1" offset. I honestly haven't had the chance to do this on my Mach 1 but from measuring it looks like the perfect offset ends up the same as on my Trans Am, about .5", so for a 10" rim you'd be looking for a 6" offset, which is not a common size. I have some 15x9" draglights with 5.5" BS (.5" offset) for the TA which have a dual bolt pattern and I keep meaning to try on the Mach 1. A cursory look tells me that the wheel wells are really large on these cars so I don't think it would be that hard to get them in there.

Pics of your current setup would give a really good idea what direction to go in since I've never had bigger than the 235/60-15s that came on my car on it, and it seems like most people here either go with magnums with moderate size tires on them or low profile, relatively short tires on bigger wheels...

 

[Austin Vert]

Can i jump in here and just rienforce a point i made earlier to Eric about my setup. I'm running 295/50 tires on 10x15inch rims on the back of my '73 Vert. The rims have a 5 inch back space. I went 5 leaf springs on standard eye shackles, and Pedder's sports shocks.The rest of the rear end is stock. Here's my point.......

On this setup, i can drive around and not get rub issues at the back. That includes a full tank of gas as well. But on rare occassions, when i drive over a large bump or dip in the road, it get a very slight rub problem that would only last for a second, but you can hear it. This rub does not cause any damage or cosmetic damage to the tire in any way. The rub happens when the outer shoulder of the tire just kisses the outer wheel arch lip.

So if my car was to be lowered at the back from where it is now, i know i would get rub problems happening a great deal more under normal driving conditions.That i don't want.

I'm not the expert here, but going for wider or taller tires than the 295/50's could envite fit and rub issues without any body mods being done. I just get inner tub clearence and outer wheel arch clearence as it is now.



Greg.

 

[Mister 4x4]

I have 5.5 inch offset, 10" rims with 295/50/15's in the rear.

I don't like the offset, 6.5 would be better for starters.

>

I dont want to run these on the 5.5 offset rims, as I already kissed the tire before I put on my longer shackles (not 70's style, they are 1" longer giving .5" ride height).

6.5" backspacing would probably have the wheels kissing the inner wheelhouses during suspension flex conditions. Greg's also posted some pictures of how tight things are inside with his set-up. There's room for these meats... but not a whole lot.

Can you share which shackles you went with? If I encounter any rubbing with mine, I wouldn't mind boosting the rear up ever-so-slightly to remedy the condition, rather than go smaller (initially, anyway). I'm really diggin' the "old school" look with a slight rake and fat rear tires, but I don't want the same issues that usually accompanied that look back in the day.

 

[Muswagon]

I have 5.5 inch offset, 10" rims with 295/50/15's in the rear.

I don't like the offset, 6.5 would be better for starters.

<>

I dont want to run these on the 5.5 offset rims, as I already kissed the tire before I put on my longer shackles (not 70's style, they are 1" longer giving .5" ride height).

6.5" backspacing would probably have the wheels kissing the inner wheelhouses during suspension flex conditions. Greg's also posted some pictures of how tight things are inside with his set-up. There's room for these meats... but not a whole lot.

Can you share which shackles you went with? If I encounter any rubbing with mine, I wouldn't mind boosting the rear up ever-so-slightly to remedy the condition, rather than go smaller (initially, anyway). I'm really diggin' the "old school" look with a slight rake and fat rear tires, but I don't want the same issues that usually accompanied that look back in the day.

I indeed meant backspacing....

My 5.5 looks really similar to the picture that was posted. I would like to get inside a bit but 6.5 is the next option, and I would rather not kiss a wheelhouse of leaf.

However, I did cheap out and am using Jegs version of draglites, so, its not a huge waste if they are a huge waste

I post some pics tonight.

Here is the shackle kit I bought

RSK1564-73 SS EXTENDED LEAF SPRING SHACKLE KIT FOR DUAL EXHAUST

I bought a set of 5 leaf spring (drake) to take care of two problems, one is uneven rear ride height (its the springs) and soft fender kissing movement, should cure both.

If they end up having more arc I may go back to the factory shackles, we will see what happens.

 

[MeZapU]

With my 6.5" b.s. the inner fenders did need some massaging, and it is very tight, but I'd much rather that than massaging the outer fender lip which is stock.

 

[Mister 4x4]

I have the 5-spring pack on mine, and had just let it down from being jacked up under the axle - so this represents the fully 'settled' stance in the rear (the front's not so much).

Unfortunately, the Cragar S/S Direct Drill rims I went with only had 4.25" backspacing, and roughly 1/2" negative offset - so that's the reason for the extra sticking out. I would've rather they tucked in like Greg's did, but Summit Racing didn't have any Cragar S/Ss Direct Drill with 5" of back spacing... mostly since Cragar doesn't make them. I might try to contact Cragar directly and see if I can get some with custom backspacing of 5," otherwise I may eventually just wind up going to a 17" wheel (Torque Thrust IIs, most likely) to alleviate future tire availability issues.

Honestly though - I like it. As others have mentioned, "It's come a long way from where it began," but I'm also a fan of the old school mods. Like it or not, I'm stuck with them until I wear out the rears anyway, as informed by my wife (and no, I'm not to simply burn 'em just to get some new tires either).

That shackle kit - is it a Scott Drake P/N? I found what I think are them at CJPP (1" longer SS Scott Drake shackles): http://www.cjponyparts.com/scott-drake-leaf-spring-shackle-kit-stainless-steel-extended-dual-exhaust-1965-1973/p/RSK15/

 

[Muswagon]

With my 6.5" b.s. the inner fenders did need some massaging, and it is very tight, but I'd much rather that than massaging the outer fender lip which is stock.

That is exactly the look I am going for. Awesome cars guys!

 

[Austin Vert]

Gee Whiz your Car looks hot Mez! I remember it was you a few years ago that inspired me to be brave and go for the 10x15's on the back after i read the article in the car magazine they did on your Mustang. When i bought mine from a company here in Australia called Antique Tyres, who import them from America, they supplied me with a 5 inch back space. I remembered your's had the 6.5 backspace, and as you've just said, the inner tubs became your concern on that basis. I just clear my inner tubs for rub issues, but as i have just said, the outer wheel arch lips become the concern for me. I have done no body modifications at all.

Eric, i had overlooked your back spacing specs on the Cragars, and yes, your's do protrude out further than mine do. Hmmmm........ that might lead to an increased risk of outer lip rubbing probs. Sorry mate, i didn't realise that was going on with your new setup. See how you go with it anyway, when you start driving the car around, and let us know how you get on please. I also noticed Eric, that the front end of your car seems to be sitting up highish at the moment. What's going on there per say?

Greg.

 

[Mister 4x4]

Eric, i had overlooked your back spacing specs on the Cragars, and yes, your's do protrude out further than mine do. Hmmmm........ that might lead to an increased risk of outer lip rubbing probs. Sorry mate, i didn't realise that was going on with your new setup. See how you go with it anyway, when you start driving the car around, and let us know how you get on please. I also noticed Eric, that the front end of your car seems to be sitting up highish at the moment. What's going on there per say?

Greg.

No worries, Greg! I guess the calculations of "1/2" negative offset" didn't fit into increase to the overall backspacing as I hoped it would. I'm OK with it - and I'm pretty sure the 1" extended shackles giving it another 1/2" lift should be just fine. If Cragar can come up with a solution (new rims with a full 5" backspacing) - Golden. If not, oh well - I'm not going to lose any sleep... I still think it looks cool.

As for the fronts: I had just dropped it from the jack stands that were under the frame (which let the suspension completely extend and relax, so I'm sure it hadn't settled back down. The springs were supposed to be 1" drop springs as part of the Laural Mountain Mustang Super Suspension Kit... I'm not seeing the 'drop' part at all. Probably have to go with a different set of springs. The front's never exhibited any 'drop' characteristics whatsoever and seem pretty stout, over all... even with my friends Jim, Tony, and myself bouncing on the front cross-member after we dropped the engine in (which was likely a tad more than the car normally has with the bumper, hood, and everything installed).

I'll be sure to post impressions of driving. If it's junk, obviously I'll have to figure something out (might even go with 15x8 & 15x10 Magnums... we'll see). I think it'll be OK, though.

MeZapU: Thanks for sharing! Your car looks bad-ass!! ::thumb::

 

[Muswagon]

If you are running Cragar/Keystone that is exactly the offset look that goes with it....if that makes sense? I have told this story on here before, but my love for the unloved Mustangs started when a neighbor used to chase my buddies and I around when we were about 12 with a 72 metallic green Mach 1 with Cragars just like yours. I suppose I should be afraid of these cars lol, but every car show I have been to I immediately gravitate to the 71-73 Stangs

 

[Muswagon]

I suppose I should get lower to show the wheels in the wells, but here is my car First real drive today. Went to McDonalds

 

[MotoArts]

Ok, here's a little twist.

I have American Racing Outlaw 1's in 15x8, 3.75 backspace.

I eventually want to use 295's as well.

Will be replacing both rear springs as they too have both sacked out a bunch, with the RR being markedly lower than the LR. The (already squashed) pinion snubber only has about 2" of travel to the bump stop.

I most likely will use stock height replacements... I think... not totally sure.

Any calculations, or has anybody tried this combo? I want ample clearance in/out.

The pics of your guys cars has sealed the deal choosing between 295's and 275/60's for me I think!

 

[Austin Vert]

Ok, here's a little twist.

I have American Racing Outlaw 1's in 15x8, 3.75 backspace.

I eventually want to use 295's as well.

Will be replacing both rear springs as they too have both sacked out a bunch, with the RR being markedly lower than the LR. The (already squashed) pinion snubber only has about 2" of travel to the bump stop.

I most likely will use stock height replacements... I think... not totally sure.

Any calculations, or has anybody tried this combo? I want ample clearance in/out.

The pics of your guys cars has sealed the deal choosing between 295's and 275/60's for me I think!

Hi Pete,

Not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. You can put 295's on an 8 inch rim, but it is not recommended. You would be best advised to install 5 leaf springs as well to prevent rub issues. If you read my post on this thread, it tells of what happened to me with my setup. Here is a link to pics i took of the inner wheel and wheel housing for clearence purposes.

http://www.7173mustangs.com/thread-austin-vert-s-wheel-pics-for-mister-4x4

Greg.

 

[MotoArts]

I guess what I'm getting to, is do you think that the 2" wheel width difference will pull the sidewalls in enough to aid in wheelwell/lip clearance, using the 3.75 backspace?

Just didn't know if anyone has actually tried the combo.

Outlaws in 10" only have a 4" backspace... no worky on the outside for sure.

 

[Austin Vert]

I guess what I'm getting to, is do you think that the 2" wheel width difference will pull the sidewalls in enough to aid in wheelwell/lip clearance, using the 3.75 backspace?

Just didn't know if anyone has actually tried the combo.

Outlaws in 10" only have a 4" backspace... no worky on the outside for sure.

IMO - Short answer no. You would have to start with a 5 inch back space on a 10 inch rim to avoid wheel lip rub issues. Anything lower will cause probs.Going down to 8 inch rims running 295's only contracts around the tire rim lip area, and pushes the sidewall shoulders out more.

Greg.

 

[Muswagon]

Let's try a pic that is right side up

 

[Mister 4x4]

I guess what I'm getting to, is do you think that the 2" wheel width difference will pull the sidewalls in enough to aid in wheelwell/lip clearance, using the 3.75 backspace?

Just didn't know if anyone has actually tried the combo.

Outlaws in 10" only have a 4" backspace... no worky on the outside for sure.

IMO - Short answer no. You would have to start with a 5 inch back space on a 10 inch rim to avoid wheel lip rub issues. Anything lower will cause probs.Going down to 8 inch rims running 295's only contracts around the tire rim lip area, and pushes the sidewall shoulders out more.

Greg.

Compare mine against Greg's - his barely have the center section with the letters sticking out of the wheel well openings (with 5" backspacing). Mine are 4.25" backspacing, and you can clearly see the lips will most likely rub the outer tread area under a hard suspension flex.

Think of it this way, with 2" less wheel width, you're still looking at "only" the equivalent of 4.75" of backspace were they 10" width. So you would still have issues with sticking out a bit (not as much as mine, but slightly more than Greg's).

Putting the 295s on 15x8s - I think is doable... but you might have to go with a 60-series tire to make that happen. The sidewall on the 50-series might be just a little too little to get enough "squish" to fit onto the rims. A 60-series tire has a little more sidewall to work with.

Stuffing larger tires onto smaller rims can work - I have 15.5" wide tires on 15x10" rims on my Jeep - but with 33" diameter, the sidewalls played to my favor - in that the beads actually seat to the rims a little better. The tire guy reluctantly agreed to that notion when I pointed it out - he was also trying to sell me more expensive 15x14 rims, which would've had me replacing wheel bearings every other Sunday and stuffed the inners right into the frame rails.

I'd do some more research with a knowledgeable tire guy you can trust to find out the pros and cons of mounting up some 295s on those 15x8s. I personally don't think it'll be as goofy or odd-looking as it might seem.

Sorry to go this direction, but here's some more info with pictures I found on the Dodge Charger forums. Interesting - reply #11: the guy has the same tires I have, but on that full-size Charger, they look puny. Kind reminds me of the difference between 33"s on a full-size 4x4 vs. something like a Toyota: the full-size looks tiny, but the Toyota looks like a mini-monster truck.

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php?topic=106357.0

Hope that helps!

 

[73rustang]

I guess what I'm getting to, is do you think that the 2" wheel width difference will pull the sidewalls in enough to aid in wheelwell/lip clearance, using the 3.75 backspace?

Just didn't know if anyone has actually tried the combo.

Outlaws in 10" only have a 4" backspace... no worky on the outside for sure.

IMO - Short answer no. You would have to start with a 5 inch back space on a 10 inch rim to avoid wheel lip rub issues. Anything lower will cause probs.Going down to 8 inch rims running 295's only contracts around the tire rim lip area, and pushes the sidewall shoulders out more.

Greg.

Compare mine against Greg's - his barely have the center section with the letters sticking out of the wheel well openings (with 5" backspacing). Mine are 4.25" backspacing, and you can clearly see the lips will most likely rub the outer tread area under a hard suspension flex.

Think of it this way, with 2" less wheel width, you're still looking at "only" the equivalent of 4.75" of backspace were they 10" width. So you would still have issues with sticking out a bit (not as much as mine, but slightly more than Greg's).

Putting the 295s on 15x8s - I think is doable... but you might have to go with a 60-series tire to make that happen. The sidewall on the 50-series might be just a little too little to get enough "squish" to fit onto the rims. A 60-series tire has a little more sidewall to work with.

Stuffing larger tires onto smaller rims can work - I have 15.5" wide tires on 15x10" rims on my Jeep - but with 33" diameter, the sidewalls played to my favor - in that the beads actually seat to the rims a little better. The tire guy reluctantly agreed to that notion when I pointed it out - he was also trying to sell me more expensive 15x14 rims, which would've had me replacing wheel bearings every other Sunday and stuffed the inners right into the frame rails.

I'd do some more research with a knowledgeable tire guy you can trust to find out the pros and cons of mounting up some 295s on those 15x8s. I personally don't think it'll be as goofy or odd-looking as it might seem.

Sorry to go this direction, but here's some more info with pictures I found on the Dodge Charger forums. Interesting - reply #11: the guy has the same tires I have, but on that full-size Charger, they look puny. Kind reminds me of the difference between 33"s on a full-size 4x4 vs. something like a Toyota: the full-size looks tiny, but the Toyota looks like a mini-monster truck.

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php?topic=106357.0

Hope that helps!

I know its not recomended but when I 1st got my car it had 295/50/15s....... on a 15x7