|
Author
|
Topic: quick wheel question
|
rmousir
Gearhead Posts: 832
From: Amelia, Ohio
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 05-09-2006 04:15 PM
   
Hey all. I have looked over the tire fitment guide and there is a listing in there that shows that some one is using a set but I wanted to know if anyone has also done so. I have a line on some Torque Thrust IIs month and I want to make sure that they will fit. This is the info I have on them 16x8 part number 505-6865 http://www.americanracing.com/wheels/details.asp?wheelid=29&name=Torq-Thrust%20II&style=505&desc=2-piece%20alloy,%20polished§ion=V
I am pretty sure they will work but I wanted to double check. Better safe than sorry. If anyone can confirm for me if they will or will not work that would be great. They will be going on a '66 with a v8 set up.
Thanks in advance to everyone.
------------------
rmousir
'66 Mustang Coupe
Ford Blue & white stripes
'95 302 auto
Mustang ~ 04-05
IP: Logged |
2bav8
Gearhead Posts: 231
From: Mesa, AZ
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 05-09-2006 05:00 PM
Its gonna be real tight.
Looks like the backspacing is 4" and 4.5" is ideal.What size tire do you want to use?
IP: Logged |
rmousir
Gearhead Posts: 832
From: Amelia, Ohio
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 05-09-2006 06:19 PM
225/50r16 if possible. I see that several folks use this on the front so that would be cool. There are two of these rims. Just wanted to make sure and check to see if anyone here is running them.Richard.
IP: Logged |
Darryl Eichenlaub
Journeyman Posts: 39
From: Buckley,Wa.
Registered: Dec 2005
|
posted 05-09-2006 11:38 PM
Richard, I'm very interested with this post, I to am about to make the big purchase with wheels, since I beleive we've done about the same things with the front supension. I really want to know what you do, please keep us informed. Thanks Darryl
IP: Logged |
rmousir
Gearhead Posts: 832
From: Amelia, Ohio
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 05-10-2006 07:35 AM
No problem. I am going to make a couple of calls today and see what I can find. I will update this thread when I have more info.Richard.
IP: Logged |
swiss
Gearhead Posts: 236
From: Duluth, Ga
Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted 05-10-2006 08:16 AM
Richard I have the torque thrust II 16x8 with the 225/50/16. I had to roll the front fenders slightly but they fit. I am running the 610 springs. I have some pictures if you would like to see: > http://community.webshots.com/album/167992526MPtNJE ------------------
65 Mustang Convertible
2006 Solstice VIN 659
XC90
F150
IP: Logged |
rmousir
Gearhead Posts: 832
From: Amelia, Ohio
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 05-10-2006 08:24 AM
quote:
Originally posted by swiss:
Richard I have the torque thrust II 16x8 with the 225/50/16. I had to roll the front fenders slightly but they fit. I am running the 610 springs. I have some pictures if you would like to see: > http://community.webshots.com/album/167992526MPtNJE
Those pics look great. Nice car. Do you know what back spacing you have on those rims? The ones I am looking at are 4" back spacing and I have been told that 4.5" back spacing is what may work best. Just want to see if someone out there has a set and can confirm either 4 or 4.5 for a 16" wheel. Thanks.
IP: Logged |
swiss
Gearhead Posts: 236
From: Duluth, Ga
Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted 05-10-2006 08:33 AM
I would need to measure tonight, it is raining in the south this morning and I did not drive my car. From my rusty old memory I believe that they are 4.5" I will confirm. Steve
IP: Logged |
rmousir
Gearhead Posts: 832
From: Amelia, Ohio
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 05-10-2006 08:35 AM
thanks Steve.
IP: Logged |
rmousir
Gearhead Posts: 832
From: Amelia, Ohio
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 05-10-2006 01:13 PM
Ok. Here is what I have learned.The folks at mustangs+ said that it should fit the back no problem if the car is not lowered to much. May have to deal with some fender rub on the tires though. That is for the 16"x8" with a bs of 4". For the front he says that 16"x7" with a 4" bs will work just fine for the front. Suggests going with a 15 or a 17" wheel. He says that the 16" wheels just don't fit as good. Has to do with the way the car was designed. Makes sense from what I have read. Most folks that I see either have the 15 or the 17" wheels. If I go 16" wheels to get 7" wide with a 4" bs. Now I think that wheel and tire cost for $17 is just to much to spend. I can live with 15" wheels (really like the '66 gt wheels in a 15", they don't come 16"). I was thinking that this would be a great deal. I can get the two wheels for the cost of one. What does everyone suggest? 1. Get them and put them on the back and go 7" wide in the front. Save some bucks. Will still need caps and bolts for them. And risk fender rub in the back. 2. Don't get them but buy a set of 16" x 7" with 4" bs all the way around. 3. Get different wheels, either 15" or 17" Thanks.
IP: Logged |
sprcoop
Gearhead Posts: 730
From: Tucson, AZ usa
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 05-10-2006 02:35 PM
Richard, This is 15X7" on all 4 corners (can you tell I like posting pictures of my car). The back are 225/60 and the front is 205/60. As far as I can tell with the stock back spacing that is about as close as I want to go. The front have 1" lowered 620 coils, the back 4 leaf stock springs and KYB GasAdjust all the way around. I have practically caught air in this car and never had a rub. The 66" GT (Styled Steel Wheels) actually had a beauty ring and I think they only came in 14" and the 65' did not have a a beauty ring so I guess these are not correct for 66' but I think they look great so who cares. I would rather not have the beauty ring anyway. HTH   [This message has been edited by sprcoop (edited 05-10-2006).]
IP: Logged |
rmousir
Gearhead Posts: 832
From: Amelia, Ohio
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 05-10-2006 02:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by sprcoop:
This is 15X7" on all 4 corners (can you tell I like posting pictures of my car). The back are 225/60 and the front is 205/60.
I have to say I love the way your car looks and I may go that way. I also agree that the rings are out. Do you consider your car a restomod? What did you pay for your rims? How come you did not go with 225/50/r15 tires? I may just go that way and be done with it. Looks awesome. You can post a pic of your car on any of my threads.
IP: Logged |
sprcoop
Gearhead Posts: 730
From: Tucson, AZ usa
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 05-10-2006 04:38 PM
Thanks for the compliment Richard.It's obviously just my opinion but I don't consider my car a restomod. If someone with just a slight knowledge of Mustangs looks at my car they could actually mistake it for stock. Sure the wheels are not correct for size or beauty rings but people that just recognize the styled steel wheels don't know that. I haven't done anything with the suspension (maybe the 1" drop wasn't available) that wasn't done in 66' except for the KYB's and tires weren't available. The only interior upgrades are the Tach hose clamped to the steering column and the after market oil and temp gauges screwed to the bottom of the Dash. The motor has a little more technology but you could get headers, aluminum intakes and chrome air cleaners in 66' I'm sure. The MSD Ready To Run distributor with electronic ignition may have been a little hard to come by. Have I made a good case? I think I got ripped on the rims about 10 years ago. I remember about $850 out the door at Mustang Country in So. CAL. I'm sure I have seen them cheaper recently. I thought the 225/60's filled out the wheel well just right and I'm not a big fan of really low (I know 50's aren't "really" low) profile tires on cars older than about 80'. I'm sure there are exceptions but I haven't seen any. Just my opinion.
IP: Logged |
rmousir
Gearhead Posts: 832
From: Amelia, Ohio
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 05-10-2006 06:20 PM
why did you not do 225/60r15 in the front as well?
IP: Logged |
sprcoop
Gearhead Posts: 730
From: Tucson, AZ usa
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 05-10-2006 06:27 PM
I was told at the time that 205/60/15 was all I could fit under there especially with the 1" drop and stock backspace. I think I have seen posts here to the contrary but when I get under there and look I'm surprised it does not rub under heavy cornering and dips. I've pushed this car pretty hard in all directions and no rubs yet.
IP: Logged |
dodgestang
Gearhead Posts: 190
From: Cecil County, MD, USA
Registered: Mar 2004
|
posted 05-10-2006 10:51 PM
I vote to upgrade to 17s and get 17x8 with 4.75 all the way around.16x8 4.5 fit, you need to do the shelby drop on most cars. Less backspacing will just suck and limit your ability to maximize your tire size which is what most people seem to want to do.  ------------------
Nick
65FB 408c AOD D.T. Mustangs are like Rabbits, except mustangs can reproduce a-sexually.
Add your combo to the Tire and Wheel database
View the Tire and Wheel Database
IP: Logged |
sprcoop
Gearhead Posts: 730
From: Tucson, AZ usa
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 05-11-2006 02:18 AM
Like I said, I'm not a fan of "really" low profile tires on older cars. But... Dodgestang, that is TOO COOL!!! That is an AMAZING amount of rubber you stuffed under that car. Are those 40's, 45's? That is like a rubber band stretched over a wheel but fills up the wheel well great. Nice ride.
IP: Logged |
swiss
Gearhead Posts: 236
From: Duluth, Ga
Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted 05-11-2006 08:40 AM
Richard good morning, after measuring I have a 4" backspace.Steve
IP: Logged |
rmousir
Gearhead Posts: 832
From: Amelia, Ohio
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 05-11-2006 08:48 AM
Steve,Thanks for checking the back spacing. Your car looks great. My front fenders are already rolled. My back quarters are not. Do you get any tire rub in the back? Like I mentioned earlier the folks at Mustangs+ said that they should fit in the back no problem. With you running them I feel better about these rims. The torque thrust II s look perfect but the '65 15x7 steel rims look pretty awesome to. Two rims for $200 may just be worth taking a chance on. They don't have center caps or nuts. Can I get those at any basic tire shop? Again thanks for checking that out for me Steve. I owe you one.
IP: Logged |
swiss
Gearhead Posts: 236
From: Duluth, Ga
Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted 05-11-2006 08:59 AM
Richard I have no problems in the back on stock drums. I have loaded the car with people also. The front is tighter but never bottomed out either. I forget where I got my rims but they came complete with the caps and I purchased nuts from summitt. I can check my file on where I purchased tonight and cost if you would like.Steve ------------------
65 Mustang Convertible
2006 Solstice VIN 659
XC90
F150
IP: Logged |
rmousir
Gearhead Posts: 832
From: Amelia, Ohio
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 05-11-2006 09:06 AM
Steve,Thanks very much for the info. I should be good to go from here. I will get the rims and then pick up caps and nuts either from one of our sponsers here at the forum. I just put new springs on in the back and should be fine. Do you have a lowered back end? I have the standard eye on my leaf springs just so I can keep it stock if I choose. I plan on adding a 2" drop block but may not if it cuts on the tires.
IP: Logged |
swiss
Gearhead Posts: 236
From: Duluth, Ga
Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted 05-11-2006 09:12 AM
Richard I have not done any changes with the back end.
IP: Logged |
indyphil
Gearhead Posts: 2843
From: Senoia, G.A. USA
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 05-11-2006 09:38 AM
I tried 16x8 by american racing with the 4" backspacing on my 68 coupe. Wasnt even close to fitting, rubbed like crap at the front (back was OK). Luckily the shop agreed to send them back.
Went to Vintage wheel works 16x8 with 4.5 BS and they fit OK, but one side was still rubbing a tiny bit until I did the shelby drop and added a coil spacer and now its fine.If I had to do this all over again I would have done 17 inch wheels because then you can run 13 inch brakes and the wheels fits on easier. 16 inch wheels are a good compromise if you dont want a harsh ride and the look is a compromise between the classic 15 inch look and the modern 17 inch look. I like the look and ride but not the fit problems and the 12 inch limit on brake rotors. The reason that they fit better is that the diameter of a 17 inch rim fits OVER the spindle better clearing the ball joints at the top so you can run more BS and stay away from the fenders. ------------------
IP: Logged |
rmousir
Gearhead Posts: 832
From: Amelia, Ohio
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 05-11-2006 10:42 AM
quote:
Originally posted by indyphil:
I tried 16x8 by american racing with the 4" backspacing on my 68 coupe. Wasnt even close to fitting, rubbed like crap at the front (back was OK). The reason that they fit better is that the diameter of a 17 inch rim fits OVER the spindle better clearing the ball joints at the top so you can run more BS and stay away from the fenders.
That is what I have learned about the 17" rims. I will use the 16x8-4bs on the back of my car and then get a 16x7-4bs on the front. If the money was not a problem I would go with 17" rims as well but I can not pay that much for a rim and then almost as much for a tire. The 16" tires are still affordable.
IP: Logged |
dodgestang
Gearhead Posts: 190
From: Cecil County, MD, USA
Registered: Mar 2004
|
posted 05-11-2006 06:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by sprcoop:
Like I said, I'm not a fan of "really" low profile tires on older cars. But... Dodgestang, that is TOO COOL!!! That is an AMAZING amount of rubber you stuffed under that car. Are those 40's, 45's? That is like a rubber band stretched over a wheel but fills up the wheel well great. Nice ride.
In that PIC i have my 245 40 17 in the front and 275 40 17 (drag radials) on the rear. I run 255 40 17 on the rear on the street cause the 275 don't quite fit, but they fit good enough for the 1/4 ------------------
Nick
65FB 408c AOD D.T. Mustangs are like Rabbits, except mustangs can reproduce a-sexually.
Add your combo to the Tire and Wheel database
View the Tire and Wheel Database
IP: Logged |
ga289stocker
Journeyman Posts: 1
From: Sugar Hill, Ga
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 05-11-2006 09:34 PM
I researched my TTII's for about 2 years before I bought them. I found b/s is the key. There is always the expections to any rule but from what I found it's diffcult to fit a 16x8 and 16x7 in the 65/65 models due to the suspension geometry and inference w/ the ball joint and control arm. I went w/ the 17x8 w/ 4.75 b/s and have had 0 problems. I run a 225 45 in the front and
255 40 in the rear. My suspension is bone stock in front still have orignal springs. just replace shocks all around w/ kyb. rear has one in lowering blocks. I can turn fine and no rubbing in front or in rear. my o2. ------------------
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b320/ga289stocker/yard2.jpg
IP: Logged |
Mustangsandmore Forums
