1967 wheel swapping fun (with modem-choking pictures goodness)

[ron67fb]

Half the car is sanded and lots of pieces are off so it's not being driven. It'll give me lots of time to play with this. I've got two sets of SN95 wheels but my Mark VII is currently using a set. I'll use this thread as I experiment with them. I'm also pretty close to ordering a new set of 17x8 and 17x9 wheels so this'll tell me how much room I have/need. Suspension specs: 620lb coils with 1 coil removed, GW wedge kit front, and 4.5 reverse-eye leafs in back.

Current daily-driver combo, 15x7 torque thrusts, 3.75" backspace with 225/50-15 front and 245/45-15 rear. No rubs except the right rear in hard bumps.

I got these a few months ago, 1" 5x4.5 adapters from eBay for about $130/four. Time to play.

This week's experiment, 1996 Cobra wheels, 17x8 and 1" adapter, 245/45-17. Not a bad look. I bought these for my Mark VII because at $400 it was cheaper than buying new tires for the crappy rims that were on there.

With the factory's +24mm offset and a 1" (24.5mm) adapter it roughly gives me a 0 offset which means the mount flange is centered in the rim. On an 8.5" wheel that's ~4.25" (+/- .5mm) backspace, because 4.25 is half of 8.5. An 8" wheel is actually 8.5" wide from edge to edge because of the bead support. The popular 15x7 Torque-thrust with 3.75" backspace is zero offset, because 3.75" is half of 7.5", the actual width of the rim. Confused yet? If you are, I'd suggest studying the relationships between offsets and backspacing or you'll have a hard time choosing the right wheels as many manufacturers go by offset instead of backspacing. Anyway...

At least one inch from the ball joint:

Oops. Barely a quarter turn of the steering wheel and I can't even fit a piece of paper in there. Bouncing on the bumper produces a nice squeak between fender and tire.

According to the tire size calculator a 235/40-17 is only .5" taller than my current combo so I will try those next from a used tire store nearby. The 245/45s are almost 2 inches taller than my 225/50-15s. An adapter that's about .25" less would probably work out fine with the 245s. I can probably have these machined down at the local machine shop for not much $$, but I'm thinking the stock studs might be too long for a .75" spacer and contact the back of some wheels. The Cobra wheels have deep pockets between the lugs so they aren't a problem.

Just for kicks, my Mark VII cruiser with the Cobra wheels. The rears have 275/40s on them:
http://images19.fotki.com/v18/photos/4/43509/196688/lsc01-vi.jpg

 

[joesgt281]

Great real world info
Nobody wants to spend a ton of money on new wheels and find out they have a problem.
Keep up the good work.

 

[ron67fb]

Well I ordered some wheels and had even more fun today.

Looks like I'm good to go. 18x7.5 front, +38mm offset and 1" adapter:
View attachment 354943
View attachment 354945

Found some used tires cheap on eBay, and took the whole mess to the local tire shop today. If it doesn't rain tomorrow I get to see what they look like on the car.

 

[phast69]

Awesome. Can't wait to see how it turns out. Can't believe how much those mid eyes slammed your rear. I'd love to go w/ that stance but not sure how I'm gonna go about it yet.

 

[Grabber70Mach]

Looking good can't wait to see the pics with the new rims on it.

 

[ron67fb]

Sorry for the error, they're actually reverse-eye springs, not mid-eye. I want to go down another inch on the rear but my driveway is too steep and I have a hard enough time as it is.

Anyway.. 18x7.5 235/40 front and 18x9.5 275 35 rear with used Dunlop run-flats for testing.

Lots of room in the back, could've went wider i.e. 285 but this is safe:

I should've measured the wheel, which I will soon enough, but it claims +35mm offset. Looking at this calculator, a 9.5" wide wheel with +35mm offset should put the outside at about the same distance as a 7" wheel with 0 offset, which is what my Torq Thrusts were. When I put the 9.5" wheel on it was way inside the fender and I ended up using the 1" adapter. So either I'm thinking wrong, the calculator is wrong, or the wheel specs are wrong. I spent many toilet hours doing the math on a piece of paper, plus the online calculator, so I'm still confused why I needed the 1" adapter.

The calculator worked for the front wheels, though, and they ended up right where I expected them to be. From 7" 0 offset to 7.5" +12 (38mm minus the adapter's 26mm). Next size up was 8.5 but I wanted to play it safe.

Yes they came in gold so I painted them with Duplicolor wheel paint. I didn't buy gunmetal wheels since I have to make center caps anyway and I will color match them.

I have some spare late model center caps with the Mustang logo on it, and I'll probably laser cut them at work down to the right diameter. We'll see.

Oh yeah, I drove it around a few blocks and nothing rubs during turns. Haven't hit any dips or bumps at speed yet.

 

[Z06killinSBF]

I think it looks killer. Kinda modern wheel design too. Cool.

 

[coolblue65]

What wheels are those?

 

[phast69]

Main that stance and wheel combo is killer! Thanks for the correction on the springs.

 

[ron67fb]

What wheels are those?

I guess I left that detail out. They're known as Sportmax 962 in the US and can be had pretty cheap online, about $550 shipped. Mine was $612.something with tax, 2 day shipping. I also got 4 used matching Dunlop SP run-flats for $250 shipped, also 2 days. Add the required "tuner" lugnuts at $80 from McGard, plus $80 to mount/balance all four wheels at the local performance tire shop and I spent about half or less of what I would've if I went with your typical AR, Boyd, Foose, Me-too, SameOlChrome-Thrusts, etc... The local shop's quote for new tires this size was $796!

They're made in Taiwan and weigh a whopping 27lbs. each for the 18x9.5, just like most replica wheels, but good enough for me to drive 500 miles a year around town, which is all my car sees. Plus my car doesn't look like every other Mustang in town. I'm still keeping my Torq Thrusts anyway.

My other choice was the 006, mainly because it came in an 8" width on a 17. The rest of them only had 17x7 and 17x9.

They also came out with a Torq-thrust style wheel for the same price, look here for the silver version. Black sizes are limited, and chrome ones are at the $200 mark. Being made for imports and late-models those offsets are a bit far, though, and would probably require 1.5" adapters or more for classics. The closest you'd want on a classic would be the 9" +36, and have one pair narrowed for the front. Check the calculator to make sure.

It's weird to be able to reach/bleed my calipers through the spokes now.

 

[jbuening]

Any mods to the rear housings or quarter panel? Sharp looking rims and the stance perfected the look!

 

[Grabber70Mach]

Looks good really like the stance you got.

 

[ron67fb]

I rolled the lips using the baseball bat method over a decade ago which didn't really flatten them as I've seen other people do. Otherwise no other mods to the wheel wells.

 

[Bullitt]

Ron, what rear-end is under the car? Wondering about spacing and such compared to a Versailles rear (would hate to run a spacer).

I previously didn't like 18s on a '67, but those look really good. You car sits like mine, cept I need to take a coil out of the front...

Mind taking a shot directly from the side so we can have some people play with photoshop swapping different wheels on/off?

I'd love to see what a new GT500 wheel looks like on a '67. Although I'm not sure if you can get one narrow enough for the front...

 

[ron67fb]

Stock rear end width as far as I know, and I added an SSBC rear disc kit to it around 1994. The rotors ride on a hubcentric ring which the wheel adapters fit very tight around so I'm not worried. Adapters have been a tuning aid for years in racing to adjust for different track widths. After researching various forums - autocross, V8 Datsun Z conversions, offroaders - I still haven't heard about any of them failing. One guy has been open tracking his street-driven V8 Z with 2" adapters for many years. I've even seen a Boss 302 vintage racer using them behind a set of Minilites.

Here's an old picture with the 7" wheel and 245/50 tires. I guess my math was right after all. The 18s just tucked in too far since the combo doesn't have that tire bulge to take up the space. Just another thing to consider when going up in width.

For the rear ideally you would run a 9.5" wide rim with +10 offset (35mm minus 1"), not a standard size, hence the adapter. The only other ways around it are buying a wheel everyone already else has which are mostly 8", change the rear axle width, or have a set of wheels custom made.

I previously didn't like 18s on a '67, but those look really good.

I think it works because they are the same height as the stock 215/70-14 tires. Anything taller is what would make it look strange. I'll get you a side picture if I find time to get it out onto the street today.

 

[ron67fb]

Here you go Bullitt or anyone else that wants to Photoshop their own 18s. Maybe even those 30s that Reen posted which should go well with my Foose-inspired paint.

Just for kicks.. The good old days, when I went "Pro touring" in ~1993, before the trend fully kicked in. Those 50-series 15s are definitely too short.

 

[Helmantel]

An 8" wheel is actually 8.5" wide from edge to edge because of the bead support. The popular 15x7 Torque-thrust with 3.75" backspace is zero offset, because 3.75" is half of 7.5", the actual width of the rim. Confused yet?

Actual rim width is actually about 1" wider than the "advertised" width.

For a Torq Thrust wheel, that means: 7+1=8", 4" BS = zero offset, 3.75" BS = 1/4" (or 6 mm) negative offset. If you check the American Racing website, you'll find that they are listed with -6 mm offset.

 

[ron67fb]

When I worked at a tire store we used calipers to measure rim width to enter into the balancing machine. The caliper always showed ~.5" more than the bead/advertised width. Not arguing with you since AR's site does show -5mm, but that's what I experienced in the field. Maybe the actual width can vary between .5"-1" among different makes, especially cast vs. steel rims. Another thing is we measured inside the lip, not the flange that the wheel weights clip onto, which some wheels didn't have at all so that fudges my math a little bit. 5mm doesn't seem like much, but a zero offset 15x7 would've worked much better for me.

I guess the moral is to measure your own existing wheels first instead of going by literature, then shop accordingly.

 

[Helmantel]

Don't get me wrong, +1" is hardly an industry standard. I just read it somewhere once and when I calculated it for some wheels, it seemed to be correct. I guess taking the lip into account makes the difference.

BTW, I like your car, despite the paint. You're not making much progress either (although it looks a little better now than back in 93)

I guess I have no right to speak when it comes to paint. My 65 has had the same crappy sun burned paint since I bought it 11 years ago.

 

[jbuening]

When i first glanced at you last picture of your car currently (side view), it looked like black rims with tires that have that thin whitewall stripe.

Definitely love what you've done with what originally was gold rims