On a 5w 32 less fenders, how is a classic rear wheels set-up so it look good. I has a 37 rear with std thickness backing plate and the 5 x 16 Ford 1940 wheel has a 3.5” backspace ( use 7.50 tire ) Thats a classic set-up but I don’t lnow it’s seen to put the wheel from the body ( 3” BS ) I do note that set-up on a 34 get wheels pretty close to body but on a 32 wheels must be more out from body. Halibrands solids BS. 5” wide ; Flat side out = BS 2”. Turbine side out = BS 3”. 6” wide ; Flat side out = BS 2”. Turbine side out = BS 4”. Reson I ask is I will use Halibrand solids and if I use a 5” wide the turbine side out its rather equal to the Ford wheel. If I has the flat side out it pops the wheel another 1.5” more out. I also has the solids 6” wide but if the flat side out it also get the wheel 1.5” more out than the Ford wheel. -If I usd thd turbine side out on the 6” wide I get the rear tire as close as I can with my parts as that get me a 4” BS. -So what BS is consider look best ( or classic ) on this cars ?
I don't like hanging tires on a fenderless car. If you are planning on rear fenders, I am warming to having the tires hang outside the fenders, if the build allows it (gasser, freak, etc). On a fenderless car though, the tires IMO need to be tucked to the body, not hanging out away from it. As tight as not to hit to hit when entering an uneven drive or road.
Here’s a pic of a 5W with what I think is the perfect width for tires on a 32 highboy. Center of tire to center of tire was approx 55.5” (and they were the 750-16 tires).
When you say 56" wide axle, is that flenge to flenge or drum to drum CC ? As I get it the 35 to 41 axle CC is 59.5" but that must be std drum to drum CC. I has a 37 axle with Lincoln drums and I get it ruff at 59" even, not 59.5" ( but that is drum totally to backing plate ) so it might be 59.5". My solids look like they has 2" on BS both the 5 and 6 inch wheels if the solid parts is out. Anyway to make it easy I has from tire end to wheel attach a 'BS' at 3.15" ( solid side out ) If I ruff test it agains the widest part of body I has a 2" clearance. Might be perfect.
On the red 32 roadster, the wheels are inside the body ( in wheel openings ) When I mean 2" clearance it was the outer body.
Sorry not clear. I measure “wheel mounting surface to wheel mounting surface” (wms to wms). So outside of drum to outside of drum. Cheers.
I don't like my car really low, so the wheel openings contour will be higher than top of the 7.50 tire. The body ( inside the wheel openings ) is 42.5" wide but body is around 49" wide. I don't know it's classic to has the tire 'inside' the wheel openings (?) But if one use the inner body wheel openings it will be 5" to tire in my wheel BS example.
I just put new Steadfast Engineering 18 inch steelie's on the back of my 32 roadster with a 56 inch rear. The wheels are 5 1/2 wide with a 3 3/4 back set. I have 700-18 Excelsior radials for tires and the side wall is about 1 1/2 inches from the inner fender.
Baron, nice. Low but wheel openings perfect to tire diameter. What rearaxle do you use get you 57.5” ? ( drum to drum ) So you has the std Ford 1940 steel wheel or repro ? I get my std ( Kesly H marked ) 5” x 16” at max 3.5” BS.
Typing era. Sorry. I ordered a Ford 9 inch that is 59 1/2 inche wide ( keeping it approx the same width as a 40 rear end ). The wheels are from The Wheel Smith. I ran stock Ford wheels , 16 x 4.5, 3.5 back space originally, but the tires looked too wide for the wheel and were too close to the body,. I wound up installing a 1/2" spacer for more clearance. Here are a couple pictures of those wheels on the car.
Don't know if the dimensions you quoted are ones you actually measured first hand or simply specs that you found somewhere. If you actually have these wheels and tires available, thats a big plus. I would not rely on specs that you found somewhere. If you want to get everything "right", get your wheels and tires and see where they look best..........then modify your rear end to fit them. Things often don't end up being exactly where you planned when you don't start out with the wheels and tires and just uses "specs". With a little planning, you can set it up where you can switch tires/wheels around some. By planning ahead, you can make use of spacers to swap wheels. Decide which wheel will be closest to the body sitting where you want it. Make your rear end width fit that set of wheels with spacers installed. That way if you switch to a different wheel backspace....you can use narrower spacers or maybe no spacers. On my 32 I already have my rear wheels and 2 sets of tires. I plan to run fenders. Rather than put my tire close to the fender and possibly have it rub or rub if I happen to change tire brands later.........I plan to make my rearend a little shorter........not much, maybe 1/2 inch on each side. Then I can make thin spacers and put the wheel exactly where I want it. If it rubs, then I'll narrow the spacer a little. It gives me the ability to adjust the final width. That's what I'm suggesting to you, only you are interested in the inner clearance.
Ide of thread was, what is 'classic'. -And Yes it will be soon a mock-up, the I see exactly by 'eye'. I waith on a 34 drive shaft then it will be mock-up. But for now I has 7.50 rear tires on 5" x 16" Ford 40 wheels and Halibrand 5" solids wheel ( plus I has also 6" wide solids ) I know the ( tires on BS ) is 3.15" with the solid side out, and the 40 wheels the ( tire on BS ) is at 4.75". So the Ford 40 wheel set the tire 1.6" closer to body when use a std 37 rearaxle. ( A note. I will not short the Ford axle ) It's no doubt a 35 to 41 Ford rear axle with hydralic brakes has a distance drum to drum CC at 59 or max 59.5", and notes on internet say it and my test show it on my axle. To use a 35-41 rear axle is very classic to use plus a 32 5W coupe, and Ford 40 wheels. But I know there are 3.5" to 5.5" wide Ford steel wheels, but my guess normally was 4.5" or 5" used at rear on a hot-rods. I really like the 5" Halibrand wheels as it get the tire so nice on this big 7.50 tires ( se picture ) But even if I use the 6" wide solids and solid side out, this both wheels has wheel 2" BS. As I said, this combo set the tire inside to widest part of body at around a 2" clearance. -Some showed pictures when the tire is 'inside' the wheel openings. It look nice, but as you said ; I has to mock-up to see it, but I can't do much about it.
2 inches to the tread. And when I had these tires on the 4 1/2" wheels, they were closer due to the sidewall bulge( and why I ran a 1/2" spacer with those wheels).
Thanks. That look Ok at 2” clearance to inner tire wall to body. I also see you swithed around the tires as first you had the lip out ( 4.5” side wheels ) -So on both this wheels 4.5 and 6 inch you used a 1/2” spacer. So if I got it correct the 4.5” with 3.5” BS was to close less a spacer and same was on the 6” with 3.75” BS - so with a rear axle CC at 59.5” and the 3.75 + 0.5 = 4.25” = you got 2” clearance. Maybe the roadster body has not the same width over rear as a 5W coupe ? I get it also to a 2” clearance but its ( math ) on a 5W and rear axle is +59” and BS is only 2”. We has both 2” clearance but you has a extra 2.25” BS on your wheels. Factors here is ; -I got it wrong. -Body rear width is not the same. -Rear axle CC is not 59.5”. -BS is not what thought.
Now I swithched from the 5” Ford/steel to the Halibrand 6”. If I check BS with tire on the Halibrand 5” has 3.27” and the 6” has 2.67” so diff is 0.6”. So the 5” set tire closer to body by 0.6”. I personally like more the 5” look as tire goes so nice over wheel snd its not as deep outside. Not much but one see it. Even if my car will not be low at rear it must look litte odd to has tire inside body in the wheel openings. Not to many like my idea go the 16” Ford/steel in front and paint the Halibrand rear black. I had 4” steel in front now but the 3.5” feel cool. But if I use the 6” Halibrand rear I can use the Halibrand 5” in front but then I need the 5.50 tire ( now I has the 4.50’s ) I feel it look to ’excluse’ for my taste to run Halibrands x 4.
I have found the roadster body has more of a flare on the reveal then the coupes. No spacer needed with the 6 inch wheels as the tire bulge was less on the wider wheels.
Ah, so the roadster might be bigger at rear. And now I see you measured to thread , so how I test it it's to inner tire. You has 1" there ( I got it a 2" clearance )
With steel wheels, you can reverse the centers to change off set and get the dished look on the outside, or just move the centers to where they work for you and weld them back in. Rodders used to do that sort of stuff.
The Ford wheel I has in steel was 5” x 16” and it had a std BS of 3.5”. One could move centre out a hair maybe 1/4” but not more so max on that wheel was 3.75” ( if custom = reweld ) But as I boughts Halibrand solids I will use them. Turbine side out give me more BS. The 6” if turbine side is out, if I check on inner side tire to attach it is 5” BS, if solid side out it is 2.75” BS. But doing that inner side of tire will be at widest part of body ( I then rely on the full tire will be in wheel opening )
Hello, We have always liked roadsters, but each owner of one has their own style and build. So, our style choice is wide rear rims and tires to match. Below are two outstanding views of roadsters with wide tires that just make the roadster say… power and class. Shades of drag racing roadsters used for the street. As posted by @DDDenny and @Pewsplace Jnaki But, if your choice is to use narrower tires and rims, then you are in an odd place. Too close and the skinny tires makes the roadster lacking something. Too far outside and it looks as if you are trying to get the width to fit the railroad tracks for some odd running. (or, in a strong wind, blow over…) Something is lacking. Wide tires give the look of some style, while making the proportions so much better. Goldilocks said it best, “hmmm, just right!” The solution seems to be a wider tire like the two, shown above. The look of the wide tire and rim combo supports the look of low and powerful, yet a part of early hot rods at the drags. They fit nicely with the skinny front tires on both cool roadster builds. YRMV
Just to add a little more confusion, here's my car with 15 x 5's and 15 x 8's. Always nice when you can totally change the personalty of a car with a simple wheel change.
I has a buddy here in Sweden and we did grove up read car magazines and then on the 80’s it was popular with hot/street rods, and he always loved superchargers and fat rear wheels, and he still send me pictures, bigger the ’better’ :- ) As my car hobby moved to Mopar muscle car and NHRA stock dragracing I left hot rod ideas for decades. I still had several friends that always was into build them and never went to ex muscle cars. But now I got into this and it was last winter and I fast found out what style I wanted and it was cars before mid 50’s when it all exploned in parts or went into custom. My taste is not 60, 70, 80’s style. I like cast parts and parts from other year, model that made up the early days hot-rods. I was for a while into a roadster and pre-war but got into max 1950 ideas & parts. Bonneville or desert is cool but I’m more into early dragracing ( or how the called it, say street racing ) With that said I’m a guy like big but skinny tires and that era popular parts. If going ’tall’ I could go high clearance rear wheels but maybe its get out of propotional. I was into classic as said with this car/model, the 36-41 rear axle width ( 59.5” ) and many used Ford 40 steel 16” wheels, but now with Halibrands solids I got several choices as I has both 5 and 6 inch and that get me 4 diffirent BS to use. I still will has the Ford 40 wheels as a extra set, as I’ll really like them with caps or no caps but Halibrand solids and Kinmonts, can it be beat ? ( if one like the old school style )
Thanks for the nod @jnaki. I didn't post because my car has a whole different theme than the @3w Hank car. As neat as the tall/narrow wheel/tire combo can look on a deuce I just have always been swayed more toward the dirt track and drag cars as you mentioned.
The Jalopy Journal
