Register now to get rid of these ads!

Projects 1950 ford track width

Discussion in 'Traditional Customs' started by edisonfire, Mar 3, 2015.

  1. edisonfire
    Joined: Jul 27, 2012
    Posts: 71

    edisonfire
    Member

    So my shoebox has a 1986 caprice front clip installed by the previous owner. Now that the car is lowered the track width is to wide. I want to run tall whitwalls but they wouldnt clear the fenders. what are your suggestions for narrowing the width? different rotors? narrowed control arms? ditch the clip and start over? it still has the 11" stock rotors now and im running a 15x5 wheel.

    and heres where the car is right now, hope you like it.
    shoebox-back.jpg shoebox-front.jpg
     
  2. Fat47
    Joined: Nov 10, 2007
    Posts: 1,268

    Fat47
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    After market control arms will give you an inch. How much do you need?
     
  3. edisonfire
    Joined: Jul 27, 2012
    Posts: 71

    edisonfire
    Member

    an inch each side would be good. i was looking for aftermarket a arms, but was having a hard time trying to find them for a GM B-body.
     
  4. Hnstray
    Joined: Aug 23, 2009
    Posts: 12,168

    Hnstray
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from Quincy, IL

    The stock track width is about 56" according to the factory shop manual. Even an A or G body GM is about 58" to 58.5". An S-10, which is a somewhat popular swap, is about 54". I am not recommending the S-10, just pointing out the range of frame clips. Personally, I favor a Fatman frame clip with MMII aftermarket tubular arms. I know that is a major expense and labor, considering you already have a front end in lace, but it isn't really what you need. Short of narrowing the front cross member now in place, you don't have any conspicuous option that isn't labor and/or cash intensive.

    Ray
     

  5. Mike51Merc
    Joined: Dec 5, 2008
    Posts: 3,856

    Mike51Merc
    Member

    Is track width measured to the center of the tire? What about wheel offset, or do they assume zero offset?
     
  6. junkman8888
    Joined: Jan 28, 2009
    Posts: 629

    junkman8888
    Member

    I remember seeing "new car road tests" in my old automotive magazines where the guy would measure track width from center-to-center of the tires but the correct way is from hub-face to hub-face. If you're going to run tall tires, you're going to need far more room than what narrowed control arms will give you, the S-10 is cheap but the steering box is in the way of the radiator, which leaves the Mustang II clip as the best choice.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2015
  7. Mike51Merc
    Joined: Dec 5, 2008
    Posts: 3,856

    Mike51Merc
    Member

    So, if the track width difference is only two inches or 2.5", couldn't a set of wheels with 1" or 1.25" positive offset accomplish the same thing?

    Front drive wheels often have positive offsets, so it shouldn't be too hard to find something with 5x4.5 lug pattern.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2015
  8. Frankie47
    Joined: Dec 20, 2008
    Posts: 1,878

    Frankie47
    Member
    from omaha ne.

    Can't put moons or a standard rwd hubcap on a fwd rim...the center sticks out too far.
     
  9. Mike51Merc
    Joined: Dec 5, 2008
    Posts: 3,856

    Mike51Merc
    Member

    True, but you could probably put on a set of Cadillac Eldorado caps.
     
  10. Hnstray
    Joined: Aug 23, 2009
    Posts: 12,168

    Hnstray
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from Quincy, IL

    Two comments on this post. I disagree that track width is the wheel mounting surface to surface distance. Various hubs and rotors have different WMS locations relative to the spindle bearings. For example, using the same MMI spindle, but using different rotors, moves the WMS in or out. Depending on the wheel offset, with either spindle, the centerline of the tire will vary too. But all that said, the centerline of the tires, side to side, and with whatever variables are present, is the wheel 'track' of the vehicle. It may have incorrect suspension geometry in the process, but it's still the track.

    The Caprice front end already has a forward mounted front steering box.....so that has already been accommodated in the OP's car. However, I very much agree the better choice for a shoebox Ford is an MMII based front suspension.

    Ray
     
  11. rockybox1.jpg so, I'm looking at the photos of your car and I gotta say.....the front track doesn't look too awful wide to me. I've seen shuboxes with front-steer camaro subframes that just look horrendous! You car looks pretty good to me. It's a lotta work to replace that subframe. I think if it was mine, I'd live with the short tires and call it good but that's just my opinion and you know what they say about opinions.........
    Skinny, bias ply whitewalls don't impress me that much I guess.
    Mine's on the right side.
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.