Register now to get rid of these ads!

Are these FRONT tires too tall?

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by Groucho, Nov 29, 2006.

  1. 442 Super Stock "style"
    [​IMG]
     
  2. tattooedup37
    Joined: Nov 17, 2006
    Posts: 555

    tattooedup37
    Member

    Hell no! Straight axle, 2 inch lift blocks, and a fatty set of friggin slicks!!!!!!!! Make that F'n things nosebleed!!!!!!!!!!!! But yes they are if you want it low and slow
     

  3. Muttley
    Joined: Nov 30, 2003
    Posts: 18,456

    Muttley
    Member

    I think they look fine.
     
  4. Ryan
    Joined: Jan 2, 1995
    Posts: 19,760

    Ryan
    ADMINISTRATOR
    Staff Member

    I think they might be a bit too tall... the sidewalls bulge a bit compared to the rears maybe??? It could just be the angle I am looking at.
     
  5. SinisterCustom
    Joined: Feb 18, 2004
    Posts: 8,269

    SinisterCustom
    Member

    YES!
    But then smaller tires will make it lower.....and ya don't want that, do ya....
    Raise it up a bit more and put on the next size down.....
    Love the wheel combo!
     
  6. JEEZ, it's got "cheaters" on it, i raised the rear 2 inches, and the front FOUR inches!
     
  7. I've got a FIST full of spacers up front, so i'm trying to get a little more height w/tires. I know, go Bias. I hate the ride, but we've been down that road before i suppose. W/radials, they get wider as they get taller. I'm trying to find a happy medium. Maybe i can get another fistfull of "monkey nuts" in the coils. I'm trying to make an easy transition back to stock if need be
     
  8. Ryan
    Joined: Jan 2, 1995
    Posts: 19,760

    Ryan
    ADMINISTRATOR
    Staff Member

    What size radials are those on the car now?
     
  9. 215x75x15's. I started a thread looking for tire sizes a couple weeks ago, and it went every direction but .........
     
  10. SinisterCustom
    Joined: Feb 18, 2004
    Posts: 8,269

    SinisterCustom
    Member

    What about stationwagon springs??? Didn't they have a stiffer spring rate?
    May give ya a little more height....maybe outta a later model Vista Cruiser?????
    If I'm not helping, just say so and I'll go away....hahaha!
     
  11. PS- i can give these back at my buddys shop, but what would i get that's thin/tall? I remember SS cars in the 60's where the fronts LOOKED bigger that the rears, and FAT/ballooney looking
     
  12. I think they look right.
    Ya gotta remember the period you are trying to replicate...they werent any short tires then right?:D
     
  13. Well, i'll try to kick the nose some more, but for right now i need to make a decision on keeping the front tires. I'll worry about attitude later
     
  14. That's what i'm thinking, but i value the perspective here. So far, i'm leaning towards keeping the front tires. Part because they look OK, and part because i can't think of a good alternate
     
  15. Overall it's got a pretty tough look. What if i drop the ass 1 inch?
    [​IMG]
     
  16. Boones
    Joined: Mar 4, 2001
    Posts: 9,691

    Boones
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from Kent, Wa
    1. Northwest HAMBers

    slight bit to tall I think, compared to the rear.. you need more rear tire with that front..
     
  17. Id not drop the tail either as then you are too low for a street driven look of that era, and more into the gasser look...
     
  18. LUX BLUE
    Joined: May 23, 2005
    Posts: 4,407

    LUX BLUE
    Alliance Vendor
    from AUSTIN,TX

    That thing is terrible- I think you should give it to me.:D

    another silly nosebleed trick- 3/4 ton chevrolet front truck springswork pretty good, but you will need to pigtail the bottom (any decent spring shop can do it for ya for around 50 to 100 bucks) and cut the top to suit. I "accidented" myself into this one while trying to get the stiffest front spring possible for my '67. kind of a bitch to get installed, but if you want nose bleed, you got nose bleed-with no spacers!

    aside from that, I think the fronts look right spiffy,sir.
     
  19. SimonSez
    Joined: Jul 1, 2001
    Posts: 1,632

    SimonSez
    Member

    Those pics look like they are taken with a wide-angle and the distortion is making the tires closer to the camera look bigger than they really are.

    In the second shot the back tires look bigger and the overall look is spot-on.

    In the third shot, the front tires look bigger and it looks a bit goofy.

    So I guess that means that I vote for a slightly smaller front tire.
     
  20. Omega
    Joined: Jul 11, 2006
    Posts: 876

    Omega
    Member
    from Mass

    Looks fine to me.. Perfect 60's look. if anything id go with a taller rear cheater.
     
  21. mercury Bill
    Joined: Dec 16, 2002
    Posts: 581

    mercury Bill
    Member

    It looks perfect just the way it is...
     
  22. rasputin
    Joined: Aug 10, 2005
    Posts: 179

    rasputin
    Member
    from Chicago

    I would step down to a 205/75. It seems like spiltting hairs, but they will be slightly smaller in the right ways. Little details make for big improvements.

    Looks good. Really good.
    I'm a pretty big fan of your stuff.
     
  23. AnimalAin
    Joined: Jul 20, 2002
    Posts: 3,417

    AnimalAin
    Member

    Lots of stockers used bigger diameter tires to get more advantageous rollout at the starting line. I think it is pretty authentic as is.

    Having said that, for pure aesthetics, I would go a little smaller, maybe about 185/75R15.

    Regardless of your decision, that is a neat old car.
     
  24. brandon
    Joined: Jul 19, 2002
    Posts: 6,334

    brandon
    Member


    its just me .....but i think it needs chrome rims on the front too.....in the first picture it just looks like the front wheels are larger than the rears....but hey ....thats just me ....i wish i could find the picture.....i had a 65 malibu that was looked so close to this....but had 5 spokes all around ....on redlines...no centers....brandon
     
  25. Are those 15" wheels up front? I may be wrong, but most of that size GM cars back then around 1965 had 14" x 5" wheels (Olds Delta 88, Chevy Impala, etc.) Your front wheels and tires look really beefy compared to what I remember on cars back then in the '60s. Back then, I think up front if someone got "mags" they were usually just 14 x 6s maybe. And they probably would have used something like F-78s up front, which are taller and skinnier than the 70 series. 70 series tires were mostly on muscle cars and 60 series tires were considered really fat and they barely fit in the wheelwells usually. If anyone had 60s or 50s in the back, they usually had to jack the rear end way up in the sky so they could hang out the sides and it was kind of typical to hear them scraping in back if someone rode in the back seat. Things like "Tubs" were kind of unheard of back then on the street.

    If you want it to look more like something someone would have raced back in the '60s, you might want to use something like 14x5 or 14x6 rims up front, with F-78, G-78, or F70s up front. Anything bigger than that might look good and fill up the fenderwells better, but it won't really look like it was from the '60s anymore, it'll look like it's from the '70s. Sorry, I don't know the cross-reference metric sizes for all those off the top of my head.

    Another thing that would make it look really '60s racing style, would be to plaster a bunch of stickers on the back side windows -- Hooker Headers, M/T, Isky Cams, etc.

    Oh, another thing. I remember most guys if they could only afford two custom wheels, they'd get something like two 14x7 or 14x8 "mags" for the back and keep the stock 14x5 steel wheels up front. They might eventually get some matching 14x6 wheels up front, but they might drive around for four or five years before they get around to it. So maybe that's why your wheel/tire combo looks kind of funny to me. I can see it with the mag wheels in back and stock steel rims in front. Maybe some skinnier bias ply tires or some "polyglass" glass belted tires up front, and the fattest thing you can fit in back. They sell repro bias ply tires. I don't know if anyone even makes those glass belted tires up front, but maybe you can find some tall skinny radials that'll work.

    But yeah, the tires up front look too beefy for that '60s drag racer look.
     
  26. chuckspeed
    Joined: Sep 13, 2005
    Posts: 1,643

    chuckspeed
    Member

    Groucho -

    No long stories here; you're lookin' for that '60's drag look and it's just about as right as you're gonna get with a radial. I'd throw some weight in the trunk and see if you like the butt-down stance, but it feels like it's pretty close as-is.

    I won't bug ya about bias plys; I recall the earlier thread.
     
  27. haring
    Joined: Aug 20, 2001
    Posts: 2,335

    haring
    Member

    Tires bulge too much.

    Go with something narrower.
     

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.