Wheel and Tire Size - 65 Pony - 5-lug
09-17-2014, 06:03 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 10
Wheel and Tire Size - 65 Pony - 5-lug
Folks - car is for my wife. I know she likes a sporty wheel, like the classic Cragar, but I know she'll want to maintain that classic pony car look overall.
The original wheel size is 14x6 but I think she'll appreciate (as will I!) a slightly larger wheel, especially with the Cragar style...but don't want to go too big.
I know it's a all subjective but any thoughts on what wheel and tire size to consider given a female owner and a lean toward the classic look? Don't know if they sell a 14x7 for a 65....or whether a 15x7 will look over-sized?
The original wheel size is 14x6 but I think she'll appreciate (as will I!) a slightly larger wheel, especially with the Cragar style...but don't want to go too big.
I know it's a all subjective but any thoughts on what wheel and tire size to consider given a female owner and a lean toward the classic look? Don't know if they sell a 14x7 for a 65....or whether a 15x7 will look over-sized?
09-17-2014, 07:07 PM
#2
1st Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: MD
Posts: 76
09-17-2014, 07:26 PM
#3
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: arizona
Posts: 1,398
Folks - car is for my wife. I know she likes a sporty wheel, like the classic Cragar, but I know she'll want to maintain that classic pony car look overall.
The original wheel size is 14x6 but I think she'll appreciate (as will I!) a slightly larger wheel, especially with the Cragar style...but don't want to go too big.
I know it's a all subjective but any thoughts on what wheel and tire size to consider given a female owner and a lean toward the classic look? Don't know if they sell a 14x7 for a 65....or whether a 15x7 will look over-sized?
The original wheel size is 14x6 but I think she'll appreciate (as will I!) a slightly larger wheel, especially with the Cragar style...but don't want to go too big.
I know it's a all subjective but any thoughts on what wheel and tire size to consider given a female owner and a lean toward the classic look? Don't know if they sell a 14x7 for a 65....or whether a 15x7 will look over-sized?
WARNING - The tire fitment chart mentioned above is not gospel and has caused some to damage their tires and/or fenders.
You are safe with 15 x 7 with 4 3/4 backspace and a tire as big as a 215 x 60 - 15.
.
Last edited by barnett468; 09-17-2014 at 07:29 PM.
09-18-2014, 12:10 AM
#5
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: arizona
Posts: 1,398
.
09-20-2014, 11:13 AM
#6
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Insanity
Posts: 2,176
Two questions because I keep close track of successes from the data that I compiled of real cars running real combos.
1. Who has damaged their cars based on info in the charts? It is important feedback needed to maintain accuracy of the data in these charts that I have spent many moons compiling and then hosting on my own web server to provide free to the mustang community for well over a decade.
As I aside I do know that I have been on one or two discussions over the years that started with "the charts say it will fit, but it doesn't" the last one I can think of was on this very forum and ended with the car owner finding out someone had swapped in a later year rear which is wider into their car. So it is important to make sure you confirm the facts about both your car and understanding of the various data points provided to make an informed choice.
2. How do you over come the hard contact on the upper a arm that 4 3/4 backspacing will cause?
to the original posted 14 or 15x7 with 4.25 bs will give you the best fit. Some people make the 3.75 bs work which is a popular size from the wheel manufactures but in many cases if you put a 215 60 15 on the wheel with the smaller bs unless you run aggressive on the alignment you end up rubbing the front fender lips. Also you mention the car is a 65, so this version of the chart is better suited to help you along the way since the 65/6 have smaller wheel wells than the 67-70.
http://www.dodgestang.com/Tire%20Fit...ide%2065-6.pdf
15x7 torque thrust D on a 65/6 style coupe
I don't have many 14 inch images, here is 14x6 cragar on my 67 mustang with worn out saggy suspension and small tires
As I aside I do know that I have been on one or two discussions over the years that started with "the charts say it will fit, but it doesn't" the last one I can think of was on this very forum and ended with the car owner finding out someone had swapped in a later year rear which is wider into their car. So it is important to make sure you confirm the facts about both your car and understanding of the various data points provided to make an informed choice.
You are safe with 15 x 7 with 4 3/4 backspace and a tire as big as a 215 x 60 - 15.
.
.
to the original posted 14 or 15x7 with 4.25 bs will give you the best fit. Some people make the 3.75 bs work which is a popular size from the wheel manufactures but in many cases if you put a 215 60 15 on the wheel with the smaller bs unless you run aggressive on the alignment you end up rubbing the front fender lips. Also you mention the car is a 65, so this version of the chart is better suited to help you along the way since the 65/6 have smaller wheel wells than the 67-70.
http://www.dodgestang.com/Tire%20Fit...ide%2065-6.pdf
15x7 torque thrust D on a 65/6 style coupe
I don't have many 14 inch images, here is 14x6 cragar on my 67 mustang with worn out saggy suspension and small tires
Last edited by dodgestang; 09-20-2014 at 11:20 AM.
09-20-2014, 09:15 PM
#7
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: arizona
Posts: 1,398
.
Irregardless of how diligent you are at “keeping track” of the “successes” of people running the combos in your chart, it seems reasonable to guess/speculate that few, if any, have actually done the type of testing it takes to definitively prove that the combos will NEVER hit under ANY circumstance, therefore, whatever data you have collected about these “successes” is insufficient which means that it is impossible for you or anyone to claim that some of the combos are "guaranteed" to fit.
Many early Mustangs can run some 8” rim combos and not have them hit when driving straight but might hit when the wheel is turned to full lock and the suspension compresses far enough like when exiting a moderately steep driveway while turning the wheel to get on the road.
Some of the people that have used the chart.
How do YOU over come the hard contact on the upper a arm that 4 1/2 backspacing will cause?
Why are you saying 15 x 7 with 4.5 bs will hit the control arm but in your “guaranteed to fit” suggestion for the rims in number 36, your comment implies, that you can “safely” run 15 x 8 with 4.5 bs.
Simple addition and subtraction tells one that a 15 x 7 with 4.75 bs will be .25” farther away from the upper arm than the 15 x 8 with 4.5 bs that you imply will fit the front in number 36 in your chart.
Although the thought and effort is admirable, supplying untested/unproven recommendations that have in fact damaged some peoples cars is not really helpful.
You have previously made a statement to the effect that you did not personally test all these combos by removing a front spring then jacking the assembly up an inch or so at a time then turning the wheel full left and full right and doing this until the suspension bottomed. I also seriously doubt that many others have done the same, therefore some of the wider sizes have not been definitively proven NOT to hit under all circumstances, yet there is no notation to this effect on the chart and for those reason the chart is inaccurately/misleading.
I have no problem with tire charts that have a notation similar to the one I mentioned or ones where every combo recommended has been proven to fit through proper testing. Your chart contains neither. Therefore, for ANYONE to defend this chart as the ultimate chart is simply irresponsible because as I mentioned, some of the combos in your chart have in fact hit and in some cases damaged tires and/or fenders/paint, and I’m pretty sure that you are NOT going to reimburse the people whose cars get damaged by using your chart but I could be wrong.
Simply adding a very short and simple notation/warning in a prominent place on the chart similar to the one below would be helpful. Your continued refusal to do this makes no sense to me nor to some of the people who sustained damage using a combo from the chart.
"Not all these combos have been proven to clear the fenders under all driving conditions, therefore, it is recommended that any combo be tested using the following method or something similar."
Due to production tolerances and the fact that some of the cars these combos will be going on might have had wreck repair that was not done perfectly and/or some have aftermarket parts that may not be the exact same spec as the factory ones, it is possible that a combo that fits on one 65 Mustang for example, will hit on another.
.
Many early Mustangs can run some 8” rim combos and not have them hit when driving straight but might hit when the wheel is turned to full lock and the suspension compresses far enough like when exiting a moderately steep driveway while turning the wheel to get on the road.
Some of the people that have used the chart.
Why are you saying 15 x 7 with 4.5 bs will hit the control arm but in your “guaranteed to fit” suggestion for the rims in number 36, your comment implies, that you can “safely” run 15 x 8 with 4.5 bs.
Simple addition and subtraction tells one that a 15 x 7 with 4.75 bs will be .25” farther away from the upper arm than the 15 x 8 with 4.5 bs that you imply will fit the front in number 36 in your chart.
You have previously made a statement to the effect that you did not personally test all these combos by removing a front spring then jacking the assembly up an inch or so at a time then turning the wheel full left and full right and doing this until the suspension bottomed. I also seriously doubt that many others have done the same, therefore some of the wider sizes have not been definitively proven NOT to hit under all circumstances, yet there is no notation to this effect on the chart and for those reason the chart is inaccurately/misleading.
I have no problem with tire charts that have a notation similar to the one I mentioned or ones where every combo recommended has been proven to fit through proper testing. Your chart contains neither. Therefore, for ANYONE to defend this chart as the ultimate chart is simply irresponsible because as I mentioned, some of the combos in your chart have in fact hit and in some cases damaged tires and/or fenders/paint, and I’m pretty sure that you are NOT going to reimburse the people whose cars get damaged by using your chart but I could be wrong.
Simply adding a very short and simple notation/warning in a prominent place on the chart similar to the one below would be helpful. Your continued refusal to do this makes no sense to me nor to some of the people who sustained damage using a combo from the chart.
"Not all these combos have been proven to clear the fenders under all driving conditions, therefore, it is recommended that any combo be tested using the following method or something similar."
Due to production tolerances and the fact that some of the cars these combos will be going on might have had wreck repair that was not done perfectly and/or some have aftermarket parts that may not be the exact same spec as the factory ones, it is possible that a combo that fits on one 65 Mustang for example, will hit on another.
.
Last edited by barnett468; 09-21-2014 at 06:33 AM.
09-21-2014, 10:29 AM
#8
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Insanity
Posts: 2,176
The chart is a listing of what real people run on their own cars. It is a documented list of essentially the answers people post to questions with the ADDITIONAL pieces of data most people forget to mention when answering a direct question of "hey what size wheels are on your car".....things like what suspension they have, what brand are the tires, etc.
With that said I have no interest in participating in an internet argument with you.
I have taken steps as needed to independently validate your claims of 'damage to people's cars' and either prove them out so I can make an update or showcase them as a troll.
With that said I have no interest in participating in an internet argument with you.
I have taken steps as needed to independently validate your claims of 'damage to people's cars' and either prove them out so I can make an update or showcase them as a troll.
09-21-2014, 08:09 PM
#9
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: arizona
Posts: 1,398
.
As I mentioned, most people have not done a “scientific” test like the one I suggested or one that is similar, therefore most if not ALL the info you have received is irrelevant. It’s that simple.
You asked me question related to your tire chart and I answered them and then I asked you a few which you refuse to answer and give no reason whatsoever for not answering. Imo, this suggests that you have no real interest in correcting your chart or simply adding a warning similar to the one I suggested which seems extremely bizarre to me.
It is simply impossible to “validate” my “claims” of damage to some peoples cars anymore than you can “validate” similar claims by others. You either believe what people tell you regarding damage sustained from one of your combos or you do not.
Your troll comment is a bit abrasive, accusatorial and unwarranted. . i have made no such comments about you . . as a moderator on another forum i would think that you should know that these types of comments are others like them that are intended to incite someone are not only unhelpful they are also against most forums rules to some degree and one would think that someone in your position should lead by example instead of being part of the problem. .
i have nothing to gain by informing people that some of the combos you recommend in your chart not only have hit on some cars but they have also caused physical damage so for you to say that it might be some sort of troll is discourteous, unprofessional and slanderous, and does nothing to address the issue.
Unlike the forum you moderate on, this one is much more peaceful because it doesn’t have trolls like those you personally allow to exist on the other site. My only interest in regards to the tire chart is to simply let people that in fact, not all the combos have been proven NOT to hit under some circumstances and therefore they should simply properly check them for fit prior to running them, so for you to imply that someone whom is simply trying to help another by mentioning this FACT to them is “trolling” or a “troll”, is unwarranted, unreasonable, childish and unnecessarily defensive.
Instead of the primary “goal” of your campaign being an attempt to prove me wrong, which is simply impossible to do, it would seem far more “professional”, responsible, and helpful if you simply assumed responsibility for any damage people sustained by using a combo you recommended and offer to reimburse people for it.
FYI - The Mustang parts dealer that posts your chart is subject to lawsuits from anyone one that has sustained damage to their cars by using one of your recommended combos from it and I assume they would want to be aware that virtually none of these combos have been tested in a “scientific” matter to determine if they clear under all conditions and also that some combos have hit for whatever reason and caused damage to peoples cars.
The chart is a listing of what real people run on their own cars. It is a documented list of essentially the answers people post to questions with the ADDITIONAL pieces of data most people forget to mention when answering a direct question of "hey what size wheels are on your car".....things like what suspension they have, what brand are the tires, etc.
i have nothing to gain by informing people that some of the combos you recommend in your chart not only have hit on some cars but they have also caused physical damage so for you to say that it might be some sort of troll is discourteous, unprofessional and slanderous, and does nothing to address the issue.
Unlike the forum you moderate on, this one is much more peaceful because it doesn’t have trolls like those you personally allow to exist on the other site. My only interest in regards to the tire chart is to simply let people that in fact, not all the combos have been proven NOT to hit under some circumstances and therefore they should simply properly check them for fit prior to running them, so for you to imply that someone whom is simply trying to help another by mentioning this FACT to them is “trolling” or a “troll”, is unwarranted, unreasonable, childish and unnecessarily defensive.
Instead of the primary “goal” of your campaign being an attempt to prove me wrong, which is simply impossible to do, it would seem far more “professional”, responsible, and helpful if you simply assumed responsibility for any damage people sustained by using a combo you recommended and offer to reimburse people for it.
FYI - The Mustang parts dealer that posts your chart is subject to lawsuits from anyone one that has sustained damage to their cars by using one of your recommended combos from it and I assume they would want to be aware that virtually none of these combos have been tested in a “scientific” matter to determine if they clear under all conditions and also that some combos have hit for whatever reason and caused damage to peoples cars.
09-21-2014, 08:21 PM
#10
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: arizona
Posts: 1,398
.
dodgestang;
Here are some very simple straight forward questions regarding your wheel/tire chart?
1. Since you have been aware for some time that some of your recommended combos have hit for whatever reason and caused damage to some peoples cars, why have you still not added a simple WARNING to your list similar to the one I posted?
2. Since you have been aware for some time that some of your recommended combos have hit and caused damage to some peoples cars, are you going to reimburse them for the costs they incurred to repair their cars?
3. Since you have been aware for some time that some of your recommended combos have hit and caused damage to some peoples cars, are you going to notify the Mustang parts suppliers that post your chart of this problem?
4. Why are you saying 15 x 7 with 4.5 bs will hit the control arm but in your “guaranteed to fit” suggestion for the rims in number 36, your comment implies, that you can “safely” run 15 x 8 with 4.5 bs?
5. Why are you telling people that combos will fit when they have not been determined to fit by a PROPER test?
6. Why are you telling people in lines 36 thru 38 and 44 thru 94 on your chart that rims that are 1” wider and/or 1” taller and tires that are wider and/or taller than those used on 1969 and 1970 Boss 302 cars [which have more room in the wheel wells than a 64.5 thru 66 mustang] they will fit on a 64.5 thru 66 mustang when Ford even rolled the front wheel lips on the 1969 thru 1970 Boss cars for tire clearance?
.
dodgestang;
Here are some very simple straight forward questions regarding your wheel/tire chart?
1. Since you have been aware for some time that some of your recommended combos have hit for whatever reason and caused damage to some peoples cars, why have you still not added a simple WARNING to your list similar to the one I posted?
2. Since you have been aware for some time that some of your recommended combos have hit and caused damage to some peoples cars, are you going to reimburse them for the costs they incurred to repair their cars?
3. Since you have been aware for some time that some of your recommended combos have hit and caused damage to some peoples cars, are you going to notify the Mustang parts suppliers that post your chart of this problem?
4. Why are you saying 15 x 7 with 4.5 bs will hit the control arm but in your “guaranteed to fit” suggestion for the rims in number 36, your comment implies, that you can “safely” run 15 x 8 with 4.5 bs?
5. Why are you telling people that combos will fit when they have not been determined to fit by a PROPER test?
6. Why are you telling people in lines 36 thru 38 and 44 thru 94 on your chart that rims that are 1” wider and/or 1” taller and tires that are wider and/or taller than those used on 1969 and 1970 Boss 302 cars [which have more room in the wheel wells than a 64.5 thru 66 mustang] they will fit on a 64.5 thru 66 mustang when Ford even rolled the front wheel lips on the 1969 thru 1970 Boss cars for tire clearance?
.
Last edited by barnett468; 09-21-2014 at 08:48 PM.