Norm Peterson

20 isn't exactly "donk" territory any more (at a recent autocross/car show the Hankook folks had a 30" combination sitting out on display).

But it is a bit disproportionate for 1960's cars. If it's got a relatively solid center, it'll just look heavy as hell, and if the center is really open you'll be putting that ancient Falcon suspension and teeny-tiny brakes out on display (and they'll look lost).

If you do a little research to find out exactly what 20" tire sizes are available in 26" OD or slightly less, I suspect that you won't find many. The 255/35-20's that quite a few of the S197 guys are running are up around 27" tall (about 2" taller than the 1966 OE).

Just how wide are those 20's? They might be too wide, and they likely have a little too much +offset. Most 1960's cars ran pretty close to zero offset, but the trend now is toward large postive (which tends to crowd the tire up against things like the strut rods, inner fenders, and possibly suspension components).


Norm

1966_gt

okay so say i put 17 magnums on it. am i going to have a problem with the bolt pattern? and how wide will fit on the front? i plan on going no fatter than 9, maybe 8. tire height remains the same.

oldrock

17" is a much better choice. I would not try 9" on the front. My buddy has 17x8" and I think they look good and didn't require anything special to fit. Any larger would have been a hassle and imho, larger than 17" doesn't look right on a classic mustang. Course I am definately old school. I just replaced the rubber on my 69 and went with 15" because I just like the old school look better.

tx65coupe

Even if 20 inch is not considered donk, I think it is asinine.

I'm old school too, thats why I went with 15 inch Magnum 500s.

I don't even like the 20's on new cars, it looks stupid. Of course most of new cars are bloated and ugly anyway so it matches.

tx65coupe

You shouldn't have a bolt pattern issue. You may have to use spacers though.

Which 17 inch Magnums are you looking at, are they the late model ones or the aluminum recreation of the original?

Norm Peterson

Dodgestang has a table that lists a lot of the information that you're looking for. Perhaps somebody will chime in with a link, because I can never remember it (only that it exists).

9" wide is already pretty serious and I doubt that you can make that much work without getting into sheet metal modifications. If you're hardcore enough about your cornering, it should be possible to do without ending up looking "over the top".

Any wheel with 5 on 4.5" (or the 114.3 mm metric equivalent) will match the early Mustang 5-bolt pattern (I am assuming here that you do not have a car that started as a sixxer with the 4-bolt pattern),


Norm

1966_gt

i would like to put the new recreated ones. 99-04 or 05+ deep dish. thats where im a little curious on bolt pattern. if patterns are generally the same then thats great. are 10.5s too large for back? even with spacers.

1966_gt

i found the chart thanks. and yes original 5 bolt 289 pattern.

chillininnh

This 70 Mach has 10.5" wide 17's on the back and they stick out a little. The wheel wells on a 65 are MUCH smaller. New take off 17X8 Bullitts are everywhere and can be bought cheap and look great. All you will need are some spacers. Don't poo poo the Dodgestang charts, they are real world results on what fits and what doesn't, if they are on that chart the work has been done for you. It seems you are hell bent on stuffing wheels on your car that just won't fit without getting into sheetmetal alteration and discounting the solid advice being offered.

1966_gt

im just trying to get the most advice before i make any movement. i dont care what size goes under but i do want it to haul and look good while doing it.
so would most of yall agree on 17x9s on the back and 17x8s on the front?
and (just curious) would spacers be needed for deep dish wheels?