[Chevynut]

It is possible to get that low without bags, but not with the stock frame. You would have to go with an AME chassis or something like that. The front crossmember would be too low, and if not already sitting on the ground, it would definitely bottom out on a good bump. And pulling in a parking lot, or going over a speed bump would be a nightmare.

If you were to try and attempt going that low with the stock frame, you would really need narrowed control arms like Heidt's makes, which is what we have up front. If you were to run a 20" wheel and tire in the front, that low, without airbags, you wouldn't be able to turn very well at all.

Actually, that's not the case. The crossmember is not the limiter, it's the frame at the front of the door. If you look at the frame drawing you will see that the stock crossmember is about 1" above the bottom of the main frame rails. One thing an AME chassis buys you in terms of height is that the main rails are 4" tall instead of 4.5" tall like stock. Newman went the other way and made theirs 5" tall. That limits ride height another 1/2" so I don't understand the direction since most guys with C4 suspensions want LOW cars.

My C4 crossmember is about 5" off the ground at ride height. My frame at the front of the door is about 4-4 1/4" off the ground at that same ride height. That's as low as I would attempt to go.

The 56 in that picture is almost sitting on the ground at the frame. The stock frame is 2" below the rockers.

I wouldn't attempt to go lower than around 4-4.5" at the LOWEST point of the frame without airbags, if you're going to drive the car on city streets. You may get away with it on the highways, if they're smooth.

Also, you don't need narrowed a-arms to go to the lowest drivable height. You can deal with a the width with the correct wheel offset, tires, and choice of spindle and brake packages.

 

[Randy 57]

Why is it when guys get together its always about size?:sign0020:

There is no right or wrong answer on the tire size, its what you want is what you should have, that simple. Now I know there are some that believe nothing should change, then build yours that way, but don't beat up others about what they like:wavey:

I'm not a fan of the "rubber band" tires, but that doesn't make them bad or less attractive, its just not what I like on a trifive, so what? I also go with white lettering out, did it when I was a kid and I am still doing it, its what I like. Brings back those younger days memories

I do know the "rubber band" tires on my Mini Cooper will jar your teeth out on a bumpy road, but that has a lot to do with them being run flats with no sidewall flex at all, ouch. But they help make that car handle like a dream:tu So I put up with the bounce on bumps:happy0030:

Fifty Five I bet your car handles like a dream as well, you have taken the time to make it that way, maybe I can come up and take that ride one weekend. Now Chevynut I am sure your car will also handle fabulous, but I won't be getting Colorado for a few years, but then that may just work out well too:sign0020:

Randy

 

[krob]

What about old school?

These huge rims do have a great look. I'm looking to find out if I can do a 17 x 8 or 15 x 8 on the rear with the stock rearend? Any tips? Best I can tell an 8" wide with 4.5" back space should work. Does anyoen have some experience with this? What about a suggested tire size?

 

[Chevynut]

These huge rims do have a great look. I'm looking to find out if I can do a 17 x 8 or 15 x 8 on the rear with the stock rearend? Any tips? Best I can tell an 8" wide with 4.5" back space should work. Does anyoen have some experience with this? What about a suggested tire size?

krob, that question has been asked a milllion times, but the largest practical tire with no suspension or body mods is a 275 on a zero offset wheel. Any tire size on any size zero offset wheel will work.

The real issue is whether you want to fight getting that big of a tire off and on your car.

 

[Chevynut]

Why do you want to make a nearly 55 year old car modern looking? Just buy a new car and be done with it.

Making these older cars look more modern spoils the nostalgia IMHO.

I am not building my car for "nostalgia". If I was, I'd probably build the gasser I originally started building out of it. I think an updated 50's car is cool. Especially when you add all the modern conveniences.

I'm glad they're not all the same too. That's why I didn't build my car out of a dozen "kits" on the market.

 

[rodical55]

Chevynut , i have been follwing your and Fifty Fives info for some time on this and similar subjects . I am just about to drop some real money on some 20 and 18 for my 55 2 door wagon . I have yet to have a single shop tell me the 20X10 with zero offset would not rub . I so much want to believe you guys . I have dropped leafs in the rear stock locations for all suspension . I have the Mcgughys drop spindle and spring with discs . I will wait for your response and take it from there . thanks so much for all the info .:happy0030:

 

[Rick_L]

As Chevynut said, a 275 tire is what you can get under a stock setup - if everything is perfect.

A 275 tire is theoretically 10.8" wide. A 10" rim is 10" across the inside of the rim where the tire bead sits. Outside it's 1/2" wider on each side - so a 10" rim is 11" wide there and that makes it wider than a 275 tire.

So a 10" rim is inappropriate for a 275 tire, you need a bigger tire than that on a 10" rim. And bigger than 275 isn't going to clear, no matter what the backspacing is.

 

[1Evil55]

My 18/20" combo

 

[roger1]

My 18/20" combo

Pretty, pretty car!
Now, about those wheels.....

Oh, one suggestion. Next time you get the camera out to photo that beauty, move the bottle.:anim_60:

 

[Chevynut]

Chevynut , i have been follwing your and Fifty Fives info for some time on this and similar subjects . I am just about to drop some real money on some 20 and 18 for my 55 2 door wagon . I have yet to have a single shop tell me the 20X10 with zero offset would not rub . I so much want to believe you guys . I have dropped leafs in the rear stock locations for all suspension . I have the Mcgughys drop spindle and spring with discs . I will wait for your response and take it from there . thanks so much for all the info .:happy0030:

Well, this is pretty simple if you have a stock suspension and a stock body. The stock springbs are 48" wide and the fenderwell lips are 71.5-72" wide. I'll use 71.5 to be safe, but you should measure your car (mine are 71 11/16").

Using those measurements, the center of the tubs would be at 59.75". The stock rear axle is 60" wide, so theoretically to center the wheel in the wheelwell you would need a +1/8" offset wheel. Buy zero offset is close enough.

Rick is correct about a 10" wheel being too big for a 275 tire. I would go 9".

With a 275 tire and zero offset the outside of the tires would be about 70.6" and the inside would be 49.4". So you would have almost 1/2" to the fenderwell lip, and almost 3/4" to the spring. I have often recommended a bit more backspacing, or a +1/4" to +1/2" offset to get the tire closer to the spring and further from the wheelwell.

But clearly the math shows that the tire will not rub, if everything is centered and you use the correct wheels.

 

[Rick_L]

I'd get 1/4" -1/2" more backspacing if available (slight positive offset), as I'd like to see a bit more clearance to the body than to the spring if I had a choice. On the other hand some bodies are 72" inside (mine is) and that would be perfect. And a 9" rim is not the most common thing in aftermarket wheels, but 8-1/2" rims are. But that's all in the fine print - the math makes the point. You just need to plug in correct real world numbers.

 

[Chevynut]

I'd like to know who invented this stupid term of "backspacing".

It's a lot simpler to talk about offset, because it's not affected by wheel width like backspacing is. 1" offset is the same on a 7" wheel, as an 8" wheel, as a 9" wheel, as a 10" wheel.....but the backspacings are all different. DUMB!

 

[Rick_L]

Not so dumb in a way. You can't directly measure offset, but you can directly measure backspacing. That is useful if you send the untrained help out to measure the wheel. The trick with either is knowing what they mean and what to do with the numbers.

 

[FIFTY-FIVE]

Pretty, pretty car!
Now, about those wheels.....

Oh, one suggestion. Next time you get the camera out to photo that beauty, move the bottle.:anim_60:

Haha, no need to re take the picture. I can fix that for you!!

FIFTY-FIVE,
Thanks for all the photo comparisons.

I like the hot rod look/pro touring look of having slightly smaller front wheels. I want my ’56 to sit low with the front wheels slightly covered by the front fender, but I’m not ready to commit to air bags. I want the wheel wells to look full, without the front wheels looking too big like in the 20” front and back photo, so that’s why I’m thinking 19” front and 20” rear wheels might be my best bet. I’m thinking about 2” drop spindles with 2 coils cut, which should lower the front about 4”. Thoughts?

How about working your photo magic showing me how your car would look lowered with 19” front and 20” rear wheels?

Here is a rough idea on the wheel size you were thinking about. I don't know really how accurate it is, but here is what I came up with. All pics have 20's in the back. But they'll go in order for the front. 18's, 19's, 20's...

18's

19's

20's

 

[augustine]

Haha, no need to re take the picture. I can fix that for you!!

Here is a rough idea on the wheel size you were thinking about. I don't know really how accurate it is, but here is what I came up with. All pics have 20's in the back. But they'll go in order for the front. 18's, 19's, 20's...

18's

19's

20's

Thanks! I like the middle photo the best (19" front & 20" rear). I understand it's probably impossible to tell how accurate it is, but I do like the 2nd photo the best.

 

[FIFTY-FIVE]

Thanks! I like the middle photo the best (19" front & 20" rear). I understand it's probably impossible to tell how accurate it is, but I do like the 2nd photo the best.

I'd have to say I agree with you. After I did the pic, I said wow that looks really good. They don't make our wheels in 19's or I would think about it. These wheels are somewhat temporary. I want to put a really nice set on someday, I might look into 19's on it...

 

[210ratrod]

Normally, I don't care for the look of 16"+ rims on these cars, but there are exceptions. Fifty-Five, yours is most definitely one of those exceptions. Very nice car, indeed.

I'll stick with reversed 15"steelies and wide whites for mine.

You guys think 18s and 20s are too big? Get a load of this! I saw this last week and laughed my arse off at it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_cUqwheTIA
How can anyone be serious about doing this to their car?
Again, to each his own, no matter how ridiculous it is!

 

[augustine]

You guys think 18s and 20s are too big? Get a load of this! I saw this last week and laughed my arse off at it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_cUqwheTIA
How can anyone be serious about doing this to their car?
Again, to each his own, no matter how ridiculous it is![/QUOTE]


Cause he be da talk of da town...

 

[Chevynut]

Now THOSE are "wagon wheels"!!!

 

[roger1]

You guys think 18s and 20s are too big? Get a load of this!

The factory didn't design the wheel wells to fit wheels this big. They just don't look right to me. Ruins the nostalgia. Just buy a bicycle and be done with it.
:sign0020: