Has anyone tried 17"mustang wheels is there room for them on a runabout
I've got 17x7.5" rims that i found ON a Mustang (88 5.0L LX). They're the same basic offset and i found out later are for a Mustang. They fit on my 76 trunk no problems. I've (right now) got 245/40's on the front and back, no issues (going 275 rear as soon as its insured again though). BUT... the rear wheel offset on Mustangs is 'new school'... so on these old school cars they are WAY too far inside the wells to look right. I really like the way my rims look, and they're light(ish) so i'm actually gonna widen the rears a good 3" so they look right, bit i'm also looking for a hub-adapter when i do that. Its gonna add up. The front offset aint perfect either, but there is literally no room to move in or out in those wheelwells without rubbing (maybe 8" with the same offset, max)... so i'm kinda stuck. No 275's on the front i guess. At least they look better than the rears.
I also had a set ov 17x9" aftermarket Cobra R's in 4-bolt, again to fit a 5.0L. I tried to fit 'em on the Pinto but the fronts were out ov the question. Not even close. The rears likely would fit though. LOTS ov room back there (room for a 295 tire by the way). That said, i've seen those exact rims on a 77 Cobra (Mustang II), and they fit really well. The owner was a world class douchebag though, so i wasn't about to lower myself to actually talking to him to find out how he did it. Too bad really... nice car.
I think pretty much any stock or stock size Fox-mustang rim will fit and work, i've had the 15's and 16's fitted on mine no problems. You just might not like the way the rears look in those cavernous wheelwells.
Have any of those 15" Fox Mustang rims been the hurricane style? Did yo have a way of keeping them from rubbing?
The fox body rims (4 Lug 15x7) fit the rear just fine, the fronts require a 1/2" spacer to clear the inner fender well . The 15" up will also clear the upper ball joints. You need to run a 225/50r15 tire to clear.
I have seen pictures 2001 bullitt's on some early cars but nobody has really commented on how they fit and what tire size are they running?
I've fitted the 15's and 16's and they've come up okay. No problems i can see, but i never drove on them, so i cant say for sure. I've had the 17's on my car since the day i got it and no issues. No spacers either. My rims ARE aftermarket, but they are stock Mustang offset... they fit perfectly on the 88 i pulled them off. They are also only 7.5" wide though, not 8. That .5" could be an issue if its on the wrong side. And looking at them today, my fronts are only 235/40's, but thats more or less a 235/60/15 dimensionally. Still, lots ov hard driving and no issues have come up. I'm looking at putting 245/40's on the front and they should work just fine. It all comes down to the rim i guess.
Quote from: Pale Roader on October 11, 2009, 03:43:11 AM
I've fitted the 15's and 16's and they've come up okay. No problems i can see, but i never drove on them, so i cant say for sure. I've had the 17's on my car since the day i got it and no issues. No spacers either. My rims ARE aftermarket, but they are stock Mustang offset... they fit perfectly on the 88 i pulled them off. They are also only 7.5" wide though, not 8. That .5" could be an issue if its on the wrong side. And looking at them today, my fronts are only 235/40's, but thats more or less a 235/60/15 dimensionally. Still, lots ov hard driving and no issues have come up. I'm looking at putting 245/40's on the front and they should work just fine. It all comes down to the rim i guess.
Would you be willing to post a few pictures of your car with the 17's? I'm curious what this looks like. I like the look of tires with narrow profiles on modern cars, but I wonder how this would play out on a vintage Pinto.
Also, I wonder about overall diameter of your tire+wheel combo compared to stock. My research suggests the stock size B78-13 converts to about 175/75-13 which is about 23.3" overall diameter. Your 235/40-17's work out to about 24.4" or an inch in diameter over stock. Have you calculated the effect on the speedometer, or noticed any obvious difference in acceleration?
if you know your stock diameter, then play with this it should help. speedo #s shows up under the tires,
http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalc.html (http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalc.html)
it shows 4.2% slow at 60 or 2.5 mph
So basically,can i run any wheel off of a Fox body Mustang?Providing the offset is the same.Because my tire guy told me that the Mustang has a 4 on 4.5 bolt pattern and my 77 wagon has a 4 on 4.25 bolt pattern.Any thoughts or comments?
The original Mustangs (1964.5-1973) 4 lug had the 4X4.5 pattern. The Fox body Mustangs all all the same pattern as the Pinto, from what I have been able to find out.
In the past(1980's) there were problems with parts books listing all Mustangs as having the older 4X4.5 pattern. Dont' know if that is still going on or not?
hth,
Russ
I have not tried Mustang rims, but have put on the wheels from my donor 87TC. They fit, looked a bit foolish and rubbed in the rear when cornering. They went down the freeway pretty well :-) I am replacing the wheels I have which are beat up old 13" Ansons that have way too much negative offset and after a couple tries at getting them balanced they shake and bounce. The sources I have used indicate a 10mm negative offset on a 5.5 " rim is the stock setup. Have looked thru threads and not really got that detail pinned down. I want the car to go smoothly and corner fairly well and am thinking about going with a 14x6 with a slight negative offset. I was looking at Pacer 320C-4625 (look like Quick Tricks) that have about 3mm negative offset, so the backspace would be 3.38. If someone has charted out what works best and where the trade offs begin I would be grateful for the information.
Will attempt to post a pic
(http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu154/Sirplus11/test87rims.jpg)
I've been searching too through the threads and haven't gotten a clear picture of the stock setup. I contemplated an eBay auction recently for very similar wheels to yours (15" Mustang version) but couldn't pull the switch. I like the look in your photo other than the tires being way too big. Kinda looks like a Matchbox version.
All it would take really is for someone to pull off a stock wheel and take some measurements. Anyone? My '72 has what were described as factory alloys but I'm not sure that they are, so I can't do this. No spare with the car, either :(.
Quote from: taganov on October 21, 2009, 08:58:51 PM
Would you be willing to post a few pictures of your car with the 17's? I'm curious what this looks like. I like the look of tires with narrow profiles on modern cars, but I wonder how this would play out on a vintage Pinto.
Also, I wonder about overall diameter of your tire+wheel combo compared to stock. My research suggests the stock size B78-13 converts to about 175/75-13 which is about 23.3" overall diameter. Your 235/40-17's work out to about 24.4" or an inch in diameter over stock. Have you calculated the effect on the speedometer, or noticed any obvious difference in acceleration?
Hah! Difference in acceleration...?.?? I hope you're not serious. This wreck has (HAD...) 88HP, and highway gears. I was told the MPG 4-spd is also an overdrive (not sure). As it stands its probably about a 35-second car... right up there with 50's VW buses missing a spark-plug. Even if i did notice a difference, even if it was a BIG difference, i would not... NOT NOT NOT... even to drive down the road, drive this thing with stock rollers. The stock size rims are about the right size for a medium-sized wheelbarrow. I dont believe in using 14" rims on anything except maybe an old Mini (which i would never drive anyways). 15" minimum, and widest possible modern rubber minimum. Trust me man... put stock size rollers on a Pinto and its just a pinto... a car that everyone makes jokes about. Put 17"s or something otherwise cool on it and suddenly everyone wants to know what the hell it is...
I will say this, the stock shite i took off was considerably lighter than the 17" stock i have on now... and my aftermarket 17" are actually on the lighter side. They weigh noticeably less than stock Mustang 17x8" rims (and way less than knock-off Mustang rims). I know tires better than most, and i weigh everything (except these ov course...). I'd guess that the combo weighs about 10lbs more per corner than stock. But thats the price you pay for tires that actually work. My Pinto NEVER loses traction...
And sorry, but no pics yet. The rear offset is disgusting looking, and i need to fix it. The rear tires sit in a good 4" from the lips, and i'd like to see them about flush or even 1/4" out. I was ready to buy hub-adapters for this but now i'm thinking about replacing the whole rear diff with a Cobra 8.8". That way i can have 4 wheel discs and drive even faster than i already do... But the research on that topic has just begun.
EDIT: and whats with the 'zoop' on this forum... all i said was 'zoop'...
Rebolting73... those ARE Mustang rims... and dude, that looks SOOOOO much better than stock. I was actually looking for some cheap Mustang 15" aluminum rims (the same ones you have) when i found my 17"s and bought them instead.
A picture of my '73 wagon with stock '88 T/C 16" wheels. The 2.0 with an Auto was bog enough. With the 225-60-16" is was even more bog. Note the car had 3.40 gears (6-3/4" rear).
Frankly I think the "flatness" and seemimg negative offset of the T/C wheels does't work with the curves of the Pinto body.
In the sidebar picture are aftermarket 225-60-15" I bought. At this point I'm actually running 13" Mustang II wheels (no picture). I like the look of the Mustang II wheels, but the 13" seem a bit small, especially for the large rear wheel wells.
I did the Turbo 2.3 swap with a T-5 and 3.00, 8". Sadly this combo seems to scream for 3.25 gears when factoring in power and mileage. Unfortunately Ford only offered 3.00. 3.40 and 3.55 (In the Mustang II). I was told they had a 3.25, 8" but it was a rare car/year combination (60's something Torino) not likely to be found. When I found my rear I had a choice of 3.00 or 3.55. Excluding the 3.25 as an expensive aftermarket setup I think I would have opted for 3.40 if I had a second chance.
Anyway, remember CHANGEING TIRE SIZE IS EQUAL TO CHANGING THE REAR END RATIO - FACTOR EVERYTHING IN. Not just gears, Not just tires. As they say, "Do the Math!"
Tom