Vintage Mustang Forums banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Okay now that I've gotten the cheap ploy for attention out of the way ...

There may actually be some merit to my subject line.

I'd been thinking about making the jump to 17"x8" wheels on my '65 restomod fastback. But American Racing in their infinite wisdom doesn't seem to make an off the shelf wheel with what I think is the proper backspacing of 4.5".

This forces me to consider their custom offset TT II at $360 a pop. I don't love the look of this wheel. I prefer the look of the TTD.

As mentioned here earlier "Bullitt" wheels are available for $135 a pop or $900 per set less. How much are those Wilwoods again?

Unfortunatly these wheels have a 5.27" backspacing and would require a large, expensive, unsafe spacer to fit. Spacers, even small ones (1/4") are a huge bad idea. Many techs will not allow them on the track. Read this if you're doubtful: http://www.realbig.com/detomaso/1998-11/53.html

Now for the free brakes ...

I recall that the Wilwood setup spaces the hub flange about 1/2" outboard. About halfway there.

A 67/68 axle housing is two inches wider than a 65/66. If the spring mounts are the same distance apart, that end has a $50 junkyard part solution.

What can be done to get that other 1/2" in the front to get those free Wilwood brakes?

'65 fb restomod
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,014 Posts
First of all the rear is not a problem on the fitting of the "Bullitt" style wheels. Only the front is a problem. Now in the front you have the Wilwood brakes which already move the wheel out 1/2" or so. The aftermarket brake kits all have spacers ... you are not riding on the 'hub' anyway. The all come with very long wheel studs and spacers that they include for your vehicle so that wheels clear calipers, and close to original wheel placement is achieved.

So if you are using brakes such as Wilwood you are using spacers anyway. It would be easy to contact Wilwood and request a thicker spacer with the kit or to buy the correct spacer from a company such as Performance Wheel and Tire. There is also the hubcentric variety by H&R Springs. These are used on road rallye cars to widen the track for better handling.

[email protected]
1967 351W Convertible
2000 Mustang GT
Please bring back last post to top!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,196 Posts
On the Wilwood setup, the wheel does bolt directly to the aluminum hub. While they do come with extra long studs, I'd be afraid of adding any extra stresses to an ALUMINUM hub...
http://www.wilwood.com/products/kits/hdfbk/hdfbkdwg.gif

My 1965 Restomod Shelby Clone
http://www.hometown.aol.com/ihatecar24/clone65.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
If you don't space the rear you'll end up narrowing the rear track by 2"+ which will significantly affect handling. If you care about handling, you want the wider rear, even if you're not rubbing anywhere.

I don't think that the Wilwood setup uses spacers, it just ended up 1/2" outboard. I think the Aerospace setup does use spacers to get to the factory track. With the Aerospace setup, you'd need an additional 1" spacer, totalling 1 1/2" inches of spacers. This is scary, especially in the front where shock (meaning dynamic) loads are greatest. The JMC setup seems to use no spacers to end up at the factory track.

Please read the article on spacers. They are a very bad thing, especially on a nearly 3k lb car.

How about using adjustable aftermarket A arms (like TCP) and adjusting them out the 1/2"? You'd need to re-do bumpsteer. Anything else?

'65 fb restomod
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,014 Posts
See on the Wilwood that the wheel is not on the hub... it's on the studs. The hubs on these brakes are much smaller than stock.

On the rear you are not really moving in 2" because you have a wider wheel out and a wider tire on it, give it some thought. Also, aftermarket rear discs do move the wheels out some too.

[email protected]
1967 351W Convertible
2000 Mustang GT
Please bring back last post to top!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,014 Posts
The spacer is not in that picture, however it is in the kit. I have the Aerospace kit and it is a complete rip off of the Wilwood kit. They purchased a Wilwood kit and simply reproduced it. In fact that diagram is in my instructions without the Wilwood logo.

[email protected]
1967 351W Convertible
2000 Mustang GT
Please bring back last post to top!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
911 Posts
American Racing now offers the TT wheel, the org one with the grey center section in custom offsets.

Kory
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,014 Posts
But your TTII wheels do not 'ride' on the hub correct? The center opening on the TT2 is the larger size, all the load is on the studs not the center hub as it would be with the Granada rotors with the snout.

[email protected]
1967 351W Convertible
2000 Mustang GT
Please bring back last post to top!
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
6,968 Posts
Well, it doesn't ride on the snout, but I don't think it is quite right to say the load is on the lugs. The lugs are in tension from the lug nuts, but they don't see shear from the wheels as long as they are tightened properly. The shear load (caused by braking torque) is going to exist at the wheel/hub interface due to friction. If that matters in any way.

Phil

'65 Convertible (with many mods.)
http://www.blueriver.net/~finite/Pony.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,179 Posts
I don't like the adjustible A-arms TCP makes. For maintaining suspension geometry, the A-arms need to be a fixed length. Commonly, when shimming the stock A-arms, one side gets more shims than the other. This means with Adj. A-arms one A-arm is longer than the other and the suspension geometry is different from the other side. Plus structurally the threaded part of the A-arm is weaker than a solid tube A-arm.

My Humble (if somewhat biased) observation,

Dean T

Shikatta Ga Nai - "It cannot be helped"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
The issue is not the absolute track, but the relative track front to rear.

If you space the front and not the back you're changing the the delta of front track to rear track and thus changing the handling (drastically).

Also, if you haven't already, I'd read the article I posted about spacers. Unless Aerospace locktites and bolts those spacers to the hub or wheel, I'd wouldn't run them. This is just MHO. Spacers change the load on the studs from sheer to bending. The studs are hardened and brittle (which is what you want for a sheer load), and therefore will break more easily under a bending load than under a sheer load.

The spacers that bolt to the hub using the original studs and have studs of there own seem to make more sense. They create two sets of sheer interfaces rather than one bending one.

I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I play one on TV.

Anyone got any info on the original question (how to widen the front track 1/2" with the Wilwood setup)?

Also, anyone know if a 67-68 rear end housing has the same distance between spring mounts as a 65-66?

'65 fb restomod
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top