Vintage Mustang Forums banner

121 - 124 of 124 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,645 Posts
How does that work? 225/50/xx and 225/55/xx have the same tread width. In either case the tread width is 225mm or 8.9”. The 50 and 55 indicate the sidewall height as a percentage of the tread width. One would be 50% and the other 55% of the tread width. So, 4.4” and 4.9” side wall height respectively.
Section width is not the same as tread width
 

·
VMF Ambassador
Joined
·
6,531 Posts
Discussion Starter #122
Man, this thread really took off. In case the OP or anybody else is still looking, I'm in the camp that thinks 17" wheel don't look right on the early cars. So I got the 16" Legendary wheels along with some very nice Michelins. Enormous upgrade from my 15 x 7 styled steel wheels with TAs. I have the Shelby drop and GT springs front and rear, no rubbing issues. Tire size is 225/50R16 all around. Just enough sidewall to look good (IMO), and lots of good tire choices. Looks like this:

View attachment 748697 View attachment 748698 View attachment 748699 View attachment 748700
Those look great - did you run into any issues with clearance on the suspension with those wheels? If not, maybe the 16" would be a better happy medium for me than the 17". I've got the same suspension setup as you, it sounds like.


I've been thinking about the same thing, so i took some pics with rims i bought for my Tbird.
I've got GT springs with arning drop and 1/2 inch lowering blocks on back, 225/50/17.
I've only driven a few blocks , but no rubbing while turning View attachment 748714 View attachment 748716
Though I am not a big fan of those wheels on a Mustang, they do look a lot better than the styled steels to my eye just in the way that they fill up the wheelwell! Looks like those tires on the 17" are a lot bigger than your current tires on the styled steels.

Everything is trade-offs here. Short life and more expensive performance tires won't serve Kelly well when the vast majority of her driving is long distance touring above the posted limit on I-(pick a number).
Yep, though surprisingly most of the high performance 17" tires I have been looking at are reported to last 45,000 miles or so with their 400UTQG ratings, and that's what got me on this whole track to begin with. What I want is a tire that will reduce my braking distance, do really well in the wet (you don't ever think about needing wet weather performance until you've driven through a flooded town a few times), and last around 45,000 miles. I think a ~400UTQG rating tire would do about that, giving me great grip and adequate treadwear such that I put on new tires every 3-4 years, keeping me from running old hard tires.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,272 Posts
Kelly, I had no issues with clearance. The outer edge of the upper control arm is very close to the wheel rim. I had previously ground a bit of this off, because it was hitting the balancing weights on my old 15 x 7 styled steel wheels. If I hadn't already done that, I might have needed to in order to make sure the 16 x 8 rims cleared. But that's easy to do. I also tried these wheels on a friend's car (also a '66), who like others on this post had been told that 16" rims wouldn't fit an early Mustang. They fit with no issues. If you like the look, I don't see any drawbacks.

Best regards,
MrFreeze
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,311 Posts
Kelly, you are one of the most meticulous people I know. As stated, softer rubber will enhance the brakes you now have, wider footprint will enhance it further, shorter sidewalls may as well, with some other aspects both good (firmer) and bad (firmer), upgraded pads will take it up another notch, etc, etc, blah, blah. Multiple cat skinning ways here. It sort of comes down to what look do you like and are you dead set on bigger brakes? I straight up love everything about your car and what you do with it. I hope you don’t stray too far from that vintage, bad-ass look, but I’ll still be a fan regardless...
 
121 - 124 of 124 Posts
Top