The staggered setup would give your car an aggressive stance and handle well. A tire width measured for the correct clearance of your suspension is optimal in the front and that's going to be a smaller width from your rears. Plus on our classics steering a skinnier tire is much easier especially with manual steering. Your turning radius is much better as well.

IMO As for the rear, stick the widest tire you can for your rim size.

Biggest downside to the staggered look, you can't rotate your tires especially if they are directional.

 

I am going with this one Wheel & Tire Fitment for 64-70 Mustangs | Mike Maier Inc

 

A staggered set will provide your Mustang with a more aggressive stance, while the square set will give your pony a classic but high-end stance instead.

They're referring to using 17x7 in front and 17x8 in the rear, and a 'high-end' stance is unacceptable. I don't understand how only the width of the wheel can affect stance?

I don't even know what that means? To me "high-end" means better quality, more luxurious...

I have no idea how, to apply that to stance.

Whether you choose a square or staggered setup, you're gonna have the same wheels and tires on the front. Depending on the tire you select for the rear of a staggered setup, you will most likely have the same or slightly larger diameter rear tire than front. It shouldn't effect how it looks from the side at all. I think this may be a case of a less experienced ad writer not getting sufficient editorial oversight.

 

I have 8's on the front and 9's on the rear. You just have to choose your tire size correctly to avoid jacking up the rear, if that's what you are afraid of happening.

 

I think the possible issue going staggered are few tire sizes are avail…for certain wheels sizes…and you may get a set of wheels that you may not want size wise. For example, I went from 14s on the 67 to 15x7 F and 15/8 R. Because I kept the same aspect ratio, but different widths, my rears are higher diameter than the front building in a rake. This was on purpose because I wanted stock suspension but a rake and fat sidewall tires keeping a common 60s theme.
Troy

 

Not sure about 60s, but you nailed the late 70s-early 80s look from my high school days! Cragar SSs and BFG Radial TAs look awesome! Love the blue also. Going to be a sweet car when you're finished.

 

I have 17 x 8 with 245/45 on all corners of my 67 Fastback but wouldn't do it again. I would go for 17x 7 up front when choosing 17'er.
If I could do it again , I would go for 16 to still have that retro look.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-A605FN met Tapatalk

 

A square setup just means tires/wheels are all pretty equivalent in size, front and rear. Some cars come stock like this and some cars don’t. It only matters if you’re going for a different look (stance) or want to change how your car handles. Performance can go either way (worse or better) when changing tire/wheel specs depending on the car. High performance cars can have either setup (square or staggered) one isn’t inherently better than the other.

 

"stance" as applied to our Mustangs typically refers to the "rake" of the car, which can be nose down, tail down, or level. For most folks, a stock stance has the tail slightly lower than the front. Soem folks prefer a nose down look.

That being said, and all other factors being equal, your car's current stance will likely be the same if the overall diameter of your new tires is the same front and rear independent of the width of the wheels. By contrast, if you put larger diameter tires on the rear only, the rear end will likely sit slightly higher than the front. If you are looking to re-live the 1970's with the a$$ end of the car jacked up, larger diameter tires, air shocks (not recommended), and long shackles (not recommended) can help achieve that goal. Rim width by itself will not. What wider rear wheels will do is allow you to run wider tires. Unless those wider tires are also larger in diameter, the rake should be the same as it is now.

Note that backspacing is important when it comes to tire/fender interference. Optimal backspacing for a 17" x 8" wheel on a '67 is 4.75". Less than that and rolling the fender lips may be necessary to avoid tire/fender rubbing.

 

It's just bad copy writing. No reason to dive down a philosophical bottomless pit.

 

I have 265/50/15 on 15 x 8.5 Torque Trust D's on mine. I guess this is called square.....

 

How TF did u get 265/60-15s in the front??? Those would be “snug” in the rear, can’t imagine how you shoe horned them up front.
Troy

 

Low brow writing.

...came across this blurb in CJ's catalog.

A staggered set will provide your Mustang with a more aggressive stance, while the square set will give your pony a classic but high-end stance instead.

 

Thanks to everyone for their input. Agree with most that CJ's description is suspect. I found the Mike Maier video very helpful, although I will need to watch a couple more times to get every tidbit. I've already learned that I can go to a 9 inch rear wheel which helps me get a 275 in the rear (Mike calls that the 'easy' fit). 245's on 8 inch wheels for the front, rolling the fender lips should work in my case. Now I get to start all over again in my search, since the LW69 isn't available in a 9 inch width.

 

I did 17x7 on the front and 17x8 on the rear and would agree you could go to a 8 1/2 or 9 on the back.
I have zero fit issue and did not have to roll the fenders

68 coupe
GC

 

Nice...what is your tire size? That makes a difference on the fit was well.

 

17x8x4.75 for the win

 

@2nd 66 - Your vote is for 17 x 8 at all four corners?

 

Having just gone down this same road last month, here is what I ran into with 17 inch rims. There are very few tire sizes available for them. I wanted a 245-50 or 245-55 for the front but all that was available was a 245-45.17. That would probably be the limit for a 67-68, but a 69-70 has more room and could fit a slightly taller tire to fill in the wheel openings. On the rear, the tires went from a 275 and then jumped to a 325. There were no 285, 295, 310 or other sizes between 275 and 325. Since 325 was way too wide, I had to go to the 275. The aspect ratio stopped at 40. So the larges 17" tire I could get for my 17x9.5 rear rims was 274-40-17's. This left about 2.5 inches of space left over width wise and lots of room height wise. In fact, when I stood my front and back mounted wheels next to each other, the rears were only about 1"-1.5" taller than the front. If I could have had a 275-50 or even a 275-60 it would have filled the wheel wells perfectly. So for me, the sidewalls look a little too small and there was still plenty of room out back (on my 69) that I would have liked to fill with rubber. Next time I am looking into 18 inch just to get a better selection of tires.

 

If those are Vintage Wheel Works and want to sell I will buy immediately

 

On my old 1967, the 245-45-17's up front and the 275-45-17's out back were a little better fit due to the smaller wheel openings.

 

Again, its all about what you want your car to handle like. Its one thing to talk about fitment, stance and wide rear tire launch and complete other conversation to talk about great handling. Mustangs (Frankly most production cars) push or understeer (turn the wheel, car goes straightish, tires just slip) by design, even with the arning drop without some serious suspension tuning. This is a safer situation for an "Civilian" driver, take your foot off the gas and it hooks up again. Oversteer if you take your foot of the gas the car will likely spin.

A square car is always going to handle better than a staggered car UNLESS you run an adjustable rear swaybar and tune it correctly. Remember that more tire out back means the fronts will slip in a balanced corner before the rear, it just makes sense. SOOO @2nd 66 is right, the win is 16 or 17X8 with 225s for a phenomenal handling car. Going smaller up front degrades handing performance on twisty or track / autocross roads enhancing understeer.

Now for those that are looking for launch, go big out back. The smaller you go up front, expect the car to understeer and the bigger the difference e.g. big and skinnies drag race style just imagine throwing that into a hard corner with 3" wide front tires and huge sticky meats out back. So if you want a great handling car, go as big as reasonable up front and match in back or go oversize in back if you want additional launch HOWEVER, then you have to run a rear swaybar, preferrably an adjustable one. This will detune the rears in a corner by lifting the inside tire and with some practice and tuning of the swaybar you can get the larger rear tires to perform like smaller tires in a corner and get a nice balanced drive on twisties but still get straight line launch.

Also, for optimal performance tire width should be 0.9 to 1.1 times the width of the rim. Remember to convert rim inches to mm e.g. 8" rim = 203.2mm X 1.1 = 223mm or close enough to 225s.

For those (most) who do not have the tenacity, facilities (track or tuning circle) and knowledge to tune a suspension, square 225s are a tried and true solution (Mike Meier's suggested solution) in the Mustang world. If you call some of the real suspension guys, they will hand you a formula for springs, shocks wheels etc that will make your car a blast to drive without having to tune to get there!

 

Again, its all about what you want your car to handle like. Its one thing to talk about fitment, stance and wide rear tire launch and complete other conversation to talk about great handling. Mustangs (Frankly most production cars) push or understeer (turn the wheel, car goes straightish, tires just slip) by design, even with the arning drop without some serious suspension tuning. This is a safer situation for an "Civilian" driver, take your foot off the gas and it hooks up again. Oversteer if you take your foot of the gas the car will likely spin.

A square car is always going to handle better than a staggered car UNLESS you run an adjustable rear swaybar and tune it correctly. Remember that more tire out back means the fronts will slip in a balanced corner before the rear, it just makes sense. SOOO @2nd 66 is right, the win is 16 or 17X8 with 225s for a phenomenal handling car. Going smaller up front degrades handing performance on twisty or track / autocross roads enhancing understeer.

Now for those that are looking for launch, go big out back. The smaller you go up front, expect the car to understeer and the bigger the difference e.g. big and skinnies drag race style just imagine throwing that into a hard corner with 3" wide front tires and huge sticky meats out back. So if you want a great handling car, go as big as reasonable up front and match in back or go oversize in back if you want additional launch HOWEVER, then you have to run a rear swaybar, preferrably an adjustable one. This will detune the rears in a corner by lifting the inside tire and with some practice and tuning of the swaybar you can get the larger rear tires to perform like smaller tires in a corner and get a nice balanced drive on twisties but still get straight line launch.

Also, for optimal performance tire width should be 0.9 to 1.1 times the width of the rim. Remember to convert rim inches to mm e.g. 8" rim = 203.2mm X 1.1 = 223mm or close enough to 225s.

For those (most) who do not have the tenacity, facilities (track or tuning circle) and knowledge to tune a suspension, square 225s are a tried and true solution (Mike Meier's suggested solution) in the Mustang world. If you call some of the real suspension guys, they will hand you a formula for springs, shocks wheels etc that will make your car a blast to drive without having to tune to get there!

I still wanna try out some 245/40/17$ squared

 

I think we've ventured off from my original post regarding the staggered vs. square comment at CJ's. All good info, especially @dobrostang - you should write a book on suspension tuning and setup for the track. I'll buy a copy and use it when I move off the street in a few years!
@4Dustyrelics That's just what I'm finding in tires for 17's. But for me, I'll be happy with the 245's in front and 275's in the rear, with a bit of a rake and a tight fit.

We can probably all agree the tire manufacturers are not helping the vintage world by reducing tire options to a scant few in the 15, 16 and now17's soon enough. I'm running old school 14's on my Datsun 240Z and I had one option when I bought new tires: BF Goodrich Radial T/A's. Ugh...that's just WRONG!