Wonderwagon
Well-Known Member
What size tire and is the rim a stock size, good look.
New tires for my wagon
- Thread starter Tobias74
- Start date
MJF
Member
Don't listen them, those look really good! 
Wide steelies with dog dishes work on every car 
Wide steelies with dog dishes work on every car 
azblackhemi
Old Man with a Hat
They work quite well on some cars but certainly not this one.Don't listen them, those look really good!
Where are the white walls - why am I the first one to mention this??? Keep the original wheel covers.
But I don't doubt for a moment that wagon drives much better with the wide wheels - the wagons were well noted for "tail wag", bad enough to be disconcerting at times.
I had a 73 T&C that I bought to haul stuff with in 2000 while building my house. It came with the same BF Goodrich TA’s and it handled much sharper.
So I get it. Dodge with a more performance oriented marketing, would make sense to have a ‘sport’ version of their up market wagon a la Plymouth Sport Suburban....
To each his own and there are no rules.
I like it!
So I get it. Dodge with a more performance oriented marketing, would make sense to have a ‘sport’ version of their up market wagon a la Plymouth Sport Suburban....
To each his own and there are no rules.
I like it!
My preference is also for the original wheels and WW, but to each his own. I agree with @Tobias74 that wheels are a simple change. Since he's preserving the originals, no harm done.
This being said, I am very interested in your comments on the "tail wag." Is this specific to wagons, or to 69's? I understand that the rear track was widened for 1970, and the stance of the '70s is why I focused on this when looking for a 'vert. I was no aware of handling issues, though -- care to elaborate?
Not sure of the dynamics which might cause "tail wag". My reasoning is that if the sedans had weight distribution more like 55/45, the additional few hundred pounds extra the wagons would have been heavier would have been pretty much over the rear wheels, which would shift the weight distribution more toward the allegedly "ideal" 50/50, which most Corvettes were back then.
Perhaps had more to do with the Chrysler-specified tire pressures for wagons, back then? Or the fact that people "loaded" the wagons and didn't increase the rear tire pressure?
The BFG Radial T/As will improve the handling capabilities and response, no doubt The 7" wide rims will help too, but I tend to agree that the displayed hub caps don't really "go" with anyting with woodgrain on the side. A sest of 15x7 '77 LeBaron W23s would provide the same handling advantage as the "cop car" wheels do, but in a more appropriate style.
But then RWL doesn't really go with woodgrain either. With W23s, this might be forgiven a little easier.
Enjoy responsibly!
CBODY67
Perhaps had more to do with the Chrysler-specified tire pressures for wagons, back then? Or the fact that people "loaded" the wagons and didn't increase the rear tire pressure?
The BFG Radial T/As will improve the handling capabilities and response, no doubt The 7" wide rims will help too, but I tend to agree that the displayed hub caps don't really "go" with anyting with woodgrain on the side. A sest of 15x7 '77 LeBaron W23s would provide the same handling advantage as the "cop car" wheels do, but in a more appropriate style.
But then RWL doesn't really go with woodgrain either. With W23s, this might be forgiven a little easier.
Enjoy responsibly!
CBODY67
It was endemic to all C body fuselage wagons back in the day in my experience - I haven't owned other Mopar wagons so I do not know about the slab sides, for example or the formals either, but unless there were some changes to the formals compared to the fuselage ones, they probably exhibit the same tendencies I would expect.
Wagons had very heavy dual action tail gates and my wagons have all had dual a/c, which didn't help. Mine also had radials with not as stiff side walls as bias plies, so that didn't help either. Also the weight of the tailgate is positioned quite a ways back from the rear axle probably to preserve the wheel base close to that of the sedans. The front tire pressures are specified to be 22 psi while the rears were supposed to be 32 psi. Given the large amount of weight positioned beyond the rear axle and the low front tire pressure specified, directional stability suffers such that even just correcting the steering wheel slightly when driving down the highway will induce some tail wag, i.e. the rear doesn't want to follow the front. Having a sway bar back there would have helped, but it would have also made spin outs more likely. The engineers were treading a fine line on acceptability with those wagons IMO. I would have installed a heavier front sway bar and a rear one as well (keeping a proper proportion though at the rear to minize this and still avoid spin outs when maneuvering sharply at speed). It feels kind of like towing a trailer with not enough tongue weight and the center of the load too far back in the trailer. Even wider wheels than the 6 1/2s that came with the wagons would have helped. But note also, that each of these things would have added significant cost which they did everything to avoid of course.
And I agree with you that it is Tobias' wagon to do with it as he pleases, and his modifications are easily changed. We all have our preferences and just like to tease is the way I see it. No one can be on this site much and not have a thick skin. I am called "pompous" in another thread, while the same commenter just gushes over the most pompous man in the world that I have ever seen, and he occupies an office that is oval in shape. So you just have to flow with it!
Last edited:
polara71
Old Man with a Hat
Hey, I have a thick shin but only the one.
See, I make one typo and I get nailed for it! But no problem, my skin (typo corrected) is definitely getting thicker since I have been on this site. Its called survival or maybe old age too!
polara71
Old Man with a Hat
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
I'm concentrating on this paragraph, Steve.
With GM, they offerred the perfect balance in a suspension and steering
setup by the factory in one quick and easy checkmark of the box marked F41. And it was like 30 bucks. Best option by any manufacturer ever.
live4theking
Old Man with a Hat
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2014
- Messages
- 12,739
- Reaction score
- 8,938
30 minutes to change it back. Beautiful wagon period.
300rag
It's Not Going to Shift Itself
Three previous incarnations
Nobody mentioned Torq-Thrust wheels before, that's my style right there.
I'm not a WW guy, but I have to say that's a very attractive wheel cover/tire combo. Blackwall only just isn't right, in my eye.
It truly is irrelevant what wheel is on at any given time.
I'm not a WW guy, but I have to say that's a very attractive wheel cover/tire combo. Blackwall only just isn't right, in my eye.
It truly is irrelevant what wheel is on at any given time.
All of the C-body wagons were on 122" wheelbases, whether Plymouth, Dodge, or Chrysler. What DID change with the '69 and especially '70 Fuselage cars was the rubber added to the rear spring saddles as a part of the Torsion Quiet Ride equipment. Prior models had the more solid saddle mounts.
I suspect the factory-spec tire pressure bias was to discourage spirited driving more than anything else. It's been proven many times that a driver will be more conservative in driving style if the tires don't squall in turns. Lower front tire pressures will ensure that a strong understeer orientation is in place, too.
DeLorean started the rear sway bar "craze" when he was at Pontiac in the middle '60s. Then other GM divisions followed and the famous Chevy F41 option also happened. A F41 Caprice, in '69, would out-handle almost any other similar vehicle, even with the whitewall bias ply tires of the day.
Chrysler seemed to resist using rear bars. Allegedly as it generally messed with their existing suspension balance. But when radial tires came around, there was a Radial Roadability Option on the '74 Road Runner with W23s, Goodyear radials, and a rear sway bar. Then rear sway bars and radials became common on B/E/C Mopars.
As noted, spreading the roll resistance between f/r can accomplish things which just a huge front bar can't. I believe that Chrysler engineers felt that with the otherwise HD rear springs on their muscle cars, adding to that with a rear sway bar would make the cars "tail happy" in evasive maneuvers. On the other hand, BMWs were noted for a little bit of that, which helped then slide around corners in their native Bavaria. Earlier Porsche 911s had it more intense, especially if the driver instinctively lifted off the throttle in a tight turn with too much speed. With the 911s, IF you kept your foot in it, it didn't spin nearly as easily, from what I've read.
I suspect that with either 15x7 or 15x6.5 wheels, the BFG Radial T/As have enough sidewall internal reinforcements to aid handling of all types. Without adding any harshness into the mix. They also tend to impart a "gutsy" feel to an already good chassis calibration. And, from my experiences on my '77 Camaro LT (upgraded) F41, you might be surprised just how much that tire choice can make in how the car behaves!
Only thing better might be some Z-rated rubber on 17" wheels of appropriate width and circumference to closely match the OEM sizing.
Enjoy!
CBODY67
I suspect the factory-spec tire pressure bias was to discourage spirited driving more than anything else. It's been proven many times that a driver will be more conservative in driving style if the tires don't squall in turns. Lower front tire pressures will ensure that a strong understeer orientation is in place, too.
DeLorean started the rear sway bar "craze" when he was at Pontiac in the middle '60s. Then other GM divisions followed and the famous Chevy F41 option also happened. A F41 Caprice, in '69, would out-handle almost any other similar vehicle, even with the whitewall bias ply tires of the day.
Chrysler seemed to resist using rear bars. Allegedly as it generally messed with their existing suspension balance. But when radial tires came around, there was a Radial Roadability Option on the '74 Road Runner with W23s, Goodyear radials, and a rear sway bar. Then rear sway bars and radials became common on B/E/C Mopars.
As noted, spreading the roll resistance between f/r can accomplish things which just a huge front bar can't. I believe that Chrysler engineers felt that with the otherwise HD rear springs on their muscle cars, adding to that with a rear sway bar would make the cars "tail happy" in evasive maneuvers. On the other hand, BMWs were noted for a little bit of that, which helped then slide around corners in their native Bavaria. Earlier Porsche 911s had it more intense, especially if the driver instinctively lifted off the throttle in a tight turn with too much speed. With the 911s, IF you kept your foot in it, it didn't spin nearly as easily, from what I've read.
I suspect that with either 15x7 or 15x6.5 wheels, the BFG Radial T/As have enough sidewall internal reinforcements to aid handling of all types. Without adding any harshness into the mix. They also tend to impart a "gutsy" feel to an already good chassis calibration. And, from my experiences on my '77 Camaro LT (upgraded) F41, you might be surprised just how much that tire choice can make in how the car behaves!
Only thing better might be some Z-rated rubber on 17" wheels of appropriate width and circumference to closely match the OEM sizing.
Enjoy!
CBODY67
I have pretty much the same set up just different caps.
Possibly the best wheel cover of all time. They'd fit on the cop wheels too, I think...
polara71
Old Man with a Hat
Similar threads
- Locked
