What wheel and tire size for 65 SF?

James Romano

James Romano

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
572
Reaction score
456
Location
Long Island, NY
Hi. My Xmas/bday gift was a new set of wheels for my Fury. Family all kicked in.. I'm really excited about it. They know Dad loves his car. Lol

I'm looking to go with classic Cragar S/S blue caps. Eagle GT 60's in the rear and 70's up front. Will the 60s fit? I have skirts, but I'm happy to go with or without them

I have stock power drums all around. And air shocks in the rear for extra height. I'm looking for that mid-70s classic look out of my car. I like it stock, but S/S rims and lifted a little in the back is what I love

I have no idea of size or backspace I need other than them being 15" stock rims on the car right now

Thanks as always for help and advice
 
James Romano said:
That's the widest in the rear? 75?
Click to expand...
235 is width in mm (9.4" wide in crude math), 75 is the sidewalk height, in percentage. 235 x .75 = 176 (7") If you want less sidewall, go with a lower second number, 70 or 60. 235 x .70 = 164 (6.6")
235 x .60 = 141 (5.6")

I run a 275/60/14 no skirts '66 Polara. Don't know the difference in rear wheel opening, or if that would fit with the skirts. I would think those are your obstacles once you find the appropriate measurements for the wheels.
 
Not sure what the Plymouth C-body station wagons had as factory equipment options, but Chryslers had 9.00x14s. Use that width as the maximum, regardless of the section width ratio, which equates pretty well to the 235 suggestion.

Personally, when I look at a very wide tire, I see possible wet/rainy weather hydroplaning issues at highway speeds. As the tire's contact patch becomes wider rather than longer, which can somewhat hinder sufficient water dispersion by the tread to keep the rubber on the road. Tread designs and advanced rubber compounding have helped to minimize these issues a bit, over the years.

Your car, your dreams. Just some thoughts,
CBODY67
 
What must be understood is that the rubber bushings in the rear leaf springs AND shackles will flex with lateral loadings, as when turning corners. The relationship you see with the car at ride height (wheel to rear wheel "tub" on the outside and wheel to leaf spring on the inside of the tire) can and will change as the car goes around a turn at speed and hits a bump. Nothing is a "firm" as it might seem.

Take a tire washing brush that you slide your hand into to use, then try to wash the upper section of the tire's outer sidewall with the car siting at ride height. You'll probably find, as I did on our '66 Newport, that the clearance is not the same on each side, not by much, but not exactly the same. PLUS it'll give you an ideal of how much clearance is currently there now. From that, FORGET about the numbers and worry about how much clearance you now have and how much you might desire to lose. And that's with the fender skirts removed. To me, having to jack the car up just to wash the sidewalls of the tire (due to a lack of tire/body clearance) is a major PAIN, but your experiences might vary.

Which is why I mentioned the 9.00x14 tire size. A 9" wide section width, equates to 228.6mm, no matter what the aspect ratio might be. Allowing for the thickness of the tire brush I mentioned above can increase that number some.

Respectfully,
CBODY67
 
My 65 SF has 225R/70-14's on 7" rims. With the skirts on I can get my fingers in between the tire and skirt rod but that's about all. They don't rub but are close. Without the skirts you could gain at least an inch.

CONV11.JPG
 
CBODY67 said:
Not sure what the Plymouth C-body station wagons had as factory equipment options, but Chryslers had 9.00x14s. Use that width as the maximum, regardless of the section width ratio, which equates pretty well to the 235 suggestion.

Personally, when I look at a very wide tire, I see possible wet/rainy weather hydroplaning issues at highway speeds. As the tire's contact patch becomes wider rather than longer, which can somewhat hinder sufficient water dispersion by the tread to keep the rubber on the road. Tread designs and advanced rubber compounding have helped to minimize these issues a bit, over the years.

Your car, your dreams. Just some thoughts,
CBODY67
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. The car will NEVER see a rainy day again. The roads here in Long Island are shitty enough without rain, let alone that aspect. It's a cruiser, and warm weather, sunny day only fun car. At this point, I'm going for the look. I have no intention of any performance upgrades... nothing. Just enjoying a really nice looking car.
 
LocuMob said:
235 is width in mm (9.4" wide in crude math), 75 is the sidewalk height, in percentage. 235 x .75 = 176 (7") If you want less sidewall, go with a lower second number, 70 or 60. 235 x .70 = 164 (6.6")
235 x .60 = 141 (5.6")

I run a 275/60/14 no skirts '66 Polara. Don't know the difference in rear wheel opening, or if that would fit with the skirts. I would think those are your obstacles once you find the appropriate measurements for the wheels.
Click to expand...

Would you mind posting a pic of what they look like? I'm keeping the original wheels for shows. My plan is to swap them out and add in the skirts when I want to show the car. When I want to just take it out and have fun (primary use) the Cragars go on, without skirts. So your size might be the exact look I'm shooting for.

Thanks!
 
Without skirts I ran 275/60-15's on 15x8 American Racing Outlaw II's w/3.75" backspace on my '65 Sport Fury. Slight rubbing on very hard turns but otherwise was good to go. Of course, this was just on my car and they can vary a bit.
 
[QUOTE="James Romano,

I'm looking to go with classic Cragar S/S blue caps. Eagle GT 60's in the rear and 70's up front. Will the 60s fit? I have skirts, but I'm happy to go with or without them
[/QUOTE]





No comment...….. :(
 
commando1 said:
Nobody is listening :BangHead:.
Again.
Click to expand...






I hear ya Stan. It's the younger crowd who don't really understand and respect the essence of the C body's. They squint their eyes and all they see is "Mag wheels and big tires" that do not complement the style and design of the car as a whole.
I suppose we should be happy they are showing interest in the C body's, although it is likely because of the high cost of the B and E body cars these days. As long as they are being saved and not looked upon as "donor" cars as in the past, it's a good thing.
The mag's and big tires can always be trashed and replaced with OEM, no real harm done.
 
235 X 75 X 15 WSW's. As it should be. There is nothing on this earth that would show better on this car then these OEM tire and wheel covers. IMHO.

DSC05180.JPG
 
bluefury361 said:
235 X 75 X 15 WSW's. As it should be. There is nothing on this earth that would show better on this car then these OEM tire and wheel covers. IMHO.

View attachment 343852
Click to expand...
The car looks great Will, but I'm glad I have mag wheels and big tires, mag wheels and stockish size tires, Challenger ralleye rims and stock size tires. I will use stock rims and tire size for one car I own, but that's it. I can definitely appreciate a stock look, and have started playing that game, but it's nice to step outside the box and put whatever I want (and fits) under my cars. That one that gets stock wheels will be wearing the wheelcovers that made me get the car to begin with, my only foray into a stock resto, which is harder than one might think.
 
bluefury361 said:
I hear ya Stan. It's the younger crowd who don't really understand and respect the essence of the C body's. They squint their eyes and all they see is "Mag wheels and big tires" that do not complement the style and design of the car as a whole.
I suppose we should be happy they are showing interest in the C body's, although it is likely because of the high cost of the B and E body cars these days. As long as they are being saved and not looked upon as "donor" cars as in the past, it's a good thing.
The mag's and big tires can always be trashed and replaced with OEM, no real harm done.
Click to expand...

Jeeze man .. go easy. Has nothing to do with my age of 50...and as I said I'm keeping my original SF wheels to swap out when I want. I own the car and enjoy every aspect of it. I just happen to like the look of classic Cragars with some meat on them. Doesn't mean I'm ruining the car. I've spent the last 4 months restoring my engine bay BACK to OEM, because the 72 year old previous owner had no clue about the car other than how nice it was. Now the car is back to mostly original, with several needed upgrades and minor mods. I don't think taking a shot at someone's age based on what wheels and tires your running makes sense.

IMG_20191211_165351666.jpg
(sticker has been moved to proper side location)

IMG_20191002_105323776.jpg


IMG_20191013_181751650.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Samplingman
OEM Road Wheels Tire Size
Replies
0
Views
468
Samplingman
Samplingman
Turbo301
Dumb question: removing wheel covers, and right-hand lugs?
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Toolmanmike
Toolmanmike
Turbo301
Wheels won't fit over new disc hub?!
Replies
17
Views
804
Moparx
Moparx
G
1971 newport tire size
2 3
Replies
41
Views
4K
GOLDMYN
G
Rusty Muffler
What size tires recommended 57 Belvedere?
Replies
19
Views
2K
Boydsdodge
Boydsdodge
Back
Top