[GTObsessed]

Will it work?

How is the fit. Any rubbing issues? Did you have to modify anything?

I am considering a new set of tires and rims. I would like to make sure I leave some room for a disc brake conversion later down the road. Currently my 64 is stock. I do not want to modify fenders or anything. Can I pick a back space that will work with the stock set up and also work later down the road if I do a disc conversion?


17x7 Front? Back Spacing
17x8 Rear? Back Spacing

I have my eye on a set of Crager Eliminators and the DB Nitto450 Redlines. I just want to make sure they will fit. Before I spend that much money. Any help is appreciated. I have spent days searching this section and my mind is fried.

How is the quality of the Cragers...I am debating between the polished or chrome finish. I would prefer low maintenance. However, I don't want to deal with the chrome flaking off if that is an issue?

Thank you,

[The Champ]

225/50/17's are 25.9" tall so you should have no problems with those on all 4 corners if you want.

The 17x7 Cragar Eliminators have 4.25" BS - same as the factory 15x7's that I run on my '64 GTO. I have 235/60/15's that are 10 millimeters wider (about .4") than the 225's and are 26.1" tall. These fit fine inside the stock wheelwells with all stock components.

The 17x8 Eliminators have 4.5" BS - which is what you'll want if you are planning to go with a disc brake conversion. The conversion typically requires .25" more BS so that's why I'd suggest 8's. Because the 225/50's are narrower than my 235/60's you might be alright with 7's - but I'd go with 8's to be sure.

Personally I think a 26" tall tire is too short for the rear of our cars - I run 255/60's which are 27" tall. A 255/50/17 would be about that tall and would fit fine on the 17x8's.

I'm actually considering these same rims in 15x8 with 4.5" BS for my car when I get my front disc conversion done soon - as I anticipate problems with my current rims and tires.

I have the same question as you on the chrome. I actually would probably go with the gray centers so that I would only have to polish the hoop. Low maintenance is good.



Since that photo was taken, I have put DB redlines on too...

[amcmike]

Originally Posted by The Champ

225/50/17's are 25.9" tall so you should have no problems with those on all 4 corners if you want.

The 17x7 Cragar Eliminators have 4.25" BS - same as the factory 15x7's that I run on my '64 GTO. I have 235/60/15's that are 10 millimeters wider (about .4") than the 225's and are 26.1" tall. These fit fine inside the stock wheelwells with all stock components.

The 17x8 Eliminators have 4.5" BS - which is what you'll want if you are planning to go with a disc brake conversion. The conversion typically requires .25" more BS so that's why I'd suggest 8's. Because the 225/50's are narrower than my 235/60's you might be alright with 7's - but I'd go with 8's to be sure.

Personally I think a 26" tall tire is too short for the rear of our cars - I run 255/60's which are 27" tall. A 255/50/17 would be about that tall and would fit fine on the 17x8's.

Actually, disc brakes push the rim out further (typically .25").

And when you go from a 7 with 4.25 inch to a 8 with 4.5", you've pushed it out again .25".

If it were a 8 with 4.75" backspacing it would recenter the tire the same. In other words, a one inch wider rim needs 0.5" more backspace just to keep it equivalent. If you're trying to compensate for the discs, you'd need 4.75" backspacing with the 8".

This calculator might help you visualize it. Use offset 6mm with the 7, and offset 0 for the 8. http://www.rimsntires.com/specs.jsp

[The Champ]

Originally Posted by amcmike

Actually, disc brakes push the rim out further (typically .25").

That's what I said when I said that he would need MORE BS.

And when you go from a 7 with 4.25 inch to a 8 with 4.5", you've pushed it out again .25".

The tire didn't get 1" wider when you go from a 7" to an 8" rim.

What does happen is you've moved everything in .25". If the inside of the tire is .25" closer, the outside of the tire has to be .25" further away from the fender lip.

What changes is that the tire doesn't balloon as much when you go from a 7 to an 8.

If it were a 8 with 4.75" backspacing it would recenter the tire the same. In other words, a one inch wider rim needs 0.5" more backspace just to keep it equivalent. If you're trying to compensate for the discs, you'd need 4.75" backspacing with the 8".

This calculator might help you visualize it. Use offset 6mm with the 7, and offset 0 for the 8. http://www.rimsntires.com/specs.jsp

I'm very familar with that link. I used to use it and believe it until I learned from a performance tire guy that it was wrong...

[amcmike]

Originally Posted by The Champ

That's what I said when I said that he would need MORE BS.



The tire didn't get 1" wider when you go from a 7" to an 8" rim.

What does happen is you've moved everything in .25". If the inside of the tire is .25" closer, the outside of the tire has to be .25" further away from the fender lip.

What changes is that the tire doesn't balloon as much when you go from a 7 to an 8.



I'm very familar with that link. I used to use it and believe it until I learned from a performance tire guy that it was wrong...

Never said the tire got wider. But the tire has to center itself on the rim. It's moving in .25" but it's also moving .75" toward the outside. As you said, there's just less bulge overhang on either side. That bulge will still be symmetrical.

Let's say for example the tire is 10" wide. On the 7" rim that leaves 1.5" overhang on each side. 4.25bs + 1.5" overhang = 5.75" from the hub to the inside of the wheelwell. On the 8" rim that's 1" overhang on each side. Therefore 4.5bs + 1" overhang = 5.5" to to the inside of the wheel well. Or draw an axle and the two rim widths with their respective backspacing to scale, and then cut out a tire, and center it on each rim, and note which way it moves.

[amcmike]

Originally Posted by amcmike

hub to the inside of the wheelwell.

To be clear, I mean towards the direction of the frame. Probably would have been a better way to say it.