Nice looking 18s on this '73 Sport

-
MRGTX

MRGTX

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2007
Messages
2,198
Reaction score
728
Location
CT, USA
My only question is whether or not these could be sized for proper performance width/compound tires...

Does anyone recognize this car?

1973 Dodge Dart | Art & Speed Classic Car Gallery in Memphis, TN

1973-dodge-dart-340-sport (1).jpeg


1973-dodge-dart-340-sport (2).jpeg


1973-dodge-dart-340-sport (3).jpeg


1973-dodge-dart-340-sport.jpeg
 
I like the wheels, but the profile is too small. 50 maybe 45 ratio minimum is needed.

IMHO
 
See there, you've hit on the big wheel problem. When you get above a 17 on our old cars, there simply isn't room for a decent sidewall height. 26-27 is a tall as most a-bodys can fit comfortably, and an 18-20 inch wheel eats up a bunch of that.
For what it's worth, that's about the nicest 18" setup I've seen on a Duster. But I would probably go 17s.
 
MRGTX said:
My only question is whether or not these could be sized for proper performance width/compound tires...

Does anyone recognize this car?

1973 Dodge Dart | Art & Speed Classic Car Gallery in Memphis, TN

View attachment 1715910727

View attachment 1715910728

View attachment 1715910729

View attachment 1715910730
Click to expand...

I think you'd have to ask American Racing. I'm kinda curious why the owner would go through the trouble of getting custom wheels and then only run 225's and 255's, but whatever. It also looks like the tires are stretched a bit, like they're on the small side for the width of the rims.

The VN510's are available normally in an 18x8 with a 4.5" backspace, and 18x10 with a 5.5" backspace or 18x10 with a 5.97" backspace (+12). That last one is the closest to fitting anything. I think on a Duster/Demon/Dart Sport with a BBP A-body 8 3/4 and a 1/2" spring offset you could probably pull off 295's in the back with that. The front doesn't have enough offset. I think you'd need to get to about 6.3" on the backspace to make it work with a 275. Tomswheels had 18x10's on his Valiant with about 6.4" of backspace, but he was running 285's. And he pushed and rolled the crap out of his fenders.

So, if you could get them to make you an 18x10 with a 6.3" or 6.4" for backspace you'd be in business. It's not far off what they already make, and if you have an A-body 8 3/4 rear you could use the off the shelf 18x10 +12's so you'd only need 2 customs. The face of the wheels is pretty flat, so, they should be able to alter the backspacing some without changing the design.

Dana67Dart said:
I like the wheels, but the profile is too small. 50 maybe 45 ratio minimum is needed.

IMHO
Click to expand...

In the front the tires are only 25.1" tall, about the best you can do is 26" with any decent tire width. So without changing width that would be a 225/45/18. But with that set up I'd be more inclined to run a 245/40/18 or a 255/40/18. Still 40 series but those would be 25.7" or 26.1" tall, respectively.

In the back those 255/45/18's are already 27" tall.
 
The front tires are way to narrow. It ain't got "much" rear tire, either. I don't mind the diameter, but that wheel style ain't right for the car, IMO.
 
72bluNblu said:
In the front the tires are only 25.1" tall, about the best you can do is 26" with any decent tire width
Click to expand...
My point is smaller dia wheels, 16 maybe 17 with 45 or 50 ratio looks less minnie mouse

Screenshot_20220419-230623.png
 
RustyRatRod said:
The front tires are way to narrow. It ain't got "much" rear tire, either. I don't mind the diameter, but that wheel style ain't right for the car, IMO.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't get it. Like the whole reason to go to 18's is so the tie rod end fits inside the lip of the wheel so you can run 6"+ for the backspace, which gets you to 9" or 10" wheels so you can run 275's up front.

Spending the coin to get custom wheels only to run 225's up front seems like an exercise in futility to me.

Dana67Dart said:
My point is smaller dia wheels, 16 maybe 17 with 45 or 50 ratio looks less minnie mouse

View attachment 1715910780
Click to expand...

Who cares what they look like? If you step down to 16" wheels the absolute best you'll be able to get for tire width up front is a 245 (assuming no massive body mods and a slightly lowered car). A 16" wheel still has ball joint and brake interference issues that limit backspace. With a 17" rim you can get 255's, maybe 265's but not really 275's with the vast majority of wheels out there. 17's solve the ball joint and brake interference issues, but most run into tie rod end clearance problems around 5.7" of backspace, which isn't quite enough to run 9" rims and 275's unless you do some more serious fender work.

Go to 18's and the only limit is the frame rail. You can run up to 10" wide wheels and 275's without dramatic body modifications. And, you can run 13" and 14" brakes too so you can actually stop those big old tires. And if you want to roll and push the fender some, well, 285's are possible.

You guys all seem to care more about what the wheel looks like than what you can do with the performance you can get. Seems weird for "musclecar" guys to care more about looks than performance. Or maybe you all just got too caught up with only being fast in a straight line and only for a 1/4 mile. Seems silly, the faster you go in the 1/4 the more useless your car is at everything else.

img_9932-jpeg.jpg
 
72bluNblu said:
Yeah I don't get it. Like the whole reason to go to 18's is so the tie rod end fits inside the lip of the wheel so you can run 6"+ for the backspace, which gets you to 9" or 10" wheels so you can run 275's up front.

Spending the coin to get custom wheels only to run 225's up front seems like an exercise in futility to me.



Who cares what they look like? If you step down to 16" wheels the absolute best you'll be able to get for tire width up front is a 245 (assuming no massive body mods and a slightly lowered car). A 16" wheel still has ball joint and brake interference issues that limit backspace. With a 17" rim you can get 255's, maybe 265's but not really 275's with the vast majority of wheels out there. 17's solve the ball joint and brake interference issues, but most run into tie rod end clearance problems around 5.7" of backspace, which isn't quite enough to run 9" rims and 275's unless you do some more serious fender work.

Go to 18's and the only limit is the frame rail. You can run up to 10" wide wheels and 275's without dramatic body modifications. And, you can run 13" and 14" brakes too so you can actually stop those big old tires. And if you want to roll and push the fender some, well, 285's are possible.

You guys all seem to care more about what the wheel looks like than what you can do with the performance you can get. Seems weird for "musclecar" guys to care more about looks than performance. Or maybe you all just got too caught up with only being fast in a straight line and only for a 1/4 mile. Seems silly, the faster you go in the 1/4 the more useless your car is at everything else.

View attachment 1715910788
Click to expand...
As afraid as I am to admit this, SOME of these big wheels are growin on me. lol
 
RustyRatRod said:
As afraid as I am to admit this, SOME of these big wheels are growin on me. lol
Click to expand...

Hey it's like anything. You can get away with a lot if you do it right.

And there are ugly wheels in all kinds of diameters.
 
72bluNblu said:
Yeah I don't get it. Seems silly, the faster you go in the 1/4 the more useless your car is at everything else.
Click to expand...

I agree with this 100%.
Drag racing is fun but a great handling car can do everything well.
 
72bluNblu said:
Hey it's like anything. You can get away with a lot if you do it right.

And there are ugly wheels in all kinds of diameters.
Click to expand...
I just now noticed something about your Deester. It really doesn't sit "much" lower than stock. It appears to because of the size of the wheels.
 
RustyRatRod said:
I just now noticed something about your Deester. It really doesn't sit "much" lower than stock. It appears to because of the size of the wheels.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you consider stock. The "A-B" measurement is 0 instead of 1 7/8", so by the FSM suspension settings it's 2" lower.

But my front tires are 25.7" tall and the rears are 27.2", and those are taller than stock by more than a little. It's about 24 7/8" to the top of the wheel opening on my front fenders. Rears are up to about 26.5" now with the new 295/40/18's out back, I added about a 1/2" of rubber rake with those. I may put a 1/2" block in to drop it back down. Header flanges are just under 4" to the ground though.

There are definitely cars lower than mine, but once the header flanges get to about 3-1/2" off the deck it's just too big of a pain in the *** to drive normally on the street. Plus if you get too low the roll center goes negative, which isn't what you want. She's set up for best handling, function over form, and that goes for wheels, ride height, the whole deal.
img_9963-jpeg.jpg
 
I was thinking in terms of the rocker to the ground and that front spoiler to the ground.
 
RustyRatRod said:
I was thinking in terms of the rocker to the ground and that front spoiler to the ground.
Click to expand...

I mean, the tallest factory tire was like what, 25” tall?

So yeah to the bodywork probably only around an inch or so lower. But I can’t shave the lower bumpstops down anymore, at full compression a 26” tall front tire would bottom out at the top of my inner fender. To get the body lower I’d have to run shorter tires. Or completely rework all the sheet metal.
 
72bluNblu said:
I mean, the tallest factory tire was like what, 25” tall?

So yeah to the bodywork probably only around an inch or so lower. But I can’t shave the lower bumpstops down anymore, at full compression a 26” tall front tire would bottom out at the top of my inner fender. To get the body lower I’d have to run shorter tires. Or completely rework all the sheet metal.
Click to expand...
...and it probably wouldn't handle any better.
 
Any lower an this thing would be a asphalt plow.

Not a fan of Falken tires but whats on there is light years better than anything they came with stock.

upload_2022-4-20_7-43-3.png
 
Looks like the dreaded Hedman Hedders.
I hate how they misspell "Headers"...
 
Yeah, I noticed those headers. It's funny how some clearly inferior designs can survive for years. Are Hedman headers ("hedders") that much cheaper? Seems that smashing them on a speedbump and doing the job twice would offset any possible savings on the initial price.
 
MRGTX said:
Are Hedman headers ("hedders") that much cheaper?
Click to expand...
I always ask myself, how much do these cost and how much would it cost to replace them with the right part. TTi or D453's don't seem like such a ball breaker then.
 
MRGTX said:
My only question is whether or not these could be sized for proper performance width/compound tires...

Does anyone recognize this car?

1973 Dodge Dart | Art & Speed Classic Car Gallery in Memphis, TN

View attachment 1715910727

View attachment 1715910728

View attachment 1715910729

View attachment 1715910730
Click to expand...

Just saw this post. I do recognize the car, its mine. The wheels and tires came with the car. I could have had the stock wheels but these looked much better than the old stock wheels and tires. I love the way it looks and I have had a lot of people tell me they like it too. The headers are Hooker Competition headers. Its very similar to driving a Corvette in terms of the low hanging pipes, just have to be a little careful.

Let me know if you want to know anything else.

Thanks

Dave
 
Sport340 said:
Just saw this post. I do recognize the car, its mine. The wheels and tires came with the car. I could have had the stock wheels but these looked much better than the old stock wheels and tires. I love the way it looks and I have had a lot of people tell me they like it too. The headers are Hooker Competition headers. Its very similar to driving a Corvette in terms of the low hanging pipes, just have to be a little careful.

Let me know if you want to know anything else.

Thanks

Dave
Click to expand...

Hey I think the wheels look great! Now, if I was gonna do it I'd run 18x9's or 9.5's up front so I could run 275's up front, but that's why I did that on my car.

The headers are just painful. I run Doug's on mine and having them be above the steering link is the only way to do headers on these cars. Sure, the D453's are expensive, the TTI's are even more, but everything else is eventually gonna get smashed flat. And if you have to replace them you've lost any savings by going with the cheaper header the first time.

It's a great looking car as it is! :thumbsup:
 
MRGTX said:
Yeah, I noticed those headers. It's funny how some clearly inferior designs can survive for years. Are Hedman headers ("hedders") that much cheaper? Seems that smashing them on a speedbump and doing the job twice would offset any possible savings on the initial price.
Click to expand...
No, but their derivatives are. Summit brand, Flowtek and all the other cheaper brands. They're all bent the same. And yes, Summit brand is like 150 bucks.

Yall have to remember, one, not everybody can afford TTI or Dougs and two, there was a time when those type bent headers were ALL we had. They worked great before people started lowering the crap out of their cars.
 
MRGTX said:
Yeah, I noticed those headers. It's funny how some clearly inferior designs can survive for years. Are Hedman headers ("hedders") that much cheaper? Seems that smashing them on a speedbump and doing the job twice would offset any possible savings on the initial price.
Click to expand...
Another thing of note is a LOT of people have had problems getting "the best" TTI and Dougs to fit. I'd never do it, but a lot of people have dented and even what I would call smashing tubes to get them to fit. I'd send them back. The only thing I've EVER had to do with the "cheap" headers was get two prybars and pry the tubes a little more apart so they won't rattle on the torsion bars.......and I've used a LOT of them.
 
RustyRatRod said:
Another thing of note is a LOT of people have had problems getting "the best" TTI and Dougs to fit. I'd never do it, but a lot of people have dented and even what I would call smashing tubes to get them to fit. I'd send them back. The only thing I've EVER had to do with the "cheap" headers was get two prybars and pry the tubes a little more apart so they won't rattle on the torsion bars.......and I've used a LOT of them.
Click to expand...

Did they work though? Because every one I've seen that's spent more than 6 months on a car on the street is smashed to hell.

I get the good ones are expensive, I've shelled out for Doug's and TTI's. And they have their issues too, no doubt. But even at $150 for the cheap ones, if you have to buy a second set and consider the time you spent installing, removing, and installing the 2nd set you're already money ahead with a set of Doug's. At least I am if I consider what my time is worth.
 
72bluNblu said:
Did they work though? Because every one I've seen that's spent more than 6 months on a car on the street is smashed to hell.

I get the good ones are expensive, I've shelled out for Doug's and TTI's. And they have their issues too, no doubt. But even at $150 for the cheap ones, if you have to buy a second set and consider the time you spent installing, removing, and installing the 2nd set you're already money ahead with a set of Doug's. At least I am if I consider what my time is worth.
Click to expand...
They've ALWAYS worked for me and anybody around HERE I knew. @Bad Sport has them on his car and they work FINE. ....and I'm not bashing guys that like to lower their cars. It can look cool. I'm just SAYIN that those type headers DO work as long as the car sits at stock ride height.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top