Big wheels on Bbodies

[Kern Dog]

I left the body of my car stock because in my opinion, I love the design of the 68-70 Charger. I really feel that it was a design that is nearly impossible to improve upon. No hood scoop fits or looks right to me. I had to have a dropped base custom made to allow my air cleaner to clear the stock hood. If this car were a 68-70 GTX or Road Runner, I'd gladly swap on an A12 scooped hood. Those guys have it easy.
Back to the wheel topic: Looking at most cars built in the "muscle" era, the cars had skinny tires and too much body overhang. A 15" rim with more positive offset, along with a 10" wide tire is a great look. It definitely looks like more of a street racer than mine does. The NASCAR look was achieved with 15" wheels and big tires at each corner. I love the look of the NASCAR B body cars as well as the AAR Cuda and T/A Challenger. Road racing has always interested me more than drag racing has. I owned a few Camaros in my youth and handling was their strong suit. My Chevies were required to pass Californias strict smog laws so I couldn't deviate much from a stock 350. Instead I focused on improving the handling. When I got the Charger, I knew I could go hog wild on everything since it is smog exempt. I still had a strong interest in cornering though, so this explains why I built the car this way.

 

[benno440]

I run a 2" reverse cowl, but like you said find me a scoop that would look good on a charger, there is no mopar ones that does, I tried them all just about.
Doesn't look too bad IMO

 

[383man]

Yea the 68 to 70 Chargers never came from the factory with a scoop so if you go for the more factory original look it looks best without a scoop. I wish I had a pic of Dick Landy's 68 Charger as he used the 67 WO/RO scoop on his 68 Charger and I thought it really looked good. Its only about 2 inches tall so it is not real big as its just enough to look good on the car to me. But of course if you need height for and intake its not much help. Kinda like my Max Wedge scoop as the way it dips in the center its only about a 1/2" to an inch above the hood so my scoop really does not give much more room for a taller intake. Thats why if I ever get around to trying a single plane the MP 337 is about the only late style single plane that will fit under my hood. Ron

- - - Updated - - -

I run a 2" reverse cowl, but like you said find me a scoop that would look good on a charger, there is no mopar ones that does, I tried them all just about.
Doesn't look too bad IMO
View attachment 236827

Benno I have to admit that small cowl looks very nice on your car ! Ron

 

[747mopar]

I think the cowl looks pretty cool on there myself, here's what I did. Keep in mind a visit to the media blaster destroyed my hood so I thought "I always wanted a shaker hood". 100% homemade so nobody can say I copied anything haha.

 

[HT413]

I know this subject has been beat deader than roadkill but im thinking of putting 18/17's on my 68 roadrunner. This should be good as far as back spacing right? I like the look of the bigger wheels

R16-786545 17x8, 5x4 1/2 bolt pattern, 4.50" backspace(front)

R16-896552 18x9, 5x4 1/2 bolt pattern, 5.25" backspace,(rear)

View attachment 234864hmm

Assuming you have a stock length axle, I'd think those rear rims would fit fine. 9" rim with 5.25" back space pushes the wheel out about 3.75", which I think is close to stock. So long as the tires aren't monsters, I'd think you'll be fine.

The only thing I have to say though I'm not really 100% sure on back space, as my car is mini tubbed so I've never had to deal with OEM wheel houses. But my axle is stock length so I'm pretty comfortable with saying that pushing the wheel 3.75" should be fine.

Out front, that 4.5" back space seems a bit much to me but my car is in storage so unfortunately I can't take measurements for ya.

I have to say, I'm pretty disappointed to see such a good bunch of guys act like this. We're better than that, which is why we're here at FBBO and not on yellow bullet or moparts. What do y'all say we put this behind us and start helping this guy like we always have.

 

[Wijns07]

Here is a pic of mine.

 

[pgaylord]

Here's my '67 with 17's on it. I like the white-letter tire thing, tire paint pens took care of that (and a red stripe too).

 

[Enrique]

Here's my '67 with 17's on it. I like the white-letter tire thing, tire paint pens took care of that (and a red stripe too).

View attachment 1010814

Can you gimme the combo wheel size and tire size plus spacers if any! In finding very difficult to see pictures of 67 Belvedere/satellite with these kind of wheels

 

[JoePole]

Can you gimme the combo wheel size and tire size plus spacers if any! In finding very difficult to see pictures of 67 Belvedere/satellite with these kind of wheels

Hey Enrique. Member was last seen here over 2 years ago. FYI

 

[jeff Mentzer]

17x8 American Racing wheels

 

[Enrique]

Hey Enrique. Member was last seen here over 2 years ago. FYI
View attachment 1010978

Thanks!

 

[qkcuda]

17's on my Charger

 

[Commando66]

Trying some 17’s on my Belvedere. They came with 255/40/17. Looks good in the front but too short in the rear. The wheels might go on my 69 D100 short box.

 

[NV Dodge]

I only changed 3 things from exactly the way my Mom bought the car in 1969 Dual exhaust(no headers) Flowmaster Mufflers and Tires and Wheels
Front 17 x 8 with 245/45 17's Rear 18 x 9.5 with 285/40 18's with room to spare

 

[andyf]

Here's my '67 with 17's on it. I like the white-letter tire thing, tire paint pens took care of that (and a red stripe too).

View attachment 1010814

That is a nice looking car.

 

[andyf]

Trying some 17’s on my Belvedere. They came with 255/40/17. Looks good in the front but too short in the rear. The wheels might go on my 69 D100 short box.

View attachment 1028524 View attachment 1028525

I agree, the rear tires look a little short. Try a higher profile in the back, maybe a 255/50-17? A 255/40-17 is only 25 inches tall and you need about 27 inches to fill up a B body wheel well. I used to use 235/55-17 tires on B body cars back when I was making brake kits. The 235/55-17 was 27 inches tall and would typically fit any B body with the correct offset. It is also a great tire that has plenty of compliance but handles really well. I still think it is the best all around tire for a B body.

 

[RJRENTON]

I again reiterate my point about the large wheel/tire combinations.....Im reasonably confident in saying that the users of the large diameter/wheel combinations have given ABSOLUTELY no thought to the loads imposed on the front wheel bearings (both inner and outer bearing assemblies) and the rear axle bearings....yes, including the ever popular "Green" bearings.
The larger wheel and tire combinations add a significant component to BOTH the axial and radial load capabilities the bearing assemblies must handle. In addition, the larger wheel/tire combination adds to the UNSPRUNG weight of the vehicle which requires more braking effort (ideally thru bigger brake swept area) and/or hydraulic pressure. The formula: F (force) = M (mass or static weight of the vehicle) x A (acceleration or speed at which the vehicle is traveling - kinetic energy) definitely applies.....in spite of what your "buddy" may think or says: "that it doesn't matter". When, not if, the bearings fail, that you'll be aware of the cause of the failure. It is likely that the front wheel bearings will fail first, because of the additional forces that will be absorbed. This additional force must be handled by the rear axle bearings as well and due to the limited radial load capabilities of the "Green" bearing, failure is likely as well. The moral of the story: up size the wheel/tire combinations at your own risk.....do your own do dilligance. Just my opinion of course.
BOB RENTON

 

[Commando66]

I again reiterate my point about the large wheel/tire combinations.....Im reasonably confident in saying thst the users of the large diameter/wheel combinations have given ABSOLUTELY no thought to the loads imposed on the front wheel bearings (both inner and outer bearing assemblies) and the rear axle bearings....yes, including the ever popular "Green" bearings.
The larger wheel and tire combinations add a significant component to BOTH the axial and radial load capabilities the bearing assemblies must handle. In addition, the larger wheel/tire combination adds to the UNSPRUNG weight weight of the vehicle which requires more braking effort (ideally thru bigger brake swept area) and/or hydraulic pressure. The formula: F (force) = M (mass or static weight of the vehicle) x A (acceleration or speed at which the vehicle is traveling - kinetic energy) definitely applies.....in spite of what your "buddy" may think or says: "that it doesn't matter". When, not if, the bearings fail, that you'll be aware of the cause of the failure. It is likely that the front wheel bearings will fail first, because of the additional forces that will be absorbed. This additional force must be handled by the rear axle bearings as well and due to the limited radial load capabilities of the "Green" bearing, failure is likely as well. The moral of the story: up size the wheel/tire combinations at your own risk.....do your own do dilligance. Just my opinion of course.
BOB RENTON

This sounds like the same thoughts that an older Chrysler tech told me in the mid-eighties. He wouldn’t ride in my 66 Barracuda and warned me not to drive it with the 13” radial tires. He said that Chrysler didn’t design these cars for radial tires and there will be catastrophic failure of the ball joints.

 

[Photon440]

I again reiterate my point about the large wheel/tire combinations.....Im reasonably confident in saying that the users of the large diameter/wheel combinations have given ABSOLUTELY no thought to the loads imposed on the front wheel bearings (both inner and outer bearing assemblies) and the rear axle bearings....yes, including the ever popular "Green" bearings.
The larger wheel and tire combinations add a significant component to BOTH the axial and radial load capabilities the bearing assemblies must handle. In addition, the larger wheel/tire combination adds to the UNSPRUNG weight of the vehicle which requires more braking effort (ideally thru bigger brake swept area) and/or hydraulic pressure. The formula: F (force) = M (mass or static weight of the vehicle) x A (acceleration or speed at which the vehicle is traveling - kinetic energy) definitely applies.....in spite of what your "buddy" may think or says: "that it doesn't matter". When, not if, the bearings fail, that you'll be aware of the cause of the failure. It is likely that the front wheel bearings will fail first, because of the additional forces that will be absorbed. This additional force must be handled by the rear axle bearings as well and due to the limited radial load capabilities of the "Green" bearing, failure is likely as well. The moral of the story: up size the wheel/tire combinations at your own risk.....do your own do dilligance. Just my opinion of course.
BOB RENTON

Even if you had 500 pound front wheels, wouldn't the bearings still be supporting the weight of the car? The wheels and tires themselves aren't hanging off the bearing, they're sitting on the ground. I can see heavy wheels being harder on the brakes. Of course, there are a lot of large wheel combos out there that, with light weight wheels and shorter tire sidewalls end up weighing less than the factory installation.

 

[Kern Dog]

I again reiterate my point about the large wheel/tire combinations..................

Hey Bob.....

These are not commuter cars anymore. They are toys. In some cases, well maintained toys. If the bearings only last 10 years of an average of 2000 miles a year, who will complain about that?
You think we only drive these to get groceries? The stock 14" wheels and tires are terrible for performance driving.