I am beginning to restore a 70 chevelle ss 396. I am currently running 255/60/R15 in the back and 235/60/R15 in the front. What are my options for going to bigger wheels and tires?

Your probably looking at 17" wheels and tires, and which your installer would suggest the correct sizes to use. Many Guys are running that size using American Racing Torg-thrust 2 wheels. In 17 inch there are thousands of styles to go for. But you need to stop at a shop that has a good Variety. Also depends if your looking for the all out custom or performance look. With an SS 396 got to go with the performance look. But everybody has there own taste. The ride height of your car will also determine what size you can use..

What width do you recommend for the "performance" look? 255? bigger?

If you are going to 17 I think you need at least a 275/40 on the rear.

How about 33x22.50 hoosiers :D j/k

I agree with dennis a 275/40 would be a good place to start. You might also look through the Team Chevevelle feature cars too for different sizes:
http://www.chevelles.com/feature/index.html

Thanks for all the help so far, but, What is the recommended offset for those torque thrust II's with a 275/40?

Thanks again

Betty SS,
Go to www.americanracing.com (http://www.americanracing.com) click on vintage wheels, look for torque thrust and it will show you all the available sizes plus offsets. But still will not tell you what fits your needs. There are plenty of members with that 17" wheel on there Chevelles. So hold on someone will answer you..........Last resort call American Racing or go to a Dealer.......

I'd also look at the 255/45R17s if the tire you are looking at has the size available. Wider tread width than the 275/40s with a narrower section width. You can also run them on an inch narrower wheel, all the way down to 8", 9" recommended.

jon-a 255 does not have a wider tread width than a 275(BTW, how do you have wider tread width without wider section width, I've been selling tires a decade or so and must have missed that in tire tech 101). The first 3 digits are the tire section width measured in millimeters. The second 2 digits are the aspect ratio, the height of the sidewall as determined by dividing that number into the section width. Obviously the last 2 didgits are the diameter. Lets see an example-275/40R17=
275mm/25.4(to convert into inches)=10.83"
10.83"*40%(10.83 is the section width / 40%, the aspect ratio)=4.33"
4.33"*2(sidewall height *2)+17"(rim diameter)=25.66"
So, a 275/40R17 is 25.66" tall and 10.83" wide.
In contrast the 255/45R17 is(no more math) 26.04" tall and 10.04" wide, almost a full inch narrower

jon-a 255 does not have a wider tread width than a 275(BTW, how do you have wider tread width without wider section width, I've been selling tires a decade or so and must have missed that in tire tech 101). Tread width and section width are not inclusive. Stiffer cantilever sidewalls can support more treadwidth. Various manufacturers will have different amounts of tread width on the same size tires. On tires such as a 235/75R15 you can find nearly 2 inches of tread width variations between manufacturers despite sharing the identical section width.

On a quick search of manufacturers that provide tread width data (most manufacturers don't) I was able to find variations in tread width for the 275/40R17 which ranged from 8.7" to 9.9". On the 255/45R17 the range was from 8.6" to 9.5".

So I stand corrected and should have said some 255/45R17s have wider tread width.

Even "if" you could find a 255 with a wider tread width (which I still doubt) than a 275, the overall tire width as seen from the rear would be almost an inch narrower. I have been running 16-17's for about 10 years(since way before it was "cool") and of all the tires I have run (short list off the top of my head BFG, Michelin, Falken, Ohtsu, Goodyear, and Firestone) none of them seemed to vary much in actual veiwable tread width vs overall tire width. Tread width can be modified somewhat by mounting tires on different width wheels, but as a rule a 255 is not going look wider than 275 especially on a 17" rim. I currently have 255/40's on the front with 9.5 wheels and 275/40's on the rear with an 11" wheel. The 275 "look" about 3-4" wider even though they are not.

Here is a tire size calculator:

http://www.powerdog.com/tiresize.cgi

Thanks Hawaiian, that will come in handy.

Angle of view will certainly give the perception of a wider section width tire putting more tread on the ground, but does nothing to change actual tread width. Wheel width can dramatically change section width up to a full inch from both extremes of a recommended wheel width. I have also seen bias ply slicks change both diameter and section width when mounted on differnt wheel sizes. In no case have I ever seen radials or bias ply tires change their tread width based on a change in wheel width.

Where the meat hits the street is soley based on tread width, inflation and diameter. Section width has nothing to do with it. Wheel width certainly can add some tread deflection such as cupping or convexing, but only nominally effects treadwidth.

Take a look at some Firestone Firehawk Indy 500s with a very squared transition from sidewall to tread. The cantilever side wall design of these tires support more tread width than the same size tires from other manufacturers. In these forums you can find others who have made mention of "no roll" in the side wall to tread transition of these tires.

Yesterday for giggles I put a ruler to the tread width of a BMW M3 which sported Continental 235/40 19s in front and 255/35 19s in the rear. The tread width was identical despite totally different side wall shapes. Obviously the engineers at BMW must find some merit in sidewall flex of steer versus drive tires despite sharing tread width.

So again my apologies for the comment comparing the two tire sizes. I should have known better as I have already lived through the disappointment of tread width not being analogous to section width.

http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/Redrum/Leftfrontn3.JPG

The car has 2 inch dropped spindles up front and Hotchkis two inch drop springs in the rear. I used Hotchkis sway bars front and rear, Hotchkis adjustable uppers and lowers in the rear and polyurethane bushings. I have ZERO wheel hop and the car handles very well in the corners, feeling comparable to my 97 Z-28.

On the rear I have 18 x 10 inch wheels with 6 inches of backspacing. If your car body is centered on the frame you can go to 6.25 inch backspacing and 305 wide tires. If you go to 17 or 18 inch wheels the 6 inch+ backspacing just puts the wheels outside of the contact point for the shocks in their stock location. I have 295/45/18 tires that are 28.4 inches tall. The tires fit fully inside the wheel wells.

I have a 2nd set for the rear that I have my 305/45/18 Nitto drag radials on (28.8 inches tall). They are 18 x 10's with 6.5 inches of backspacing. I had ford type c-clip eliminators (Dutchman) welded onto my rear end and they added .25 inch outbound to both sides and the Baer rotors put some width outward too. I have no clearance issues that a couple of minutes with a hammer did not resolve. I had to clearance the very rear of the inner tirewell about 1/16 inch.

Up front I have 18 x 8 wheels with 5 1/8 backspacing front with 255/45/18 tires (27.1 inches tall). I used a Hotchkis sway bar up front as it has a tighter radius on the turns at the bushings that is needed for the 5 1/8 backspacing. Use 5 inch or 4 ¾ if you use a stock sway bar and you should still clear the fender on a sharp turn. It is a balancing act up front with dropped spindles.

Looking GOOD Redrum

Originally posted by Hi-po SS 454:
Looking GOOD Redrum Hell ya, Mike your car looks very good. I am not a huge fan of 68's but seeing yours makes me a believer :cool: