Backyard Mechanic

http://sn65.com/SN65%20chronological...er%2005-12.htm

quote:
One of the things I noticed is that the fascination with huge diameter
rims tucked up as far as possible under the fenders and quarters is still
prevalent in the hobby. Fords, Chevys and Mopars alike are all getting
the same treatment. This practice is starting to ware a little thin on
me. The cars are starting to appear somewhat cartoonish in nature.
Also, I do not consider rims over 17" in diameter to be suitable for
performance applications. Should not form follow function?

We are currently planning on 17" rims for our project. Personally, I
think that these look rather massive on this car and that bumping them up
in size would take us away from our overall theme.

Even so, people have been dropped me notes saying that the car deserves
something a bit larger, say 19's in the front and 20's in the back.

As with everything else on this project, we are going to go counter to
the current trend.
unquote

Email rj{at}sn65 and tell him you're with him 100% on that.

--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!

Jimmy

I still have stock 15" turbines (v rated of course) on the Mustang. I'm
so 80's?

And I'm putting 15" 10 bullethole chrome Keystones on my Poncho...guess
I won't be able to hang with the "bling" crowd. I was EVEN thinking of
old centerlines or 5 spoke cragars. I AM getting old....

Backyard Mechanic wrote:
> http://sn65.com/SN65%20chronological...er%2005-12.htm
>
> quote:
> One of the things I noticed is that the fascination with huge diameter
> rims tucked up as far as possible under the fenders and quarters is still
> prevalent in the hobby. Fords, Chevys and Mopars alike are all getting
> the same treatment. This practice is starting to ware a little thin on
> me. The cars are starting to appear somewhat cartoonish in nature.
> Also, I do not consider rims over 17" in diameter to be suitable for
> performance applications. Should not form follow function?
>
> We are currently planning on 17" rims for our project. Personally, I
> think that these look rather massive on this car and that bumping them up
> in size would take us away from our overall theme.
>
> Even so, people have been dropped me notes saying that the car deserves
> something a bit larger, say 19's in the front and 20's in the back.
>
> As with everything else on this project, we are going to go counter to
> the current trend.
> unquote
>
> Email rj{at}sn65 and tell him you're with him 100% on that.
>

Backyard Mechanic

Jimmy <jimsfastls1@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I still have stock 15" turbines (v rated of course) on the Mustang.
> I'm so 80's?
>
> And I'm putting 15" 10 bullethole chrome Keystones on my
> Poncho...guess I won't be able to hang with the "bling" crowd. I was
> EVEN thinking of old centerlines or 5 spoke cragars. I AM getting
> old....
>

Awwww. Crap!

I had emailed Bob, begging him not to even consider it.. but I SHOULD
have suggested he go the opposite way; to the late eighties fad where you
use the 14 inch x 10 or 12 inch wide 'matchbox racer' wheels... that
would be cool!
- - - - - - - - - -
BTW.. I KNOW it's just me that feels this way, but I hated the GT
turbines in 88 and I still do; the 10-holes look much better.

--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!

Garth Almgren

Around 12/13/2005 5:49 PM, Jimmy wrote:

> I still have stock 15" turbines (v rated of course) on the Mustang. I'm
> so 80's?

I don't know why people rag on them so much (other than being hard to
clean!) ((Argh, no pun intended!)) but I really like the way the
turbines look on FOXes. Retro all the way!


--
/ Garth - '83 GL V6stang Hatch <Former MW #7> \
| My V6stang: http://www.v6stang.com/v6stang |
| RAMFM Merchandise: http://www.cafeshops.com/ramfm |
\ Mail pgp@v6stang.com for secure reply information /

Scott Van Nest

I am considering going with 16x8 Cragar's for my '71. that way i can still
somewhat afford to wear out tires and have the decent looks.

Scott
"Backyard Mechanic" <pettyfog@yaywho.com> wrote in message
news:Xns972BCBB75FC50pettyfogery@207.115.17.102...
> http://sn65.com/SN65%20chronological...er%2005-12.htm
>
> quote:
> One of the things I noticed is that the fascination with huge diameter
> rims tucked up as far as possible under the fenders and quarters is still
> prevalent in the hobby. Fords, Chevys and Mopars alike are all getting
> the same treatment. This practice is starting to ware a little thin on
> me. The cars are starting to appear somewhat cartoonish in nature.
> Also, I do not consider rims over 17" in diameter to be suitable for
> performance applications. Should not form follow function?
>
> We are currently planning on 17" rims for our project. Personally, I
> think that these look rather massive on this car and that bumping them up
> in size would take us away from our overall theme.
>
> Even so, people have been dropped me notes saying that the car deserves
> something a bit larger, say 19's in the front and 20's in the back.
>
> As with everything else on this project, we are going to go counter to
> the current trend.
> unquote
>
> Email rj{at}sn65 and tell him you're with him 100% on that.
>
> --
> Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
> you pay..DEAL with it!

Spike

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:55:16 -0600, "Scott Van Nest" <JohnDoe@cox.net>
wrote:

>I am considering going with 16x8 Cragar's for my '71. that way i can still
>somewhat afford to wear out tires and have the decent looks.

Do you like them? Then wear them. If you don't like them, no matter
what they allow you to do, you'll probably never be happy with them.

Got 16X8 Vintage 40s on mine, and I like them.
>
>Scott
>"Backyard Mechanic" <pettyfog@yaywho.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns972BCBB75FC50pettyfogery@207.115.17.102...
>> http://sn65.com/SN65%20chronological...er%2005-12.htm
>>
>> quote:
>> One of the things I noticed is that the fascination with huge diameter
>> rims tucked up as far as possible under the fenders and quarters is still
>> prevalent in the hobby. Fords, Chevys and Mopars alike are all getting
>> the same treatment. This practice is starting to ware a little thin on
>> me. The cars are starting to appear somewhat cartoonish in nature.
>> Also, I do not consider rims over 17" in diameter to be suitable for
>> performance applications. Should not form follow function?
>>
>> We are currently planning on 17" rims for our project. Personally, I
>> think that these look rather massive on this car and that bumping them up
>> in size would take us away from our overall theme.
>>
>> Even so, people have been dropped me notes saying that the car deserves
>> something a bit larger, say 19's in the front and 20's in the back.
>>
>> As with everything else on this project, we are going to go counter to
>> the current trend.
>> unquote
>>
>> Email rj{at}sn65 and tell him you're with him 100% on that.
>>
>> --
>> Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
>> you pay..DEAL with it!
>
--

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy
w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok;
Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich
gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound
audio-video...
See my ride at....
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/d..._11_05_002.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/E...ebuild_006.jpg