> rear. My 1973 BGT has a bazillion (well, 130000) miles on the rear springs,
> so they are SACKED, and I mounted 195/60 - 14's on the back and 185/60 -
> 14's on the front with no clearance problems whatsoever. Is this
> because I am running 60 series tires? It seems that I have the 'worst'
> combination for tire clearance: chrome bumper car with low ride height,
> sacked out springs, rotten spring pads that allow a LOT of axle movement.
> But I haven't had a tire so much as touch a fender.
> Just my two cents
When I ran 185/70 on my 72 B, which had been lowered slightly, the tires
polished the road grime off of the inner fenders. Ummm, let me re word
that. The insides of the tires just touched the inside panel. They never
touched the fender skin.
Now let me tell a story about my non lbc transportation that may relate.
The lic I flog around town has 185/60 Yoko's, and a lot of rust. I recently
located and bought a like car with crappy mechanics and no rust. This car
has 195/60 BFG's, still with full tread. I wondered about this, cause I
had a *hard* time fitting the 185's on my current wheels. And something
just didn't look right.
Last weekend I had both cars sitting side by side, and now something
*really* didn't look right. The 195 BFG's were narrower and taller than
the 185 Yokos. I took a ruler to them, and found that the BFG's were
indeed 195, give or take (and they took), wide, at the widest point of
the carcass. But they quickly tapered up to the tread, which was almost
a full inch narrower than the Yokos.
When a B rubs the rear tires, it does it at full bump, when the tire is
up in the narrowest part of the fender. If the tire has an abnormally
narrow tread like above, they stand a lot better chance of not hitting.