- This topic has 10 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
On my build of Alfred (see under My Projects) I got to the point where I did a test location of the entire fiberglass body on the prototype wooden frame and actual Mustang II front end. This was to see what fits and what doesn’t before I commit to welding the frame. Body seems to fit to the frame fine, but the wheel width seem wrong. The tires from the Mustang II stick out about 1/2 inch, which means the if I hit the least little bump, the wheels will hit the fender lip. I went on line and got the specs for modern wheels with 5 inch offset, but on the inside they will collide with the upper control arm. Question to you guys with Ford based kits: Do your tires stick out? The body for my kit is originally from a Chevette based kit. Are the fenders wider on the Ford kits?
I can only speak for my car. She’s a factory built CMC Ford. The tires do stick out about a inch past the fenders and the body is slightly raised when compaired to a real TD. I always attrubated it to the reverse rims and/or wider rims and tires compaired the the 1950’s rims and tires. I had trouble with the tires rubbing when I first bought her but after new shocks and springs, and some tweeking, I finally got her to ride smooth. She was in storage for most of her early life, shocks were dead and springs weak. She kinda has a Hot Rod stance, little higher and wider. I would like to try some standard offset rims and see if that would bring the tires inside the fenders. I would love to make to Carisle and compare with everyone elses someday, maybe after I retire.
A 52 TD had a front track of 47.4 and rear of 50 while the Pinto/Mustang II is 56.5. I don’t know how close these bodies are to the TD’s width, but if it’s close, that difference explains the whole problem.. I looked real close at the inside wheel clearance on mine and it looks like the upper A arm and the upper ball joint won’t allow anything but a near zero offset wheel of any size. I would also guess that an 18 inch wheel with up to a 5 inch backset would fit, but only if you use tubular upper A arms. Nothing between the two will clear. I’m presently considering some of the following: raising the body, raising just the fenders, or moving the fenders outboard by two inches. Moving the fenders outboard by 2 inches would be the hardest, but would end up covering the tires just right.
My 14″ Cragar TruSpokes had a wider offset than the factory steel wheels the Pinto was equipped with and rubbed the fenders. I modified the fender to gain clearance. When I went to the 15″ Mustang police wheels, they rubbed the upper control arms. I cut the flanges from the sides of the arms to gain clearance there. No loss of structural stability was encountered. Once I installed the drop spindles, the wheels contacted the lower control arms. Once again, grind off the flanges for clearance. Now, I can’t run a grease fitting in the lower ball joint because the clearance is that short. I have to remove the wheel, remove the threaded plug and install a fitting and grease then replace the plug. Glad that’s only a yearly deal. Anyway, the only wheels that fit the body without problems were the steel 14″ wheels from a Fairmont I had used.
Bill Ascheman
Fiberfab Ford
Modified 5.0, 5sp., 4:11
Autocross & Hillclimb
"Drive Happy"I was talking to A guy and saw the car ,who was here at a car show with a Ford kit he spread the fenders to fit over the tires and added a metal piece of in front of the grill to keep them spread riveted it like the TD’s were . god luck Dan R
I once fit a pair of 295/50R 15″ tires on the back of mine. 12″ of tread width. I contemplated splitting the rear fenders and spread them but ultimately thought it would look too far out of scale.
Bill Ascheman
Fiberfab Ford
Modified 5.0, 5sp., 4:11
Autocross & Hillclimb
"Drive Happy"Like an “outlaw” wide-body Speedster!
Bill, out of scale? Ha! Check these out:
This is Don Noyes’ “U.S.Mule II” that AA/MSC at the U.S. Nationals in 1965.
And there are more in this forum thread:PMOSSBERG2013-01-07 11:14:31
Paul Mossberg
Former Owner of a 1981 Classic Roadsters Ltd. Duchess (VW)
2005 Intermeccanica RoadsterIf you own a TDr and are not in the Registry, please go to https://tdreplica.com/forums/topic/mg-td-replica-registry/ and register (you need to copy and paste the link)
This street rodded TD is a more subtle than the all out racers above.
Hard to tell, but the rear fenders look a bit wider than stock.The seller said the car has a 383 ci V8
PMOSSBERG2013-01-07 11:08:35
Paul Mossberg
Former Owner of a 1981 Classic Roadsters Ltd. Duchess (VW)
2005 Intermeccanica RoadsterIf you own a TDr and are not in the Registry, please go to https://tdreplica.com/forums/topic/mg-td-replica-registry/ and register (you need to copy and paste the link)
Sorry about the thread hi-jack. But those cars DO show a wider track!
The real point here is, if you think it looks right on your car, go for it!Paul Mossberg
Former Owner of a 1981 Classic Roadsters Ltd. Duchess (VW)
2005 Intermeccanica RoadsterIf you own a TDr and are not in the Registry, please go to https://tdreplica.com/forums/topic/mg-td-replica-registry/ and register (you need to copy and paste the link)
Zoom into the garage in the photo of the black MG. What is that red car?
Bill Ascheman
Fiberfab Ford
Modified 5.0, 5sp., 4:11
Autocross & Hillclimb
"Drive Happy"Bill, the rear fenders look like a Lotus 7 or one of the many reproductions.
Paul Mossberg
Former Owner of a 1981 Classic Roadsters Ltd. Duchess (VW)
2005 Intermeccanica RoadsterIf you own a TDr and are not in the Registry, please go to https://tdreplica.com/forums/topic/mg-td-replica-registry/ and register (you need to copy and paste the link)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.