How much does the rearend move side to side? Filling the Tubs.

[Paul-ish]

I have a 67 Beaumont (Canadian Chevelle)
It has a quick performance 9" (58"drum to drum) rear end, Hotchkiss control arms and sway bar... UMI shocks, 2 inch lowering springs and shock tower brace.
I bought 10 inch wide wheels and 285/40/18 tires.

On the wheel well side I have about a half inch gap to the tire, on the inside I have an inch and a half to the frame.

Is a half inch from the lip to the tire enough? Or should I try to centre it more in the wheel well?

I really don't want to carve up my new wheels and tires.
Shortening the rear end a bit more is not out of the question but i'd rather keep that money in my pocket for other parts.

[jetmech442]

I had 3/4'' clearance from tire to lip and still cut up my 555R real bad in a hard turn(had a sharp sport on the metal). That 3/4'' movement was a function of actual axle lateral movement from stock upper control arms/rubber bushings, about .1'' axle slop in and out, and the tire sidewall deflection.

I cured the lateral movement with a watts link (pan hard bar is cheaper and still stops movement), new tapered bearings (no more slop), and moved to a NT05 with stiffer sidewall.

Try gradually getting into harder corners and see if you have an issue before you spend a lot of time trying to fix an issue that you might not have...my .02. hope this helps.

[CampbellshotrodsAZ]

Lateral movement while driving straight is minor, depending on the bushings in your setup you probably won't see that 1/2" shift side to side. Your issue will be in the articulation of the suspension when you're say, driving up a driveway sideways, with an abrupt curb/street transition, and one side is buried in the wheelwell way more than the other. You'd probably rub in that condition. You could always remove the springs and articulate the suspension on your own... or drive up on some wood blocks on one side to see.

[krom]

might be cheaper/easier to have the wheel machined, than narrow the rear. if you have to

[TheJDMan]

Can you roll the fender lip?

[Paul-ish]

Lateral movement while driving straight is minor, depending on the bushings in your setup you probably won't see that 1/2" shift side to side. Your issue will be in the articulation of the suspension when you're say, driving up a driveway sideways, with an abrupt curb/street transition, and one side is buried in the wheelwell way more than the other. You'd probably rub in that condition. You could always remove the springs and articulate the suspension on your own... or drive up on some wood blocks on one side to see.

Good idea on pulling the springs to articulate the suspention. But i'm pretty sure I cant reproduce high speed cornering though.

[Paul-ish]

might be cheaper/easier to have the wheel machined, than narrow the rear. if you have to

Quick performance will narrow it for $150 plus shipping. Not to bad a deal and my wheels were real expencive.


Can you roll the fender lip?

I can But it's still gonna be pretty close.

[USAZR1]

Paul, narrowing your 9" rear any further than it already is, will require relocating the housing brackets further inward on the housing. Doing that will then result in the housing brackets not lining up with the frame/body brackets.

[CampbellshotrodsAZ]

Good idea on pulling the springs to articulate the suspention. But i'm pretty sure I cant reproduce high speed cornering though.
Depends on your suspension setup. If you're running stock rubber bushings, and soft control arms, yes, there will be a lot of dynamic deflection that you won't be able to account. If you have suspension more along the lines of what people run on this forum, tubular arms with a poly or delrin bushing, the deflection of the components at speed won't be much different from how your suspension acts statically. Though even with stock bushings, articulating the suspension will give you a good guideline. If it hits statically, it'll hit at speed. If it's 1/2" away from hitting, it might hit at speed. If there's an inch of clearance, you're probably safe.


Paul, narrowing your 9" rear any further than it already is, will require relocating the housing brackets further inward on the housing. Doing that will then result in the housing brackets not lining up with the frame/body brackets.

Depends on how much space there is between the brackets and the brakes. When you narrow the rearend, you're taking material from the axle tube ends, not the center of the axle.

[Ben@SpeedTech]

Just for reference, here's a good video. This also illustrates one reason why Speedtech uses a Torque Arm in as many applications as possible. Watch to the end, there are two different cars/ set ups.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDM9_-4kjHg

[USAZR1]

Depends on how much space there is between the brackets and the brakes. When you narrow the rearend, you're taking material from the axle tube ends, not the center of the axle.


A 66-67 Chevelle ten or twelve bolt rear is a smidgen over 60" wide, Josh. Paul's rear is 58" wide. Doesn't sound like much of a difference, does it? Trust me, it is. The control arm brackets are very close to the axle tube ends,now. I've seen photos of the 9" rear in question. IMO, he has only one option at this point, have the rear wheel backspacing changed. I just don't see those 18x10's w/4" backspace fitting that car, the way it is now.