Enter your username:
Do you want to login or register?
  • Forgot your password?

    Login / Register



    Results 1 to 5 of 5
    1. #1
      Join Date
      Mar 2021
      Posts
      3

      1967 Chevelle Pro-touring stance suggestions

      Hello everyone! 1st time poster here lol.




      Here's a pic of my 67 Chevelle. The car currently has 17x8 rear...16x7 front. Tires are 255/50/17 and 225/55/16. The car currently has a stock 12 bolt rear end and 4-corner power assisted drum brakes and factory suspension. I want more of a pro-touring look and need advice on what would look the best along with tire size and backspacing. I really like the look of the 68 posted earlier with the 20/19 setup but not sure if I would have to same amount of room on my 67. I also like the stance of the black pic I posted.


      Any advice and ideas would be greatly appreciated. If I only had Photoshop to whip up some different looks lol.
      Attached Images Attached Images    


    2. #2
      Join Date
      Sep 2010
      Location
      Martinez, CA
      Posts
      142
      Country Flag: United States
      I have 17s and 18s on my 66 which is very similar to the 67 and I like mine low. I have 2 dropped spindles in the front and 2 dropped springs with a 1/2 coil cutoff so roughly 3 lower. I like the stance now. But there have been issues.

      The drive shaft rubbed in the tunnel in the back so I had to build a new taller tunnel all the way through the back seat. And I had to modify the seat springs to clear it.

      in the front the out side of the tires rub the inside of the fenders sometimes. This is partially due to the disc brakes adding to the width. When I change wheels Ill change the offset to eliminate this issue.Name:  BA003E45-ED6D-48A6-90BD-4E5E8DF74705.jpeg
Views: 171
Size:  383.2 KBName:  72C53BCC-5316-4E3C-98A8-17DEB2577C90.jpeg
Views: 170
Size:  336.9 KB
      1966 Chevelle, 3.6L/217 CI, 4 cam direct injected V6, 6 speed auto, full Hotchkis suspension, 4 wheel Wilwood discs, white w/red interior, cowl hood. 3260 lbs w/full tank. Built for 35 mpg. So far 32.

    3. #3
      Join Date
      Apr 2015
      Posts
      19
      Country Flag: United States
      As a fellow 67 owner and lover of a low stance I think stance and drivability are a compromise on these old cars. IMO air ride gets you the best of both worlds. Lift it a little to drive and slam it when its parked. Anything other than that is a compromise between to low to drive without issues and too high when parked for my taste. FWIW Ive settled on function over form over the years and plan on running extended travel coil overs on my current project, accepting that it wont be quite as low as I would like but will provide the best handling and ride quality without any binding or interference issues (hopefully!)

    4. #4
      Join Date
      Aug 2013
      Posts
      82
      Country Flag: United States
      I really like how your car sits as it is. I would be upgrading the brakes though.

    5. #5
      Join Date
      Mar 2021
      Posts
      3
      Quote Originally Posted by SPLATT71MC View Post
      I really like how your car sits as it is. I would be upgrading the brakes though.
      Thanks Splatt. When I first bought the car I thought that at the very least a front disc upgrade was needed but this car is set up with a 12" booster and 4-wheel drum power assist...along with line-lock. The brakes are surprisingly good and the car feels like it has 4-wheel disc!
      Attached Images Attached Images