Looks pretty good to me. 

If you notice, 7" rims all have 4.250 BS and 8" rims have 4.500 BS.  That is my experience.  The chart is pretty good, though.  I probably will not use it as 7" = 4.25bs and 8" = 4.50bs is all I need to remember as I will never have any other rim size in my hot rod.

Some of those combos are going to be very tight.  I have 17x9s on the rear of my '67 with a 275 tire on them and they occasionally rub.  50+ years does a lot to cars that were never really all that tight on the tolerances in terms of similarity coming off the line.  Body work, non stock brake setups, rear end swaps, etc. all play a part in fitment and are beyond such a guide.

On the front side I can tell you that a 17x8 with a 245 required some tweaking of the fenders/front valance to clear without rubbing.  After I finally did the Shelby/Arning drop I had to go to a smaller tire.

Everyone wants those huge meats stuffed up under their car, but experience has taught me that going a bit smaller than maximum fitment based on all the various guides out there will make your life a lot happier.  When in doubt do a mockup using one of the tools available for this purpose.  FWIW, I ran afoul of a similar guide sizing wheels and tires for my '89 GT.  Still trying to decide what to do about the rear where the tires are 1/2" wider than they can be.
 

I think it is missing one Asterisk. 17x9 with 5.5” backspace seems like it should be a rear only application.  That wheel would be trying to occupy the same space as the upper control arm / ball joint.  I could be wrong.

Last edited by Bentworker (11/16/2021 10:09 PM)

On my 65 I have:
American Racing Torq-Thrust “D”, #105-5765; 15x7, 3.75” BS
Goodrich T/A 225/60-15 (on alll 4 corners)
I have no issues with this setup and beleive I could go to 245's on the rear w/o fender rub. 
 

TL…

I had 235/60/14 on 14x6.5 Cragar (10 holes) with 3-1/2” backspacing…4.25-4.50 bs would have been better.

It lightly scraped on alignment tab on passenger quarter on big pot holes and/or a couple of adults in the back.

A few years ago I found out that I could have shifted the axle to left to eliminate that…of course many years later.

Never rubbed anywhere else.

At Mustang round up in Washington in late 90’s, I remember seeing a Caspian Blue 66 with 235/60/15…the guy said he had 4.5” bs on his wheels.
As I recall, BFG Radial T/A’s…looked very nice.

Last edited by Nos681 (11/06/2022 10:03 PM)

Do NIT blindly follow that fitment chart. Many of the sizes posted are known to bolt on but cause dangerous rubbing.  I would prefer it not be posted here because of that, but am leaving it as an example of DON’tT believe everything you read. Just because it will bolt on and fit without hitting in a static position does not mean it is proper fit for the car undergoing actual driving conditions.

One recent facebook post about wheel sizes on someone’s 66 when questioned about fitment:  “IT ONLY RUBS WHEN I HIT A BUMP OR TURN INTO A DRIVEWAY.” 

If it ever rubs, it is dangerous and can rip a tire to shreds at high speed when that inevitable bump or dip in the road occurs. -MS

Sure cars look cool with big tires, but the car that gets actually driven needs tires that actually fit.

The only rear way is to check, if no one has used your size before

That model tool is on back order.  Oh well.

Toploader wrote:

I'm hoping the tire shop can check and tell me when I go in for a new set.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Toploader wrote:

MS wrote:

Toploader wrote:

I'm hoping the tire shop can check and tell me when I go in for a new set.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Hmmmm... 🤔 Are you dubious as to whether 235s will fit on the rear of a 65?

Without making any body/frame modifications to the car, I figured a 245-width tire would fit on the rear of my 65 Fastback.  One would need to make sure the wheels being used have the correct backspacing to make this work.