I have 17x7 on front with 4.7 backspace. 225x45/17

No rub inside or out

Yes, see my post above. That's what I have 17x7, 4.5 BS and 225//45/17.  No issues at all.

225/45/17
Shelby drop
Street or Track Coil Overs.

Fenders are not rolled.

Was wanting a spare for the trunk and ran across a extra set of the 16x7 wheels like II have for 125.00 bucks talked him down to 100.00 the spinners were worth that.

Last edited by BILLY WALTON from GEORGIA (3/21/2023 4:29 AM)

With Steve's brakes, I would add another 1/4" to the back spacing of what everyone says they are running with no rub issues since the rotors are thicker than the break drums at the mounting flange.

 I had a lot of input from talking with different folks and looking at other cars at the local coffee and cars to determine the 4.5" back spacing I bought would work with 225-45/17 front and 245-45/17 back on my 67. It almost worked!! I had tire rub in the back on the right side real bad till I centered the rearend, then I had it on both sides!! solution, narrow the rearend 1/2" per side. On the front, had tire rub on call it a medium size bump in the road. rolled the fender lips to reduce that to a really big bump in the road. Bought some different upper control arms and eliminated it completely. 

All that to say that price point and design can limit the selection. I found the design I wanted with 4.5" of back spacing for $175 from Jegs. What I really wanted was at at Vintage Wheel works, I think. The price was almost double for the 4.5 or the 4.75 back spacing. So, I cheaped out  and went with the wheels from Jegs. To eliminate the tire rub, I have far surpassed the cost of the more expensive wheels. 

To paraphrase Mustang Steve cause I was dinking and don't remember the quote exactly..... buy the wheels to fit the car, don't make the car fit the wheels!!

 

BILLY WALTON from GEORGIA wrote:

Bolted to Floor wrote:

With Steve's brakes, I would add another 1/4" to the back spacing of what everyone says they are running with no rub issues since the rotors are thicker than the break drums at the mounting flange.

 I had a lot of input from talking with different folks and looking at other cars at the local coffee and cars to determine the 4.5" back spacing I bought would work with 225-45/17 front and 245-45/17 back on my 67. It almost worked!! I had tire rub in the back on the right side real bad till I centered the rearend, then I had it on both sides!! solution, narrow the rearend 1/2" per side. On the front, had tire rub on call it a medium size bump in the road. rolled the fender lips to reduce that to a really big bump in the road. Bought some different upper control arms and eliminated it completely. 

All that to say that price point and design can limit the selection. I found the design I wanted with 4.5" of back spacing for $175 from Jegs. What I really wanted was at at Vintage Wheel works, I think. The price was almost double for the 4.5 or the 4.75 back spacing. So, I cheaped out  and went with the wheels from Jegs. To eliminate the tire rub, I have far surpassed the cost of the more expensive wheels. 

To paraphrase Mustang Steve cause I was dinking and don't remember the quote exactly..... buy the wheels to fit the car, don't make the car fit the wheels!!

 

1965 would be different than a 67....mine sits low in front and rear....just hard to determine.
 

Understood, just wanted too share the rabbit hole I went down so you could avoid it. 

That won’t work Billy.

Adding a spacer will move the wheel closer to the fender.

I have an overall 4.75” BS

Last edited by Nos681 (3/23/2023 7:17 PM)

I had 235/60/14 BFG’s on a 14x6.5 rim with 3.5” backspacing.
Stock suspension setup…no Arning/Shelby modification.
Car still sat kinda high, but lower than original stock.

620 springs and KYB Gas-a-Just shocks. Front never rubbed and fenders were NOT rolled.
I had minor scraping on right rear on big potholes/bumps.  Years later I found out I could have shifted the axle to the left to eliminate it. Rear has 5 leaf mid-eye from Mustangs Plus (90’s vintage) and KYB’s as well.

The aluminum angle has wheel specs written on it.
I got all of these details before the sale of them last year.

I never ran these after the Arning drop.

Backspacing is important with lowered cars and the ability to turn your wheels and hit a bump at the same time.

free picture upload website

Nos681 wrote:

These are 18x7.5” wheels and 235/40/18 Pirelli A/S. (Overall backspace is 4.75”)

I have bone stock brakes 😉….2016 Mustang GT

Mine are 2009 v6 mustang brakes front and rear camove up to GT using my same brackets just would need bigger wheels.....I should go to at least 17s just incase i wanna go bigger later.
 

Yes, 4.75” front and rear.

Wheels have 5.75” BS and 1” wheel spacer …overall 4.75” BS.

Ron Bramlett (Mustangs Plus) had a Burgandy convertible that ran 4.75” BS.
As I recall, the wheels were 17x8” w/ 4.75” BS (Torque Thrust II) and had 235/45/17 BFG’s (sport comps?)

Reading the posts here and one thing stuck out to me.  Bolted to Floor mentions the addition to the over width of the front end from the MS brakes.  I’ve never given this much thought until just now.   It could be the most helpful measurement of all when trying to determine BS.  There are so many variables when trying to pick the correct BS and the overall width is never mentioned.  You could Simple drop a plumbob on each side and with a few measurements know how close to are to the fender lip. Tire sizes can be found online and of course the rims as well.

I now know I need to really check my front BS because I have the MS 2003 cobra brakes on my arid & Custom MII coil over setup.  I’m not running the stock MII rotors.   Time to put the tire fitment tool to use on the front now.   Picture is of my back tire. 

Nos681 wrote:

These are 18x7.5” wheels and 235/40/18 Pirelli A/S. (Overall backspace is 4.75”)

I have bone stock brakes 😉….2016 Mustang GT

   Love the stance!  What brand of rims are you running?