Discussion
[quote=aeropilot]I was doing a bit of swatting up on the 70.5 T/A's and I was surprised at how many unique to these bits there are, including carry-over bits from the 69.5, like the front turn indicators as well as the drive train, including the fact that the 70.5 was the only year of the 2nd gen Firebird to have the 12 bolt rear end...!
Seems a lot of small detail bits are really hard to find especially some of the one year (half year really) interior bits (and not cheap if you do find them as so few made) so you've done really well to find this one is relatively unmolested and complete. No wonder you were chuffed at finding it still had things like the original shifter knob etc
Its no wonder really good ones of these go for what they do over in the USA.
Yes I’ve checked some of the things,
It’s got the clipped rear spoiler , black gear shift ball,
And the older front lamps, and something is slightly different with the hood hinges and hood release!
Have idea what the difference is
Seems a lot of small detail bits are really hard to find especially some of the one year (half year really) interior bits (and not cheap if you do find them as so few made) so you've done really well to find this one is relatively unmolested and complete. No wonder you were chuffed at finding it still had things like the original shifter knob etc
Its no wonder really good ones of these go for what they do over in the USA.
Yes I’ve checked some of the things,
It’s got the clipped rear spoiler , black gear shift ball,
And the older front lamps, and something is slightly different with the hood hinges and hood release!
Have idea what the difference is
Harry Flashman said:
I'm a heathen and prefer a bigger wheel for cosmetic reasons. I'd like to swap the 15 inch body colored Torq Thrusts on my car for 17s in the grey finish they can come in. Only worry is that it may ridea bit tough on lower profile tyres as my car is lowered on polybushings and Spax dampers. But them, as I use it as a cruiser, I wouldn't mind taking it up an inch or two and softening it up anyway.
My Vette has factory optional F41 'slalom' suspension.......sounds impressive but simply means higher rated springs and dampers and a ride etc perhaps closer to what Europeans would call acceptable. Yes, the ride with 18's and low profile tyres does deteriorate (as compared with 60 or 70 series rubber) at lower speeds, especially on some of our poorly surfaced roads.........but having said that there's a lot more rubber in proper contact with the road surface. 17's and 18's with wider sections are now standard on most current vehicles, presumably these have better sound insulation?Tyre noise and any ride disappear at speeds over 40 or 50 mph. The most significant change for me was the instant improvement in cornering ability, reduction of body/tyre roll, better traction and braking control. Oddly a change to Koni dampers didn't work as well as the KYB's that followed.
roscobbc said:
Harry Flashman said:
I'm a heathen and prefer a bigger wheel for cosmetic reasons. I'd like to swap the 15 inch body colored Torq Thrusts on my car for 17s in the grey finish they can come in. Only worry is that it may ridea bit tough on lower profile tyres as my car is lowered on polybushings and Spax dampers. But them, as I use it as a cruiser, I wouldn't mind taking it up an inch or two and softening it up anyway.
My Vette has factory optional F41 'slalom' suspension.......sounds impressive but simply means higher rated springs and dampers and a ride etc perhaps closer to what Europeans would call acceptable. Yes, the ride with 18's and low profile tyres does deteriorate (as compared with 60 or 70 series rubber) at lower speeds, especially on some of our poorly surfaced roads.........but having said that there's a lot more rubber in proper contact with the road surface. 17's and 18's with wider sections are now standard on most current vehicles, presumably these have better sound insulation?Tyre noise and any ride disappear at speeds over 40 or 50 mph. The most significant change for me was the instant improvement in cornering ability, reduction of body/tyre roll, better traction and braking control. Oddly a change to Koni dampers didn't work as well as the KYB's that followed.
Increased unsprung weight of bigger rims/tyres on suspension not design for it will also be a compromise....that's pukka original vintage 60's magnessium ARE's etc are even better, as massive reduction in unsprung weight reduces the workload on the suspension.
In Harry's idea, of fitting 17"'s and increasing un-sprung weight, the last thing he should be doing is softening the suspension and increasing ride height, as there will be less control of that increased mass bouncing up and down.
Edited by aeropilot on Thursday 25th April 12:43
Edited by aeropilot on Thursday 25th April 12:44
aeropilot said:
But the 1960's suspension design is designed for those increased lateral loads, so will wear out quicker, and needs to be checked more often.....although, on cars that are only doing perhaps 1000 miles a year or less, this isn't such a big problem as part of the compromise.
Increased unsprung weight of bigger rims/tyres on suspension not design for it will also be a compromise....that's pukka original vintage 60's magnessium ARE's etc are even better, as massive reduction in unsprung weight reduces the workload on the suspension.
In Harry's idea, if fitting 17"'s and increasing un-sprung weight, the last thing he should be doing is softening the suspension and increasing ride height, as there will be less control of that increased mass bouncing up and down.
Big mistake fitting modern rims on a Gen 1 Camaro……Increased unsprung weight of bigger rims/tyres on suspension not design for it will also be a compromise....that's pukka original vintage 60's magnessium ARE's etc are even better, as massive reduction in unsprung weight reduces the workload on the suspension.
In Harry's idea, if fitting 17"'s and increasing un-sprung weight, the last thing he should be doing is softening the suspension and increasing ride height, as there will be less control of that increased mass bouncing up and down.
235/60/15 tire on an 8 inch Minilite or ARE wheel is the way to go…..
aeropilot said:
But the 1960's suspension design is designed for those increased lateral loads, so will wear out quicker, and needs to be checked more often.....although, on cars that are only doing perhaps 1000 miles a year or less, this isn't such a big problem as part of the compromise.
Increased unsprung weight of bigger rims/tyres on suspension not design for it will also be a compromise....that's pukka original vintage 60's magnessium ARE's etc are even better, as massive reduction in unsprung weight reduces the workload on the suspension.
In Harry's idea, if fitting 17"'s and increasing un-sprung weight, the last thing he should be doing is softening the suspension and increasing ride height, as there will be less control of that increased mass bouncing up and down.
Its interesting that Corvettes (ending with C2) came with similar OEM sized wheel and tyre options to 'full size' American cars in the 50's and 60's...... wheel diameters would be 14" or 15" with perhaps rims 5" wide and 'skinny' tyres. Increased unsprung weight of bigger rims/tyres on suspension not design for it will also be a compromise....that's pukka original vintage 60's magnessium ARE's etc are even better, as massive reduction in unsprung weight reduces the workload on the suspension.
In Harry's idea, if fitting 17"'s and increasing un-sprung weight, the last thing he should be doing is softening the suspension and increasing ride height, as there will be less control of that increased mass bouncing up and down.
C3 in '68 kinda 'broke the mould' using a 7" wide rim, still with a relatively skinny equivalent 215 section tyre at best.....moving to 8" wide rims in '69 and 225/70/15 tyres later.
Back 'in the day' when everyone was sticking wide wheels on cars (typically and irrespective of whatever yank it was) people would go for the big'n'little drag race look with perhaps 10" wide rims (with all the additional width on the 'outside' of the wheel), a pair of L60 or N50 Grabbers or similar on the rear end and all the associated fitment and handling issues with the obligatory 'jacked-up' ass end. Try that with a Vette and the first major bump you hit removes the rear fenders and destroys the rear end!
I have to tried maintained the stock wheel centre/track width relationship......so stock width 8" front rims and backspace (but 18/255/45 tyre)
Using a wider 9" (285/40/18) rim on back end but with wheel backspace an inch deeper (so 5") than stock......and maintaining stock track front and rear and therefore (hopefully) the same suspension loading and geometry as stock. Tyres are same rolling diameter as stock. Rear ride height is stock, so no increased loads on drive shafts.
The only thing miscalculated was the effect the significantly increased rear lateral grip had on the rear trailing arms bushes which I should consider replacing with more resilient 'poly' bushes.
aeropilot said:
But the 1960's suspension design isn't designed for those increased lateral loads, so will wear out quicker, and needs to be checked more often.....although, on cars that are only doing perhaps 1000 miles a year or less, this isn't such a big problem as part of the compromise.
Increased unsprung weight of bigger rims/tyres on suspension not design for it will also be a compromise....that's pukka original vintage 60's magnessium ARE's etc are even better, as massive reduction in unsprung weight reduces the workload on the suspension.
In Harry's idea, of fitting 17"'s and increasing un-sprung weight, the last thing he should be doing is softening the suspension and increasing ride height, as there will be less control of that increased mass bouncing up and down.
Stock steel 15 x 8 GM Ralley wheel (less centre cap and rim embellisher) is 22 lbs. With 235/60/15 it is 48 lbs. Interestingly aftermarket ALLOY 17" Ralley lookalike wheels weigh-in at a reported 30 lbs each.Increased unsprung weight of bigger rims/tyres on suspension not design for it will also be a compromise....that's pukka original vintage 60's magnessium ARE's etc are even better, as massive reduction in unsprung weight reduces the workload on the suspension.
In Harry's idea, of fitting 17"'s and increasing un-sprung weight, the last thing he should be doing is softening the suspension and increasing ride height, as there will be less control of that increased mass bouncing up and down.
Edited by aeropilot on Thursday 25th April 12:43
Edited by aeropilot on Thursday 25th April 12:44
My 8" Boyd's with 255/45/18 total at 51 lbs. The 9" rears with 285/40/18 total 53 lbs. So not a huge difference over a stock type wheel/tyre configuration.
Edited by roscobbc on Thursday 25th April 16:32
As i said before got 18" rims on the El Camino and it drive awful on them especially around where i live with all the potholes
that we have accumuilated over the winter,
Will be 2 years into ownership in May and still haven't replaced them but will be top of my list
Was going for 15" Torque Thrust D's ,i know a little predictable but they should give it that rod hot look that it's already got.
Tried to get a set of period Daisy Mags but nobody will give me a price or delivery date including North Hants,
Salt flat racers or wide steels were another option.
Nobody should fit 17"'s or 18"'s let alone 20's to a 50's/60's/70's yank ,it just kills them.
Maybe with rosco's C3 they may work better than most because of the lighter weight.
that we have accumuilated over the winter,
Will be 2 years into ownership in May and still haven't replaced them but will be top of my list
Was going for 15" Torque Thrust D's ,i know a little predictable but they should give it that rod hot look that it's already got.
Tried to get a set of period Daisy Mags but nobody will give me a price or delivery date including North Hants,
Salt flat racers or wide steels were another option.
Nobody should fit 17"'s or 18"'s let alone 20's to a 50's/60's/70's yank ,it just kills them.
Maybe with rosco's C3 they may work better than most because of the lighter weight.
Edited by ratrod 2 on Thursday 25th April 18:25
LeighW said:
Harry Flashman said:
I'm a heathen and prefer a bigger wheel for cosmetic reasons. I'd like to swap the 15 inch body colored Torq Thrusts on my car for 17s in the grey finish they can come in. Only worry is that it may ridea bit tough on lower profile tyres as my car is lowered on polybushings and Spax dampers. But them, as I use it as a cruiser, I wouldn't mind taking it up an inch or two and softening it up anyway.
If newsatten wishes to share shipping on a load of parts from the US, these will be in my shopping list!
I might be interested in your 15s if you decide to change them. If newsatten wishes to share shipping on a load of parts from the US, these will be in my shopping list!
roscobbc said:
aeropilot said:
But the 1960's suspension design isn't designed for those increased lateral loads, so will wear out quicker, and needs to be checked more often.....although, on cars that are only doing perhaps 1000 miles a year or less, this isn't such a big problem as part of the compromise.
Increased unsprung weight of bigger rims/tyres on suspension not design for it will also be a compromise....that's pukka original vintage 60's magnessium ARE's etc are even better, as massive reduction in unsprung weight reduces the workload on the suspension.
In Harry's idea, of fitting 17"'s and increasing un-sprung weight, the last thing he should be doing is softening the suspension and increasing ride height, as there will be less control of that increased mass bouncing up and down.
Stock steel 15 x 8 GM Ralley wheel (less centre cap and rim embellisher) is 22 lbs. With 235/60/15 it is 48 lbs. Interestingly aftermarket ALLOY 17" Ralley lookalike wheels weigh-in at a reported 30 lbs each.Increased unsprung weight of bigger rims/tyres on suspension not design for it will also be a compromise....that's pukka original vintage 60's magnessium ARE's etc are even better, as massive reduction in unsprung weight reduces the workload on the suspension.
In Harry's idea, of fitting 17"'s and increasing un-sprung weight, the last thing he should be doing is softening the suspension and increasing ride height, as there will be less control of that increased mass bouncing up and down.
Edited by aeropilot on Thursday 25th April 12:43
Edited by aeropilot on Thursday 25th April 12:44
My 8" Boyd's with 255/45/18 total at 51 lbs. The 9" rears with 285/40/18 total 53 lbs. So not a huge difference over a stock type wheel/tyre configuration.
Edited by roscobbc on Thursday 25th April 16:32
Harry Flashman said:
roscobbc said:
aeropilot said:
But the 1960's suspension design isn't designed for those increased lateral loads, so will wear out quicker, and needs to be checked more often.....although, on cars that are only doing perhaps 1000 miles a year or less, this isn't such a big problem as part of the compromise.
Increased unsprung weight of bigger rims/tyres on suspension not design for it will also be a compromise....that's pukka original vintage 60's magnessium ARE's etc are even better, as massive reduction in unsprung weight reduces the workload on the suspension.
In Harry's idea, of fitting 17"'s and increasing un-sprung weight, the last thing he should be doing is softening the suspension and increasing ride height, as there will be less control of that increased mass bouncing up and down.
Stock steel 15 x 8 GM Ralley wheel (less centre cap and rim embellisher) is 22 lbs. With 235/60/15 it is 48 lbs. Interestingly aftermarket ALLOY 17" Ralley lookalike wheels weigh-in at a reported 30 lbs each.Increased unsprung weight of bigger rims/tyres on suspension not design for it will also be a compromise....that's pukka original vintage 60's magnessium ARE's etc are even better, as massive reduction in unsprung weight reduces the workload on the suspension.
In Harry's idea, of fitting 17"'s and increasing un-sprung weight, the last thing he should be doing is softening the suspension and increasing ride height, as there will be less control of that increased mass bouncing up and down.
Edited by aeropilot on Thursday 25th April 12:43
Edited by aeropilot on Thursday 25th April 12:44
My 8" Boyd's with 255/45/18 total at 51 lbs. The 9" rears with 285/40/18 total 53 lbs. So not a huge difference over a stock type wheel/tyre configuration.
Edited by roscobbc on Thursday 25th April 16:32
60 year old suspension technology requires a sizeable side wall as part of the suspension’s compliance,
So reducing said side wall will result in a more likely crashy ride, especially as the roads are toast and full of potholes,
I agree totally with SS427 of tyres size, not so much on the moody Minilites , ok 10 inch wide Magnesium Trans Am wheels look fabulous on a 70’ Trans am Race car,
But for me period ARE’s are virtually impossible to beat!
Factor in great big rims and tiny weeny disc rotors and minute brake calipers and hideous rear drums just look naf !
roscobbc said:
aeropilot said:
But the 1960's suspension design isn't designed for those increased lateral loads, so will wear out quicker, and needs to be checked more often.....although, on cars that are only doing perhaps 1000 miles a year or less, this isn't such a big problem as part of the compromise.
Increased unsprung weight of bigger rims/tyres on suspension not design for it will also be a compromise....that's pukka original vintage 60's magnessium ARE's etc are even better, as massive reduction in unsprung weight reduces the workload on the suspension.
In Harry's idea, of fitting 17"'s and increasing un-sprung weight, the last thing he should be doing is softening the suspension and increasing ride height, as there will be less control of that increased mass bouncing up and down.
Stock steel 15 x 8 GM Ralley wheel (less centre cap and rim embellisher) is 22 lbs. With 235/60/15 it is 48 lbs. Interestingly aftermarket ALLOY 17" Ralley lookalike wheels weigh-in at a reported 30 lbs each.Increased unsprung weight of bigger rims/tyres on suspension not design for it will also be a compromise....that's pukka original vintage 60's magnessium ARE's etc are even better, as massive reduction in unsprung weight reduces the workload on the suspension.
In Harry's idea, of fitting 17"'s and increasing un-sprung weight, the last thing he should be doing is softening the suspension and increasing ride height, as there will be less control of that increased mass bouncing up and down.
Edited by aeropilot on Thursday 25th April 12:43
Edited by aeropilot on Thursday 25th April 12:44
My 8" Boyd's with 255/45/18 total at 51 lbs. The 9" rears with 285/40/18 total 53 lbs. So not a huge difference over a stock type wheel/tyre configuration.
Edited by roscobbc on Thursday 25th April 16:32
aeropilot said:
You'd be surprised at how much difference 5lbs can make. Interesting if those 17" Rallye style rims are that light, that's quite good for a modern alloy, which are usually not as light as people think, unless proper magnesium alloy.
Its initially surprising that a repro Ralley wheel (even 17") can actually weigh that 'much'.......until you think about the strength/weight ratio of aluminium vs mild steel.......its only when you understand the need for far thicker materials needed to give the same degree of strength that it becomes clear. All the more amazing that Centerlines Convopro drag race wheels weighed-in at half the weight of other alluminium wheels.......obviously the use of the ribbed rim structure gave the additional strength required using thinner (and lighter) material. #
I'm also reminded 'back in the day' of those Cragar 'mag' wheels with the chromed cast alloy centres and steel rims and how heavy they were.
roscobbc said:
aeropilot said:
You'd be surprised at how much difference 5lbs can make. Interesting if those 17" Rallye style rims are that light, that's quite good for a modern alloy, which are usually not as light as people think, unless proper magnesium alloy.
Its initially surprising that a repro Ralley wheel (even 17") can actually weigh that 'much'.......until you think about the strength/weight ratio of aluminium vs mild steel.......its only when you understand the need for far thicker materials needed to give the same degree of strength that it becomes clear. All the more amazing that Centerlines Convopro drag race wheels weighed-in at half the weight of other alluminium wheels.......obviously the use of the ribbed rim structure gave the additional strength required using thinner (and lighter) material. #
I'm also reminded 'back in the day' of those Cragar 'mag' wheels with the chromed cast alloy centres and steel rims and how heavy they were.
ratrod 2 said:
As i said before got 18" rims on the El Camino and it drive awful on them especially around where i live with all the potholes
that we have accumuilated over the winter,
Will be 2 years into ownership in May and still haven't replaced them but will be top of my list
Was going for 15" Torque Thrust D's ,i know a little predictable but they should give it that rod hot look that it's already got.
Tried to get a set of period Daisy Mags but nobody will give me a price or delivery date including North Hants,
Salt flat racers or wide steels were another option.
Nobody should fit 17"'s or 18"'s let alone 20's to a 50's/60's/70's yank ,it just kills them.
Maybe with rosco's C3 they may work better than most because of the lighter weight.
I think too many people use the large diameter wheel/low profile tyre combination in the wrong type of car......i.e a truck or sedan vehicle. Then couple it with air ride suspension and you have the recipe for a really poor ride. Perhaps mine being a 'sports' car with more emphasis on handling etc (yeah, OK its a Yank, I know!) rather than comfort (or comparitive comfort) that the combination works better. One thing I think that most people 'miss' when switching to large diameter wheels and low profile tyres is the careful selection of compatible dampers. that we have accumuilated over the winter,
Will be 2 years into ownership in May and still haven't replaced them but will be top of my list
Was going for 15" Torque Thrust D's ,i know a little predictable but they should give it that rod hot look that it's already got.
Tried to get a set of period Daisy Mags but nobody will give me a price or delivery date including North Hants,
Salt flat racers or wide steels were another option.
Nobody should fit 17"'s or 18"'s let alone 20's to a 50's/60's/70's yank ,it just kills them.
Maybe with rosco's C3 they may work better than most because of the lighter weight.
Edited by ratrod 2 on Thursday 25th April 18:25
I initially changed to a set of Koni Classic gas shocks........surprisingly they just didn't suit the Vette with the new tyres and wheels. Poor road surfaces and potholes would have the wheels leaping all over the place.
A buddy of mine put a set of Bilsteins on his C3 after complaining that the KYB non adjustable gas shocks he previously fitted were too 'harsh'.
I fitted them to my car and they were far better than the Koni's and minimised all that puddle jumping and seemed to suit my car far better with no sense of harshness........but the car does have the factory option of higher spring rates.
roscobbc said:
I think too many people use the large diameter wheel/low profile tyre combination in the wrong type of car......i.e a truck or sedan vehicle. Then couple it with air ride suspension and you have the recipe for a really poor ride.
Air suspension should have opposite effect, unless something is wrong with it. You should get a magic carpet ride with air suspension.aeropilot said:
roscobbc said:
I think too many people use the large diameter wheel/low profile tyre combination in the wrong type of car......i.e a truck or sedan vehicle. Then couple it with air ride suspension and you have the recipe for a really poor ride.
Air suspension should have opposite effect, unless something is wrong with it. You should get a magic carpet ride with air suspension.ratrod 2 said:
Nobody should fit 17"'s or 18"'s let alone 20's to a 50's/60's/70's yank ,it just kills them.
I beg to differ.Edited by ratrod 2 on Thursday 25th April 18:25
I fitted 17's on the Roadrunner mainly because the stock 15's wouldn't fit over the Willwood brakes.
Did the full uprated TVS suspension & it rides fine. Better than stock.
The ride hight was raised back in circa 2000, when the car was restored in Ohio, to fit the huge Weld Racing rims and big tires, plus it has Traction bars, which my Mopar expert pal Tim, says that I should remove and extenders on the new in 2000 KYB ( rubbish shocks ) which will be thrown over the hedge and replaced with Konis. So once lowered it will look bloody awesome !
Gassing Station | Yank Motors | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff