Impalas.net banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi all i am new here…my question is i have a all stock ‘62 impala and would like to install 15” GM rally wheels ( 15x7”) and the following tire size. 215/70/R15 front and 235/70/15 rear. I want the car to have a little rake so the rear tires are slightly taller. Will they fit without rubbing. Ty Vin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
If you don't hear from another 62 owner it's not too hard to work out. The 14" & 15" GM rims will both be neutral backspacing so essentially the rim will be 1/2" wider on both sides while maintaining the exact same center point. Next all you need to do is compare your existing tire specs to those of your new tire sizes & once you know the differences then you can measure for clearance
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
The stock 14” wheels are 3.75” back spacing i believe. Does that change when going to a wider (15x7) rim?? Thx
Wheels always measure 1" wider than their stated size because of the extra lip on each side, so a 6" wheel will actually measure 7" wide & so on. A neutral wheel is always 1/2 the actual wheel width, so a neutral wheel with a stated width of 6" will have a backspace of 3.5". A 7" wide neutral wheel will have a 4" backspace.

Your current wheel is 6" with a 3.75" backspace, which means it also has an 1/4" offset because it's 1/4" different to a 6" neutral wheel. So for you to maintain the same wheel center line but with a 7" wheel you need to add the same offset to a 7" neutral wheel. So in your case you'd need a 7" wheel with a backspace of 4.25".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
Hi all i am new here…my question is i have a all stock ‘62 impala and would like to install 15” GM rally wheels ( 15x7”) and the following tire size. 215/70/R15 front and 235/70/15 rear. I want the car to have a little rake so the rear tires are slightly taller. Will they fit without rubbing. Ty Vin
Are you hard over on achieving the 'rake' via staggering the tire sizes? In my opinion changing springs is a better option. The station wagon springs will raise the rear bumper approx 3" from OEM height.

Here's a pic of my '63 w/the wagon springs.

Pete
Wheel Tire Land vehicle Vehicle Car
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
Do you have a part number on those springs?? Thx
They were Moog 6041. I can not say they are correct for a '62. Some research in the Moog site is recommended.

Also, a little research here should show the OEM dimensions:


The '63 full size Chevy was (as I remember) 26" from the center of the headlights to the ground, and also 26" from the center of the taillights to the ground. That was with OEM suspension and tires/wheels (7.50/7.75 x14; as I remember).

Checking the '62 against its specs might ID some other 'problems' (worn/sagging springs front and/or rear; for example).

Just trying to be helpful.

Pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
They were Moog 6041. I can not say they are correct for a '62. Some research in the Moog site is recommended.

Also, a little research here should show the OEM dimensions:


The '63 full size Chevy was (as I remember) 26" from the center of the headlights to the ground, and also 26" from the center of the taillights to the ground. That was with OEM suspension and tires/wheels (7.50/7.75 x14; as I remember).

Checking the '62 against its specs might ID some other 'problems' (worn/sagging springs front and/or rear; for example).

Just trying to be helpful.

Pete
Great thx i will check it out. I dont like that front end higher look and i think what happened in my case is the previous owner removed the factory front spiral shocks and installed Bilsteins. I believe they make the front end sit a little higher up.I have the factory shock set but the car handles better with the modern shocks so they will stay therefore the rear springs would be a good option for me. I like the angle your '63 sits at.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
Great thx i will check it out. I dont like that front end higher look and i think what happened in my case is the previous owner removed the factory front spiral shocks and installed Bilsteins. I believe they make the front end sit a little higher up.I have the factory shock set but the car handles better with the modern shocks so they will stay therefore the rear springs would be a good option for me. I like the angle your '63 sits at.

If the shocks are the correct specs, they should not impact the 'height'. They should simply dampen the motion.

My '63 front configuration (simply info):

Front springs: Moog 658A (labeled HD, or sometimes '409'). They are stiffer than the other OEM spring options.

Front shocks: KYB kg4550. Stiffer than OEM, but no impact on 'height'. Many options are available to accomplish this goal.

Sway bar (front): global west SB5864G. After market option that significantly reduces roll and does not interfere with other components. I personally REALLY liked the 'drive'; especially cornering. Again, lots of options.

The front 'sat' at 26 1/2" from center of headlight to ground. Why? Because the 15" wheel/tire added a 1/2" to the radius of the 'circle' centered by the axle (compared with a 14"). I did not notice the 1/2".

I arrived at the above incrementally. Springs HAD to be replaced (worn out/sagging), so shocks done at the same time. That really helped the 'float' (and raised the rear as I had planned). Added the front sway bar to reduce roll. Considered a rear sway bar but 'passed' on it because I was 'happy' w/o it.

Again, just trying to be helpful.

Pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
several years ago I picked up a mid-80s gbody with extra parts that the owner was going to install for going LeMons racing. and he knew what he was doing as we saw his racing log book for all the settings etc.
anyway, in order to lower the vehicle he spec'd out springs from a completely different vehicle that would fit. he showed me how he did it (which I did not know you could do)
1- he got the initial spring specs for height and size and 'end connector'
2- he then looked up in a complete catalog and sorted out all the springs that had the right style 'end connector' and height he wanted
3- then he checked for the spring rates

I checked this one time myself a year after I bought it from him and it is a valid method (though tedious) but you have to know what you are doing
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
If the shocks are the correct specs, they should not impact the 'height'. They should simply dampen the motion.

My '63 front configuration (simply info):

Front springs: Moog 658A (labeled HD, or sometimes '409'). They are stiffer than the other OEM spring options.

Front shocks: KYB kg4550. Stiffer than OEM, but no impact on 'height'. Many options are available to accomplish this goal.

Sway bar (front): global west SB5864G. After market option that significantly reduces roll and does not interfere with other components. I personally REALLY liked the 'drive'; especially cornering. Again, lots of options.

The front 'sat' at 26 1/2" from center of headlight to ground. Why? Because the 15" wheel/tire added a 1/2" to the radius of the 'circle' centered by the axle (compared with a 14"). I did not notice the 1/2".

I arrived at the above incrementally. Springs HAD to be replaced (worn out/sagging), so shocks done at the same time. That really helped the 'float' (and raised the rear as I had planned). Added the front sway bar to reduce roll. Considered a rear sway bar but 'passed' on it because I was 'happy' w/o it.

Again, just trying to be helpful.

Pete
I ordered the Moog 6041 springs. I’ll stick with the same 800x14 stock tires and rims. Just want to get the *** end off the ground lol ty !!
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top