I don't know. I'm sure it could be made to work just like I made LS1 brakes fit my Olds rear.

 

I have a 5 or 6 year old Chevy Hi Performance article on a '69 or '70 A-body swap with the S-10 brake setup.
Obviously the part #'s are good on it, but the prices are not.

 

Here's the A-body S10 brake retrofit article.

http://rs155.rapidshare.com/files/54...e_Retrofit.PDF
You have to click on FREE USER and wait 60 seconds and then a download option will appear.

Now in my Camaro , I dumped the single diaphragm 11" OEM Booster for a 9" dual diaphragm from the 79-81 WS6
trans ams that had 4 wheel disc from the factory. You can get the matching Master Cylinder and prop valves too.
But I'm going with CPP's MCPV-1 internally prop'd one.

Option #2 right here at Rock Auto is the WS6 DD 9" booster.
http://www.rockauto.com/dbphp/mak,PO...rake%2BBooster

 

[quote=damascus;111395]
I have a 5 or 6 year old Chevy Hi Performance article on a '69 or '70 A-body swap with the S-10 brake setup.
Obviously the part #'s are good on it, but the prices are not.
[quote]
The shocks is not the problem. When a magazine says A-body they assume everything is the same as a Chevelle. I don't have experience with other bolt axle rears but my 72 Cutlass rear the bearing sticks above the axle flange. The bearing retainer is stepped at the center and holds just the right preload holding the axle in place. When you remove the drum backing plate and bearing retainer to install the new s-10 or ls1 backplate nothing is there to hold the axle tight any more. I had some special spacers machined to make mine work. I'm sure somthing similar can be done to make the S-10 stuff work.

 

Aces , I accidently erased part of your message above. When I went to hit quote I hit edit. Sorry about that

 

No prob'm

I'm going to have to pop a wheel off now to see what you're referring to.

 

i came across this photo... not an Olds... but WOW!!! IMO, it has the perfect stance. wheels and rubber look GREAT too:

W65I7L8A4LA5.jpg

Budnick wheels. I bet they are big $$$$$.

 

I took pictures of a Chevelle for you this weekend at Goodguys. I think its the exact look you are after. Tires were BFG's 245-45-17 front and 255-50-17 rear. I will try remember to upload the pics tonight.

 

Go bigger then 255 (anorexia) in the rear or forever hold your peace.

This is what a 295/60/15 looks like on the rear.
IIRC he also had 245's up front. This stance was badass IMO.

09JuneRoselleCruiseNights5.jpg

09JuneRoselleCruiseNights6.jpg

 

Wheel Vintiques Billet Bullet 105 series - staggered 17/18"... what do you think?

WVBillet.jpg

 

those look awesome, get some fatter rubber on there, and you should be good..hows the price?

 

If you are liking that style I think a cast center looks much better but thats just me. These in 17 x 8 and 17 x 9.5 with 275 or 285mm rear rubber FTW

http://www.vintagewheelworks.com/products/wheels/v60

 

what backspacing would he run?

 

I don't know for sure without a car to measure off of but 4.5-5" (brake choice can make a difference) front and 5.5" rear will be close.

 

Ok, these are the numbers I will have to being attention to as I want rims with a pretty deep lip in the rear.

 

I am just now am seing this picture. I can't see pics from work. Those wheels are at least 18" if not 19" and the rubber is probably 40 series so thats quite a bit different the the stuff you have been talking to me about.

 

Richard,

you've been a GREAT help - i'm all over the map! the chevelle looks cool, but not for a driver. 18's would be my max.

The 17/18" WV 105 series wheels were offered for a substantial discount - the only way they are affordable to me. it seems they were ordered by a Ford customer but built to GM specs in error. hence the sale.


(Newstalgia Wheel suggests a 4.25 backspacing for the front and 4.50 for the rear... with stock brakes.)

 

For 7"/8" front / rear that is probably about right

 

The Chevelle I told you about
245-45-17 and 255-50-17 looks to be 7"/8" wheel combo

 

I'm diggin em.
But I also think the one's gearhead showed ya as an alternative are cool too.

Backspacing sounds good for the front, but lower then mine for the rears.
I think you should be okay though as was stated, I'd consider a brake upgrade
for the rear drums eventually......99% of the cars on the road have better
brakes then these old timers do.

 

I'm going to run a 18x8, 18x9.5 setup. 285/40 in rear with a 6.25 BS. The wheels I'm looking at are measured in offset which is different thinking for me. I think the front is 20mm and the rear is 25mm. 25mm / 25.4mm/in = .98in. Add that to the rim width + 1" / in half (10.5/2) = 5.25" + .98" = ~6.25. I think I need about a 1/4" spacer to make it fit perfect. I want to measure from my brake drum to the fender wheel to make sure before I order.

I agree though, these big cars need big rubber out back. Atleast a 275.

Hey Aceshigh, what's your backspacing on your wheel setup?

 

WOW, you lost me with all that math...lol Im going to a buddies house to test fit a set of rims he ordered for his 89 1/2 ton chevy 2wd to see where the rim would sit. His are 15" devino, but I will at least get an idea.

Anyone else live in South eastern WI?...lol

 

Sorry. Don't feel bad, I'm still going to measure and test fit a wheel too before I order.

 

after a lot of conversation with Richard and others here, i've finally decided to go with 18" wheels on all 4 corners. 18 X 8 & 18 X 9.5. For backspacing measurements, check out the links below:

http://www.newstalgiawheel.com/measurement_guides.asp

http://www.curtsrodandcustom.com/ima...ment_guide.pdf

the challenge has always been to find the right rubber that will look right. in my opinion, a tire that is at least 26.5" tall is important to find along with a wide tire. the stock tires were ~26.5" tall.

tirerack and discounttiredirect both offer searches that allow you to plug in two different tire sizes so that you can find a manufacturer and tire offered in both sizes. BUT, the search fails to include all matches for some reason.

i found a few tires that looked good, and then went directly to the tire manufacturers pages. they offer all the specs on the tire... to include a column on 'approved rim width' and 'measuring rim width'. i take the 'measuring rim width' numbers to indicate the ideal rim width for the tire... you can go wider but you may get a bulging tire sidewall or other look that you may not be after.

anyway, after all that i (we) came up with a 245/45/18 for the 8" rim and a 275/40/18 for the 9.5" rim. yes, you can get a wider tire on a 9.5" rim, BUT you'll end up with a shorter overall diameter tire and the sidewall may bulge. i hope this is helpful.

you all have been great. i'll be sure to post pictures when i get everything bolted up.

thanks!

 

Please make sure you don't forget to post those pictures. Our setups will be very close. How soon before you get them mounted?

 

absolutely. i took me this long to settle on a wheel & tire size. now i have to choose the wheels... i'm down to a couple and will order next week. 6 - 8 weeks to build and deliver... i may have them mounted by December. i'll take photos when i get them delivered and again when they're on the car... it may be a while!

let me know what you find when you measure for backspacing... thanks.

 

ok, from the frame to the face of the drum, I got 6 7/8. From there to the inner fender I got 6 1/4". Plenty of room. I just don't want my wheels pushed all the way in to the framerails. I think with my backspacing, I'd have about 3 inches before my wheels hit the inner fender. Safe but looks terrible, IMHO. Let me know if you need any other measurements.

 

As for backspacing measurements, i'm getting a variety of answers. 8" front wheels are mostly coming in at 4.5 bs. 9.5" rear wheels are mostly coming in at 5.5 bs. but not always. i may put the question out to the pro-touring guys to see what they are doing.

should the backspacing numbers be set? for example, should a 9.5" rear wheel always be produced with a 5.5" backspace on a '71 Cutlass? or would it change depending on the wheel style or wheel manufacturer?

here's another cool tool: http://www.rims-n-tires.com/rt_specs.jsp

 

I don't think the BS will be set. It's more or less what will fit in the wheelwell (alot) and your personal preference as to how far in or out the heel will be. But you definately can't have BS more than the 6 7/8. And when you factor in tire bulge, suspension travel and sidewalk flex, you'd need less than that. 1/2" - 3/4" less.

 

Manufacture to manufacture its just a measurment. How close you need to be depends on how aggressive you are fitting it. On my car if I was 1/4" in or out I would rub but I wanted my car low with no bags and the most tire and wheel under the car possible without cutting. If I was 2" taller ride height I could have a lot different backspace.

To give to an idea my car has
18 x 9 with 6.5" backspace
18 x 10 with 6.625" backspace

now keep in mind these are no way suggestions for you car just sharing the info.

Another thing to think of is wheels are advertised measured bead to bead but you have to add 1/2" X 2 with the inside and outside lip. To make it even more confusing the lip IS included in the backspace measurement. For instance a 0 offset 10" wide wheel measures 11" edge to edge and will have a 5.5" backspace.

 

False. Vice Versa

I showed you mine. 285/40/18
My tire is taller then yours 26.98"
Your tire size is 275/40/18 and is 26.66"

Just throwing that out there so you know.
Here's a tire height calculator http://www.wallaceracing.com/tire-aspect-calc.php

Also , on a side note.
Be careful with backspacing and make sure your tire won't hit your exhaust.

 

UPDATE:

go to the new Wheels & Tires section on the forum - click here:

https://classicoldsmobile.com/forums...tml#post141078

BudnikBilletMuroc004.jpg