When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
If your question is in regard to 68 -72 model years for a Cutlass/F85/442, consider the P245/60/14. That is equivalent to a G60-14 and is the size the 1972 HURST OLDS used. It will fit easily without rubbing and look good on a 7" wide wheel. The 235 section width and associated sidewall height is too small.
The commonly-available tires closest to the original ones for your car are the BFG 225/70-14s. These are about 26.5" in diameter. The 235/60-14s are a Honda-sized 25" in diameter and pretty much disappear in the A-body wheel wells. Keep in mind that the 235s are a whole 10mm (7/16") wider than the 225s. Even the 245/60-14s are only 25.5" in diameter and still only about 3/4" wider than the 225s. If you are stuck with 14" tires, get the 225/70s or pay for the repro tires from Coker. The 60-series are just too small in diameter.
I have the 235/60SR14 on my 67 442 on 70-72 Rally 1 14 x 7 wheels. THey are too short. Look okay but too short. Will go with 235 70 sr 15 next time. Or even a 17" wheel.
With the rounded edges of a radial it doesn't look nearly as meaty. I had 235/60-14 on a 70 convertible and it didn't fill up the wheel well
Your issue was that the tire section width was wanting, and the corresponding sidewall was therefore too short. That is why the wheel well had a gap. The OEM 1972 Hurst Olds tire IS a radial. Look at original stock photos of the car, looks great! Why run a 225/70 when that width is only 1cm wider than that used on a Toyota Prius? Now THAT doesn't fill the wheel well...
Your issue was that the tire section width was wanting, and the corresponding sidewall was therefore too short. That is why the wheel well had a gap. The OEM 1972 Hurst Olds tire IS a radial. Look at original stock photos of the car, looks great! Why run a 225/70 when that width is only 1cm wider than that used on a Toyota Prius? Now THAT doesn't fill the wheel well...
No, the issue was it was too short. A 235/60-14 is 25" tall as compared to 26.5" for a 225/70. The stock G70-14 is 26.8". Almost 2" is too much to go down IMO
245-60-14s rear view. Don't worry about the bald tires, they have since been replaced by a set of 15x7 wheels and 245-60-15 tires. They lived a good life and had lots of fun doing smoky, sideways burnouts before they were retired to use as axle stands.
Same tires (245-60-14) side view. The rear of the car is a bit high due to the springs, but you can see how even on the front the shorter 235-60 would really look too short.
No, the issue was it was too short. A 235/60-14 is 25" tall as compared to 26.5" for a 225/70. The stock G70-14 is 26.8". Almost 2" is too much to go down IMO
Your initial reply quoted my comment in regard to the OP considering 245/60/14s. The size I mentioned was stock by HURST, and also being a radial with what you referred to as a "rounded shoulder which doesn't look as meaty". Your 235 size was indeed too short, and I'm not a proponent of those way under size tires. Also consider that most vehicles after half a century in existence will have had maintenance that you are not privy to at all. That may have included spring replacement with an incorrect rate/free height which changed the ride height, or the chassis will certainly have lowered because of spring sagging by now. Lastly, it is noted in the 1970 442 W30 original, new product, road test by magazines "Speed and Supercar" and "CARS" that the G70-14s contact the fenders during hard cornering and the tires were described at that time as being "too tall".
Doesn't matter at this point. My hemming & hawing made me late in purchasing. The guy sold the tires.
Isn't it great to be a part of a group so passionate about cars, Oldsmobiles in particular? My "Those sizes look perfect, very 1972 HURST Oldish!" were in regard to Fun71's convertible.
Your issue was that the tire section width was wanting, and the corresponding sidewall was therefore too short. That is why the wheel well had a gap. The OEM 1972 Hurst Olds tire IS a radial. Look at original stock photos of the car, looks great! Why run a 225/70 when that width is only 1cm wider than that used on a Toyota Prius? Now THAT doesn't fill the wheel well...
the OEM 1972 Hurst/Olds tire is NOT a radial
Goodyear POLYGLAS = polyester cord w/fiberglass belts
Goodyear POLYSTEEL = polyester cord w/steel belts
the Polysteel tire had same appearance (square shoulder) & tread as Polyglas - 1973 Hurst/Olds was the first with a radial tire
245-60-14s rear view. Don't worry about the bald tires, they have since been replaced by a set of 15x7 wheels and 245-60-15 tires. They lived a good life and had lots of fun doing smoky, sideways burnouts before they were retired to use as axle stands.
Same tires (245-60-14) side view. The rear of the car is a bit high due to the springs, but you can see how even on the front the shorter 235-60 would really look too short.
My "Those sizes look perfect, very 1972 HURST Oldish!" were in regard to Fun71's convertible.
