Dave. Not sure where you get that stuff about the rear end being too wide at 59.25" I feel like I've got plenty of "dish" in my 10" wide rear wheels with 4.5" of backspacing.
"If everything seems to be coming your way, you're probably in the wrong lane."
Dave. Not sure where you get that stuff about the rear end being too wide at 59.25" I feel like I've got plenty of "dish" in my 10" wide rear wheels with 4.5" of backspacing.
I had the narrow fox body diff with 6.0" backspace and small disc brakes. I only have about 3/4" inside the wheel well and lots of dish. I could easily go 11" rim with a little less backspace. Hoosier A7 345/35/18 maybe?
Dave. Not sure where you get that stuff about the rear end being too wide at 59.25" I feel like I've got plenty of "dish" in my 10" wide rear wheels with 4.5" of backspacing.
I could be wrong about the backspacing, but I know I've seen some '33 cars with what appears to be little or no dish to the wheels. Some folks are using up to 1" wheel spacers too, which means the wheel doesn't fit.
If the 59.5 inch rear ends fits, then the body should be about 3.5 inches wider than a real '33 at around 47.5 inches, instead of 44 like my car. I found one thread that says the body is 45.5 inches wide at the back. That's only 1.5 inches more than a real '33. A better rear end width would be 57.5-58.
FFR sells rear wheels with 6 inches of back spacing. Since the rears are 11" wide, they have some decent dish to them. I'd say that a proper backspacing must be 6" with the 59.5" rear end.
I'd say that a proper backspacing must be 6" with the 59.5" rear end.
Well, I did not use any wheel spacers, and from any angle, my rear end width versus the body "looks right" - and pretty much in line with what other FFR 33 builders have done. In fact, the FFR literature on the 33 states that the "...body is 3" wider than the original, has enlarged rear wheel wells, and rides lower to the ground." Further, I have never seen a thread devoted to narrowing the axle any further than the early Fox stock width. Quite frankly, if the wheels were tucked any closer to the body, it would look pretty strange on a fenderless hot rod. Dave, your car is absolutely beautiful, no doubt about that. You certainly knew what you were doing when you built it. But there are so many differences between it and a FFR kit that making recommendations, comparisons, and generalizations without having the two cars side-by-side is pretty much impossible.
Last edited by kraftee; 06-11-2017 at 11:27 AM.
"If everything seems to be coming your way, you're probably in the wrong lane."
Well, I did not use any wheel spacers, and from any angle, my rear end width versus the body "looks right" - and pretty much in line with what other FFR 33 builders have done. In fact, the FFR literature on the 33 states that the "...body is 3" wider than the original, has enlarged rear wheel wells, and rides lower to the ground." Further, I have never seen a thread devoted to narrowing the axle any further than the early Fox stock width. Quite frankly, if the wheels were tucked any closer to the body, it would look pretty strange on a fenderless hot rod. Dave, your car is absolutely beautiful, no doubt about that. You certainly knew what you were doing when you built it. But there are so many differences between it and a FFR kit that making recommendations, comparisons, and generalizations without having the two cars side-by-side is pretty much impossible.
What looks right should place the tire about an inch from the body. More than that serves no purpose and much less can result in tire rub, but I'm sure some folks use less clearance.
There should be a defined relationship between actual body width, rear end width and wheel backspacing that can be relied upon. It may vary a little if someone chooses to squeeze a too-wide tire on the wheel. Since I don't own a FFR '33 I can't measure it, but at least one owner claims the body is only 45.5 inches wide at the wheel well.
I can guarantee you that the 6" backspacing that's sold for the FFR '33 would not come close to working on a real '33 with the normal 56" rear end. You'd need about 1-1/4" wheel spacers to keep the tire an inch from the body.
You don't read about people using a different rear end width because most just build the kit per the instructions and may even prefer "modern" wheels with little dish. They certainly don't seem to mind using small diameter tires, either. A tire that's only 26" tall would never be found on are real '33 hot rod. That's what FF recommends with their 20" rear wheels.
What looks right should place the tire about an inch from the body. More than that serves no purpose and much less can result in tire rub, but I'm sure some folks use less clearance.
There should be a defined relationship between actual body width, rear end width and wheel backspacing that can be relied upon. It may vary a little if someone chooses to squeeze a too-wide tire on the wheel. Since I don't own a FFR '33 I can't measure it, but at least one owner claims the body is only 45.5 inches wide at the wheel well.
I can guarantee you that the 6" backspacing that's sold for the FFR '33 would not come close to working on a real '33 with the normal 56" rear end. You'd need about 1-1/4" wheel spacers to keep the tire an inch from the body.
You don't read about people using a different rear end width because most just build the kit per the instructions and may even prefer "modern" wheels with little dish. They certainly don't seem to mind using small diameter tires, either. A tire that's only 26" tall would never be found on are real '33 hot rod. That's what FF recommends with their 20" rear wheels.
Dave, generalizing what works on a FFR 33 vs a "stock" or "real" 33 shows that you don't understand that the FFR is an interpretation, not a replica. Comparisons between your NON-FFR build and the FFR 33 are only relative as well because they son't share the same geometry...
Have you built a FFR 33?
FFR 5369 Pin Drive, IRS, Trigos, Torsen, Wilwoods, FMS BOSS 302 "B" cam , Mass-flo. CA SB100 (SPCN) Registered
Delivered 4/23/06. "Finished" 4/2012 (still not done!)
Dave, generalizing what works on a FFR 33 vs a "stock" or "real" 33 shows that you don't understand that the FFR is an interpretation, not a replica. Comparisons between your NON-FFR build and the FFR 33 are only relative as well because they son't share the same geometry...
Have you built a FFR 33?
I've read extensively about the FFR '33 for over a year, so I know that it varies substantially from a real '33. They share the same wheelbase and that's about it.
The car that I built also bears little resemblance to the '37 Ford that inspired the body, but it does use a frame with the same 44" width at the rear wheels and the same 56" wide rear end. It has much wider fenders to permit a 295 tire width. You might notice that my build is also not a traditional hot rod in any sense, it's a more modern interpretation, using a modern LS3 engine. The "big and little" tires tradition remains, but not with 15" wheels like those used many years ago. I use 17" in the front and 20" in the rear, just like the well known hot rod build shops do. The front tires are 25.5" tall and the rears are 30.5". That's a newer trend, but it began at least 10 years ago. Perhaps FFR caters more to those wanting to autocross their cars rather than build something with a hot rod stance.
All I've stated is that the really old idea of using wheels with some substantial dish seems to have given way to wheels like my new Corvette has, along with small diameter tires, even in the rear. I don't want that look myself.
I'm also saying that the rear end width doesn't seem to match the body width, unless you want wheels with little dish to them. My 10" wheels have 4 inches of rim from the outside edge to the spokes, with a 4.5 inch backspacing.
I have seen a recent FFR '33 build with big Mickey Thompson tires on it - 12x30" or 15 x31" in the rear and 8x26" in the front, but they use the old 15" rims. To get those tall tires under the car requires the kind of modifications that most kit car builders can't do properly. It requires either raising the lower coil-over mount, of lowering the upper, so the ride height places the shock at 40% compression, leaving 60% for upward travel of the rear tires. It also restricts your choice of disc brakes to a small diameter disc.
Here's an example of the no-dish wheels I was talking about. The 11 inch rear wheel had a 23mm offset and required a 25mm spacer to fit. That's why FFR sells a zero offset 11 inch rear wheel, so it fits. That wheel has a 6" backspace. That also means that a car having a 59.5" rear end and 4.5" backspace on the wheels has far more clearance than needed. This picture also shows that wheel opening is much deeper than a real '33. While the body may indeed be 3" wider than the original, the width beside the tire is not, if it's really 45.5".
What looks right should place the tire about an inch from the body. More than that serves no purpose and much less can result in tire rub, but I'm sure some folks use less clearance.
There should be a defined relationship between actual body width, rear end width and wheel backspacing that can be relied upon. It may vary a little if someone chooses to squeeze a too-wide tire on the wheel. Since I don't own a FFR '33 I can't measure it, but at least one owner claims the body is only 45.5 inches wide at the wheel well.
I can guarantee you that the 6" backspacing that's sold for the FFR '33 would not come close to working on a real '33 with the normal 56" rear end. You'd need about 1-1/4" wheel spacers to keep the tire an inch from the body.
You don't read about people using a different rear end width because most just build the kit per the instructions and may even prefer "modern" wheels with little dish. They certainly don't seem to mind using small diameter tires, either. A tire that's only 26" tall would never be found on are real '33 hot rod. That's what FF recommends with their 20" rear wheels.
I'm not sure of the body width at the rear wheel wells but the frame is 49" wide at the rear of the passenger compartment.Frame Dimension.jpg
Thanks: 
Likes: 
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by kraftee
