judd55
Member
Posts: 348
Loc: British Columbia
Reg: 07-04-06
|
07-30-22 01:36 PM - Post#2845163
I have a '51 Business coupe and am having rear tire clearance issues I have a 80's Camaro rear end with 17"x 8.5"wide billet wheels with 245/45R17 The issue is with the thick inner piece inside of the fender, I assume is there to accommodate fender skirts. My question is.....Can this be ground down perhaps 1/4" for tire clearance. 
|
|
 RAM_51
"6th Year" Silver Supporting Member
Posts: 6302
Loc: Yakima, WA. USA
Reg: 12-28-02
|
07-30-22 04:12 PM - Post#2845174
In response to judd55
Sure, it can be altered / made thinner. One thing I learned in economics class, however, was that for every decision, there is an UPSIDE and a DOWNSIDE. That box section is there to provide structural support for the quarter panel from forces that are applied at the wheel opening; either from the inside or the outside. UPSIDE...your tires may not interfere anymore. DOWNSIDE...the support, made less structurally sound, may no longer provide the support required if the wider wheels do make contact with that area because of spring flex etc.
Just to give you an idea of what kind of surgery you'd be facing...here is an image of the wheel house construction. Maybe a little more involved that one might initially assume:
1951 Fleetline Preservation
'51 Fleetline DeLuxe 2 DOOR SEDAN (Fathom Green)
'51 Styleline Special BUSINESS COUPE (Shadow Gray)
'53 6500 Dump Bed (Oxidized Red)
'50 Styleline DeLuxe 4 DOOR SEDAN (Mist Green) |
|
judd55
Member
Posts: 348
Loc: British Columbia
Reg: 07-04-06
|
07-31-22 07:51 AM - Post#2845206
In response to RAM_51
Thx for the info Ram_51 appreciate the feedback, I'm going to try a slightly smaller tire size first,
Has anyone else run into this problem ?
|
52HardTop
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 1733
Age: 67
Loc: North Haven, Connecticut
Reg: 05-09-04
|
07-31-22 09:07 AM - Post#2845210
In response to judd55
Your choice in rear was a little wide. The early Camaro or Nova rear is what you wanted. Of course, it might have been hard to find? The S-10 4X4 rear is another choice some have used.
2011 Camaro SS 426 HP, Red Jewel Tint. Killer!
52 Bel Air a traditional 50s Ride.
51 Convertible a 60s Ride.
51 1/2 Ton pickup soon to be a little of both..
1999 C-5 Corvette Convertible. Mid Life Fun..
|
|
judd55
Member
Posts: 348
Loc: British Columbia
Reg: 07-04-06
|
07-31-22 11:40 AM - Post#2845222
In response to RAM_51
Thx for the additional info, I understand the wheelhouse a bit more now, the biggest issue is the square nuts retaining the inner piece. I may look into simply grinding those down a bit, but not entirely off, so they don't rub the tire.
|
RAM_51
"6th Year" Silver Supporting Member
Posts: 6302
Loc: Yakima, WA. USA
Reg: 12-28-02
|
07-31-22 01:15 PM - Post#2845232
In response to judd55
the biggest issue is the square nuts retaining the inner piece.
The square nuts are inside the quarter panel; between the inside of the quarter panel skin and the wheel house. Maybe the best you could do is cut another panel that is completely flat (no raised ribs) and secure it to the opening "somehow" instead of using the 7/16" bolts...tack weld perhaps...  I just scanned this photo the other day. It pretty much shows the wheel house without the quarter panel attached.
1951 Fleetline Preservation
'51 Fleetline DeLuxe 2 DOOR SEDAN (Fathom Green)
'51 Styleline Special BUSINESS COUPE (Shadow Gray)
'53 6500 Dump Bed (Oxidized Red)
'50 Styleline DeLuxe 4 DOOR SEDAN (Mist Green) |
|
judd55
Member
Posts: 348
Loc: British Columbia
Reg: 07-04-06
|
07-31-22 01:20 PM - Post#2845233
In response to RAM_51
Great idea, I'll look into that for sure, Thx
|
 coachfrank
"7th Year" Gold Supporting Member
Posts: 220
Age: 74
Loc: washington,pa
Reg: 07-20-11
|
08-03-22 11:17 AM - Post#2845392
In response to judd55
I had the same problem with my 52 Styleline coupe! I am running 235/70/R15's ! It seemed that the car had lowered itself and that inner fender panel was rubbing on the tire! Replaced the shocks, that didn't solve the problem! Cut the brackets off the inner panel you are referring to, didn't work! Had someone tell me to check the shackle end of my Posie slider springs. The shackles were almost parallel to the ground, loosened the shackles, took a crowbar and pulled them to almost upright to the ground! Must have gained almost 3 inches of fender height! No more rubbing on the tires! I can take pics if you want! Hope this helps!
|
Shepherd
Valued Contributor
Posts: 2631
Loc: Lake George, NY
Reg: 11-11-15
|
08-03-22 01:01 PM - Post#2845396
In response to coachfrank
Same thing happened to a friend's 53, he thought that was the way were, he had jacked up the rear from the frame rails, that caused them to rotate down.
Edited by Shepherd on 08-03-22 06:08 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
coachfrank
"7th Year" Gold Supporting Member
Posts: 220
Age: 74
Loc: washington,pa
Reg: 07-20-11
|
08-04-22 09:56 AM - Post#2845432
In response to judd55
I have attached some photos to show how much difference rotating the shackles made
|
Shepherd
Valued Contributor
Posts: 2631
Loc: Lake George, NY
Reg: 11-11-15
|
08-04-22 11:19 AM - Post#2845436
In response to coachfrank
Imho, that is not correct, if you hit a large dip in the road they can rotate back to the original position, plus it is putting more stress on the rearward part of the spring. If the rear is no longer a torque tube, the pinion angle can be affected.
|
coachfrank
"7th Year" Gold Supporting Member
Posts: 220
Age: 74
Loc: washington,pa
Reg: 07-20-11
|
08-04-22 11:58 AM - Post#2845438
In response to Shepherd
Shepherd,Go to YouTube and follow the instructions for installing springs on a 1952 Chevy Styleline Coupe and you will see it is now Correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Shepherd
Valued Contributor
Posts: 2631
Loc: Lake George, NY
Reg: 11-11-15
|
08-04-22 12:17 PM - Post#2845439
In response to coachfrank
2 never touched 50 Chevs in my shop, they both are in the up position. The oe shop manual shows them in the up position, Posies shows their sliders in the stock up position, maybe they will work the other way, but the info says up is correct.My 51 has been since I own it. Should be an interestingly topic of discussion.
|
arkansas
Member
Posts: 334
Loc: arkansas
Reg: 09-26-06
|
08-04-22 01:43 PM - Post#2845443
In response to Shepherd
I'm running a '78 firebird rear in my 49 coupe with 235/70 R15's. With the backspacing on the junkyard steelies, I found that if I hit a big bump, the tires would rub. I removed the wheels, jammed a floor jack in there sideways against the frame and jacked the wheelwell out a little then used a mallet and 2x4 to hammer the outside of the wheel opening back in flat. Essentially crushing the spacing between the inner and outer fender a little bit. Problem solved. Haha!
1949 Deluxe Coupe 400sbc, 700r4, 3.73 posi
1949 4D Fleetline Special, all original
1949 2D Fleetline Deluxe parts
1971 Chevy 1/2 ton SWB, 250 I6, 2004r, underconstruction
1926 Ford T bucket, 250 Chevy, T350 tranny
1972 El Camino, all original |
Edited by arkansas on 08-04-22 01:44 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
 Dean50
"16th Year" Gold Supporting Member
Posts: 1841
Loc: Detroit area
Reg: 01-02-07
|
08-04-22 05:01 PM - Post#2845459
In response to coachfrank
Either way, CoachFrank, that Chevy is a beauty!
Dean50
 |
|
Dean50
"16th Year" Gold Supporting Member
Posts: 1841
Loc: Detroit area
Reg: 01-02-07
|
08-04-22 05:05 PM - Post#2845460
In response to arkansas
There ya go...more than one way to skin that cat.
Dean50
|
|
coachfrank
"7th Year" Gold Supporting Member
Posts: 220
Age: 74
Loc: washington,pa
Reg: 07-20-11
|
08-04-22 07:09 PM - Post#2845472
In response to Dean50
THANKS DEAN!!
|
52HardTop
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 1733
Age: 67
Loc: North Haven, Connecticut
Reg: 05-09-04
|
08-05-22 06:42 PM - Post#2845525
In response to coachfrank
I'm at a bit of a loss here. Why modify what is essentially stock parts on these cars only to fit a rear end that is too big for the car? The 80s Camaro rear is too wide. Just looking at the car it is easy to see. When the stock rear came out, the thing would have been to measure its width and use that dimension for the replacement rear.
2011 Camaro SS 426 HP, Red Jewel Tint. Killer!
52 Bel Air a traditional 50s Ride.
51 Convertible a 60s Ride.
51 1/2 Ton pickup soon to be a little of both..
1999 C-5 Corvette Convertible. Mid Life Fun..
|
|
coachfrank
"7th Year" Gold Supporting Member
Posts: 220
Age: 74
Loc: washington,pa
Reg: 07-20-11
|
08-05-22 07:35 PM - Post#2845528
In response to 52HardTop
I have a 56 rear end in my car that replaced the original rear and torque tube! It is almost a perfect fit width wise! My problem was the rear tires are a little to big! I installed Posies super slider rear leaf springs years ago! I put new gears in the rear last year and I must have caused the rear spring shackles to move which caused the rear fender to drop about 2 inches and the inner fender was slightly rubbing on the tires. I called Posies the other day and they told me to rotate the shackle to get the clearance! I followed recommendations from this site on the use of a 56 rear end in my 52!
|
judd55
Member
Posts: 348
Loc: British Columbia
Reg: 07-04-06
|
08-05-22 07:58 PM - Post#2845529
In response to 52HardTop
Sometimes ya gotta go with what ya got, the entire drive line is from an 86 IROC and the frame and springs have been upgraded as well, so the shackle trick will not work for me, but Thx for the tip, none the less, I have since went from 245/45R 17's to a 235/55 tire which is .6 of an inch narrower and 1" taller, I also ground down any high spots and the square receiver nuts so there are no sharp areas to contact the tires. It is still a bit dicey, but no rubbing so far. The other option is to have the wheels CNC'd to get a bit more offset, there is plenty of meat there to do this
 51 Spring Shackle by , on Flickr
|
|
Gain extra benefits by becoming a Supporting Member 
Attachment: 
