B-Body rear end on E-Body..???

[nivvy]

the problem with 5 1/2 backspacing is you cant get the bigger tire in there!!! 5" is the way to go for more meat!!!! 

[ShelbyDogg]

My 295x50x15 tires are just right. A 5" backspacing would rub the top sides of the outer wheel house. Stroker, that's why your car is so high in the rear. Mine can go all the way down and not touch anywhere.

Rob

[360 'CUDA]

I used a B-body 8 3/4 housing and 440/6pk B-body springs that I modified in my '72 Cuda stocker years ago. They worked out great, avg. 1.52 60ft times in a 3650lb. small block. Where talking back in the early 80's, OK,  360cuda I know they weren't legal for Stock Eliminator, but then again who was..

Right but the Stock Elim car was an Aspen R/T. The B-bod 8 3/4 bolts right into F-bods and we tried several combos of rear springs but we ended up using the stock center with Super Launcher leafs and a solid Eyes we carved from aluminum.  Two of my friends and I each had 'CUDAs for bracket racing and fast street so we ended up learning alot of things from each other.  The A-bod springs seem best on E-bods for sticky launches even on the street  .

I still have all my stuff from those days but my current street car is pretty wimpy.   Here is a pick from 1991. You might recognize the car from years ago but sadly it is no more. Went alot of rounds in that car......

[nivvy]

My 295x50x15 tires are just right. A 5" backspacing would rub the top sides of the outer wheel house. Stroker, that's why your car is so high in the rear. Mine can go all the way down and not touch anywhere.

Rob

you must be using a 8 inch rim and will make a 295/50 have less overal width...and my car "was" higher cause of SS Springs....

maybe there is a misunderstanding shelbydog.... 28*12.5*15 is the same as 295 50 15 and my cars has been lowered since that pic..... 5 1/2 is too much backspace if you want a 325/50/15's which I will be using soon....

[cowboy]

-
Exactly which years of B-Body rears got the ideal wide...

[ShelbyDogg]

you must be using a 8 inch rim and will make a 295/50 have less overal width

maybe there is a misunderstanding shelbydog.... 28*12.5*15 is the same as 295 50 15 and my cars has been lowered since that pic..... 5 1/2 is too much backspace if you want a 325/50/15's which I will be using soon....

My wheel is a 10".  You can see the wider gap behind the trim ring when installed. As for measurments; the 295x50  is only 26.7" tall and 12.2" wide.  It does make a difference when getting that tire to go all the way up inside the wheelwell.

Good luck with the wider tires. I can't see then not hitting your outer wheelhouses.  Mine is setup more for turning corners with both the front and rear sway bars.


Cowboy:  B-body, 62-70 Track 59.2",  Perches  44.0" 

[nivvy]

my 28*12.5's are  12.6 overall...a hare bigger.....

i just meant the 5" backspace will get he 325's in there and 5 1/2 will be right up by the spring....

[cowboy]

B-body, 62-70 Track 59.2",  Perches  44.0" 

What is it for E-Body..

[HP2]

B-body, 62-70 Track 59.2",  Perches  44.0" 

That is what the chassis book says, but I know for sure the 66-67 rears are 1 inch narrower in track than the 68-70 rear ends.  The perches are in the same location though. Not sure about 62-65 versions.

[ArcticCuda]

That is what the chassis book says, but I know for sure the 66-67 rears are 1 inch narrower in track than the 68-70 rear ends.  The perches are in the same location though. Not sure about 62-65 versions.

Correct! Dr Diff recommeds 66-67 rear end and 5" bs, 68-70 rear end and 5.5"bs

[vinb]

Hey 360cuda, I almost built one of those when they lower the hp back in the 80's , but I couldn't get my father to sell me his car. He had a '76 Aspen 318 4 spd with a/c White on White.  Super clean car would have made a nice stocker...
Boy, your's looks pretty cool......