That question again - rear tyres on a '67

[Erlend / bug66]

I'm just saying it fits. If the OP's car have a narrower track on his car, 215 on a fairly high ET rim should not be a problem 

[pupjoint]

I have long/long axles, and 215/65 on 5,5" et30 rims fits nicely. It's lowered 5 and 5 clicks.

That appears to have four-lug brakes. Bear in mind that four-lug and five-lug brakes have different wheel-mounting offsets. The four-lug drums increase the distance between the wheel-mounting surfaces. Volkswagen maintained the same wheel track by making the four-lug wheel with more positive offset. Case in point, the '66 and '67 Beetle wheels have a 29mm positive offset whereas the '68 Beetle wheel has a 45mm offset yet the track width did not change from '67 to '68.

So you can't use a four-lug car for a reliable reference unless you account for the greater wheel-to-wheel mounting width.

out of curiousity, whats the length diff between a short axle and long axle?

i amrunning short now with stock drums BRMs, gonna change to read disc brakes and FF Fuchs 6", Wide Oval. deciding if i just use spacers or just change to long axles.

[Zach Gomulka]

I have long/long axles, and 215/65 on 5,5" et30 rims fits nicely. It's lowered 5 and 5 clicks.

That appears to have four-lug brakes. Bear in mind that four-lug and five-lug brakes have different wheel-mounting offsets. The four-lug drums increase the distance between the wheel-mounting surfaces. Volkswagen maintained the same wheel track by making the four-lug wheel with more positive offset. Case in point, the '66 and '67 Beetle wheels have a 29mm positive offset whereas the '68 Beetle wheel has a 45mm offset yet the track width did not change from '67 to '68.

So you can't use a four-lug car for a reliable reference unless you account for the greater wheel-to-wheel mounting width.

out of curiousity, whats the length diff between a short axle and long axle?

i amrunning short now with stock drums BRMs, gonna change to read disc brakes and FF Fuchs 6", Wide Oval. deciding if i just use spacers or just change to long axles.

About 30mm (been a while since I've measured

[Mabbo]

My old 67 had 205/70 Firestone F560s on the back with Mahle baby burners and the original long axles if that is any help?

[Steve67]

Steve, is your front beam narrowed ?

yes it is, about 15mm per side

@ Jim, lawrence, RichardinNZ : thanks for the nice comments...

[hotrodsurplus]

out of curiousity, whats the length diff between a short axle and long axle?

According to the Without Guesswork books the '66 (short axle) rear track width is 1300mm/51.18" and the '67 (long axle) track width is 1350mm/53.46". So it's exactly 25mm or approximately one inch per side.

i amrunning short now with stock drums BRMs, gonna change to read disc brakes and FF Fuchs 6", Wide Oval.

I don't know how much the disc brakes widen the track width but I know how much the Fuchs copies should. The real BRM and the 5.5" BRM reproductions have a 6.35 positive ET. The 5" BRMs (I think Flat Four) have a 5mm positive ET. From what I know the Flat Four Fuchs copies are 4.5 and 5.5. The 5.5 Fuchs copy has a 32mm positive ET. That's a 27mm more positive offset (all things being equal they'll narrow the track width by 27mm each side).

Wide Oval.

Well before you spend all that money understand what those tires mean. The early Cal Look movement really pushed radial tires--that was a big part of the scene if you will. Those wide-oval tires are bias construction which sort of go against the grain so to speak. I have every Hot VWs back to issue 2 in binders and I can tell you with great confidence that I've never seen such a tire on the back of a respectable Cal Look car. Low-profile bias-ply tires were usually on 'custom' Volkswagens that sat high on Cragars or Keystones. If a Cal Look car ran bias-ply tires it was on the drag strip.

Also it's not good practice to mix bias-ply tires and radials on the same car. Yeah, I know people do it but that doesn't make it right. A bias-ply tire doesn't achieve lateral traction as a radial tire and the last thing you want to do in a car known to oversteer is compromise the rear traction. Furthermore, and this is according to Michelin, it's marginally acceptable to use a bias-ply tire on the front and radials on the rear; however--again, according to Michelin--it's highly discouraged to use radials on the front and bias-ply tires on the rear. Bias-ply tires track on grooves and that makes the rear of the car steer itself. You can compensate for the self-steering properties when the front tires do it but it's difficult to control a car when the rear wheels steer themselves.

Note that I'm a huge fan of bias-ply tires. We have three old hot rods on them. They're not as bad as people make them out but you have to use them smartly. 

[56BLITZ]

out of curiosity, whats the length diff between a short axle and long axle?

According to the Without Guesswork books the '66 (short axle) rear track width is 1300mm/51.18" and the '67 (long axle) track width is 1350mm/53.46". So it's exactly 25mm or approximately one inch per side.

I cannot explain why there's a discrepancy in calculating axle length using the TRACK width listed in "Without Guesswork" and what I actually measured on my axle tubes, but there is a difference.

This is an early, "short" axle tube. My dial calipers are easer for me to read . . . They tell me that the distance from the backing plate mounting flange to the spring plate mounting flange measures 3.432"  (+/- .005")
[ Attachment: You are not allowed to view attachments ]

This is a '67 "Long" axle tube. It measures 4.585".
[ Attachment: You are not allowed to view attachments ]

According to my calculations, that's over 29mm!

[56BLITZ]

i amrunning short now with stock drums BRMs, gonna change to read disc brakes and FF Fuchs 6", Wide Oval. deciding if i just use spacers or just change to long axles.

FWIW . . . my '68 ghia runs 205/60x15 Dunlop on late Porsche Fuch 15x6 alloys. To get them to fit, I changed to "short axles" with 4-lug drums that have the hub snout turned down to fit the shorter axle splines. I had to use spacers (sorry but I do not know if the spacers are 3/8" or 10mm thick, but it's one or the other.) for the tire to clear the spring plates. After 30,000 miles, my tires have a very thin shiny stripe on the inside sidewalls, but they have not even worn through the paint on the spring plates yet and the lettering on the tires is still intact!
On a beetle, the same tire/wheel/brake/axle set-up with 13mm spacers should be fine.

HOWEVER, you are talking about a different tire and brake combo, so . . . . . as I point out above, the difference in the axles is 29.28mm, and my guess is that long axles will push your tires outside of your fenders.

[hotrodsurplus]

This is an early, "short" axle tube. My dial calipers are easer for me to read . . . They tell me that the distance from the backing plate mounting flange to the spring plate mounting flange measures 3.432"  (+/- .005")
According to my calculations, that's over 29mm!

Food for thought:

What year is that short axle end casting? Volkswagen went to wider brakes in early '58. It also modified the end castings as part of the modification. I know that the bearing/seal retainer from the oval years differs than the ones from the square-window years and I believe that the backing plate is thicker or thinner at its center mounting point.

From VW's By the Numbers leaflet:

"October 1, 1957, Chassis 1673351
Brakes/track: (...) The bearing flange is turned deeper and the cap is shortened at the collar."

The cap refers to the bearing/seal retainer that I referenced. Could the deeper machining on the bearing collar explain the 4mm discrepancy?

It's also entirely possible that the 4mm is within manufacturing tolerance. Cars today aren't very precise and you can bet they were sloppier half a century ago.

Good measurement by the way. Thanks for taking the time to do that.

[56BLITZ]

What year is that short axle end casting? Volkswagen went to wider brakes in early '58. It also modified the end castings as part of the modification. I know that the bearing/seal retainer from the oval years differs than the ones from the square-window years and I believe that the backing plate is thicker or thinner at its center mounting point.
Good measurement by the way. Thanks for taking the time to do that.

I am pretty sure that the "short" axle I pictured is a 1961.

The easy way to tell between the early and later "short" tubes . . . early cars have shock absorber mounts that are perpendicular to the centerline of the chassis . . . on both the torsion housing and the axle tube. The later cars have upper and lower shock mounts that are angled something like 45 degrees.

Chris, if you could, please tell us the difference between '67 tubes/ bearing retainers and '68 axle tubes/bearing retainers. I think there is a difference, but I am not sure. I think that there might be a bearing retainer that is for something like '64 through '67 and a different retainer that works for '68 and later. They do not interchange . . . that is to say that "68 tubes must use "68/later caps and '67 tubes must use the '64-'67 caps, right? Getting them mixed-up will result in loose wheel bearings or "loose" backing plates depending on the combination (ie. late cap on '67 tube vs. early cap on '68 tube). Can you confirm?

[Zach Gomulka]

out of curiosity, whats the length diff between a short axle and long axle?

According to the Without Guesswork books the '66 (short axle) rear track width is 1300mm/51.18" and the '67 (long axle) track width is 1350mm/53.46". So it's exactly 25mm or approximately one inch per side.

I cannot explain why there's a discrepancy in calculating axle length using the TRACK width listed in "Without Guesswork" and what I actually measured on my axle tubes, but there is a difference.

This is an early, "short" axle tube. My dial calipers are easer for me to read . . . They tell me that the distance from the backing plate mounting flange to the spring plate mounting flange measures 3.432"  (+/- .005")
[ Attachment: You are not allowed to view attachments ]

This is a '67 "Long" axle tube. It measures 4.585".
[ Attachment: You are not allowed to view attachments ]

According to my calculations, that's over 29mm!

That's the same way I measured. I stand correct

[autohausdolby]

Well the car's here now and back in my garage. I haven't measured up but it looks to me like it may well have short axles already. I haven't had time to really look at it properly yet but it's got a 205/65 and 135 combo on stock rims and the tuck at the back is ridiculous. It actually sat on the inner rails on my trailer at the back.

[hotrodsurplus]

I haven't measured up but it looks to me like it may well have short axles already.

You don't measure for axle length. You look at the end casting to determine length. The difference is pretty obvious. Here's a photo. Long of course is at the top.

it's got a 205/65 and 135 combo on stock rims and the tuck at the back is ridiculous. It actually sat on the inner rails on my trailer at the back.

Now at least you have a baseline. Measure the distance between the tire sidewall and the fender lip. The stock '66 and '67 4 1/2" wheel has a 28mm offset. If you were to use a conventional 5.5 BRM with a 6.5mm offset then the tire tread would move 21.5mm toward the fender.

The sidewall shape will change ever so slightly because the 5.5" wheel is an inch wider. Each bead will move out exactly half an inch but because the tread is a fixed dimension the sidewall will move out only half of that amount on each side. So theoretically the sidewall will bulge approximately 1/4". In application it may bulge less.

So set the car at the intended height and measure the distance between the corner of the tread and the fender. That will give you a good idea of what wheel offset you can run.

FWIW, it looks to me as if you already have short axles. A 165 tire on a stock wheel sits way closer to the fender in a long-axle car. With short axles you really need to watch your backspace. Too much positive offset will make the tires rub the spring plates. If you're going to run an aftermarket wide-five wheel then you needn't concern yourself; they all have less positive offset than the stock wheel.

[autohausdolby]

It's done. On closer inspection it has a '65 box, axles and rear brakes, so the rears fit perfectly. The fronts required a 2 inch narrowed beam to get back to stock with the CB performance disc/dropped spindle combo.

[leec]

That's a really cool 67.
Any motor plans?
Lee

[stretch]

Twin quiet pack looks great.   

[Neil Davies]

I like that Matt! Synchro looked good in Practical Classics last month too...

[autohausdolby]

Thanks everyone

I built a little 1641 on Saturday for it with an Engle 110, CB 044s with 40x35.5 valves, Scat 1.25 ratio rockers, 40 IDFs on CB offsets and a merged Thunderbird header. The bottom end is from a rebuilt but un run 1600 that I bought off a trike enthusiast when I realised on Thusday that I wanted to be at Cal Look Drag Day on Saturday Despite some very long days/nights I didn't manage it but it was a good laugh putting it all together. The photos above were taken at 4.30am on Sunday morning

[autohausdolby]

[autohausdolby]

Apologies for the slightly ropey phone camera photos and messy workshop.





And then from today:



It's not very often you'll see a UK MOT certificate with as cool a vanity plate as that

[autohausdolby]

It will probably be used to shake down the 78.4x94 IDA'd race motor when that's back from Daz Chandler's but at least I have something to drive it around with at the moment.

[hotrodsurplus]

Neat! Just limit your blasts in the 5K RPM range until you counterweight that crank and balance everything. That's going to be tough discipline; that car will be fun to drive!

[autohausdolby]

I'm probably going to stroke it a little and change the case for an ally one when the bank account has calmed down a little

[kielbasa]

A bit of an old thread, but I'd figure I'd share my setup on the recently stolen 68 :/

145s up front on a 5" narrowed beam (those 4 lug centerlines suck for offset) with a 3.5" rim
and 225/70/15 on the back with 5.5" rim with short axles.