69R-CODE 25 Report post Posted February 6, 2015 I just put on my wheel tire combo from CJ's. I went with 235/60/15 -15 x 7 (4,25 b.s.) on the front and 245/60/15 -5 x 8 (4.5 b.s.) on the rear. The rears went on great with no issue. The fronts are rubbing the upper control arm. I called CJ's and said that with my stock suspension these wheels/tires should not be rubbing. They suggested I could have negative camber causing the issue. I have attached some pictures. They suggested I get wheel spacers or loosen the eccentric bolt and move the lower control arm for clearance. Before I go doing anything I wanted to get some advice from this forum. Like I said all suspension is stock. Attached are some pictures. What do you all think? 1 Ernestgaig reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SparkyGT 26 Report post Posted February 6, 2015 well i have to ask, have you changed upper arms? i did on my 66, put some new arms on (aftermarket), and the same tires were installed, they rubbed/unable to turn by hand. so it seemed there was a bit more material around the ball joint area. i ended up getting some smaller tires for front, since i was running 14's, installing 17's on front cleared the arm altogether. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969_Mach1 333 Report post Posted February 6, 2015 Well, al least from the pictures, you definitely don't have any negative camber. It actually looks too far positive. Why is the car so high in the air, front and back? SparkyGT might be right and something is not correct with the aftermarket upper control arms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
barnett468 418 Report post Posted February 7, 2015 . of course you have negative camber but that nothing to do with it . . just install a 5/16" spacer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ridge Runner 1,113 Report post Posted February 7, 2015 It looks like part of the problem is the front is so high the upper control arm is pointed down ward throwing the end of the control arm into the tire .The upper control arm should be more level or even slightly up ward at ride height .A spacer would help but it would probably have to be a thicker one . Adjusting the lower control arm out more will make the tire rub even more .4.25 back spacing may be to much with that tire and wheel combo. Have you done the one inch drop at the upper control arm ? That could help a little bit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rangerdoc 22 Report post Posted February 7, 2015 If you have aftermarket arms they tend to have more material and you can grind it down. I had to do that. I have 4.25 bs all around and had to add 1/4" spacers up front, running 15x7 with 235-60, so same as you. Same tire as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969_Mach1 333 Report post Posted February 7, 2015 Those wheels have the same offset/back spacing as the originals. Are aftermarket upper control arms that poor of an original copy? I don't know, I bought mine so long ago, aftermarkets were not available and the only source for upper control arms was from Ford. If those are the culprit, I'd be inclined to rebuild a used original set. I'm still curious why the car's ride height is so tall. My 69 Mach 1 doesn't sit that high, even without the motor in it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Opentracker 4 Report post Posted February 7, 2015 The ball joint dome on your upper arms looks to be elongated. Some of the aftermarket arms, like the one in the photo below, have a ball joint dome that is more round and may give more tire clearance. The 4.25 backspacing on the wheel should fit as that is the optimum backspacing. The TA radial tires have more bulge on the side wall than some other tires, that could be part of the issue as well. Grinding back the dome is a good idea. I've done that before to get a wheel with 4.5" of backspacing to fit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969_Mach1 333 Report post Posted February 7, 2015 After looking at the picture Opentracker has, I took a closer look at the condition in the picture of 69R-Code's car. I think 69R-Code should take a close look at his upper control arms. In the picture it looks like a piece of the control was cut or broke off in the ball joint area. It also looks like it is cracking or splitting in that same area. It may just be the picture or different aftermarket control arm, but it doesn't look okay. I also see in the picture, at some time the ball joints were replaced. Maybe that's when what I am seeing in picture occurred. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LSG 15 Report post Posted February 8, 2015 69R, your upper arms are a less than stellar copy of the originals. You need to clearance the arms you have, or rebuild some used ones, or throw them out and get aftermarket tubulars. Mine are from Global West, lots of folks make them. LSG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969_Mach1 333 Report post Posted February 8, 2015 They look like repro's, not quite as new as the restoration, and the ball joints have been replaced. Am I the only one that see a piece of the control arm cut off next to the ball joint? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LSG 15 Report post Posted February 8, 2015 Yeah, that one edge does look kinda weird. Would be nice to see a few more pics of the end of that arm, maybe with the tires and wheel off---- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RPM 1,190 Report post Posted February 8, 2015 Why is the car so high in the air, front and back? Well, al least from the pictures, you definitely don't have any negative camber. It actually looks too far positive. Why is the car so high in the air, front and back? Kinda difficult to tell from the close up pics, but the upper arms look like they are sloped down at an extreme angle. My car didn't sit that high with a bare shell. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969_Mach1 333 Report post Posted February 8, 2015 Kinda difficult to tell from the close up pics, but the upper arms look like they are sloped down at an extreme angle. My car didn't sit that high with a bare shell. Something just doesn't look correct. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ridge Runner 1,113 Report post Posted February 9, 2015 Kinda difficult to tell from the close up pics, but the upper arms look like they are sloped down at an extreme angle. My car didn't sit that high with a bare shell. That is what i was noticing ,with that much of a downward angle on the upper arm it could cause it to hit the tire .My 66 fast back has the motor out and to make it roll i had to use a spacer to keep the tire from dragging the upper arm because of the angle .With the motor in it rolled fine because the arm was in the proper angle . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rangerdoc 22 Report post Posted February 9, 2015 If you do want some 1/4" spacers let me know. I switched to a coilover so I don't need them anymore. Will sell them for $10. They are the Mr. Gasket brand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
69R-CODE 25 Report post Posted February 9, 2015 I was away from my computer all this weekend and sorry am just getting to all of your responses. Let me preface this with the pictures from underneath the car were taken with it up on jack stands. I now realize that made a clearance difference with it on the ground. 1. The control arms are original to the car. I have owned it since 1994. It is very possible that someone replaced them with after market ones before then or modified them (for whatever reason). I will take a closer look at them this evening for cracks and such. 2. As for the ride height. The car has all brand new front coil springs (I made sure the front were BB) and rear leaf springs. Also, the picture was taken just as I had set the car on the ground after the tire install. (very well could be it had not settled). It does not normally set that high. I will try and take a picture of it this afternoon now that it has set over the weekend. 3. After many conversations with the folks at CJ's (I sent them the same pictures on this thread) I have a set of 1/4" spacers coming to me this week. That should give me the clearance I need. If not, they suggest that I go with a 225/60/15 on the front. CJ's stated that it is hit or miss with a 236/60 on the front. It either touches or has a very minimal clearance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969_Mach1 333 Report post Posted February 9, 2015 The original control arms for 1969 used a 4 bolt ball joint. If yours has 3 bolt ball joints, they have been replaced at some time. They may still be Ford arms because the Ford replacement arms also used 3 bolt ball joints. But look closely at them, the pictures indicate somebody has cut a piece out of a control arm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeStang 247 Report post Posted February 9, 2015 Take a hammer to them and a grinder for the lip, problem solved. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
