Help me understand "wheel gap"

Is the factory "stance" of most cars due to road quality? Or even a throw back from when most of the roads outside the city limits were dirt?

For a DD, I don't mind it sitting a little high. Having to slow down for every rough intersection or RR track gets old. There are a couple of bridge approaches in town I'm reasonably certain my van leaves the ground on if I hit them at speed.

The RX-7 is sitting just a little lower than stock, and probably as low as it will ever get since it will see street use more than track use. Some of y'all won't like it because of the 4X4 status, but I have yet to bottom it out.

The Abomination is sitting in the weeds since it's a track rat only. It's going to need the center exhaust tube replaced because it almost has a hole worn in it.

The right wheel gap is going to depend of the use of the vehicle for me, looks be dammed. I'm not going to sacrifice ride quality or anything else for looks. Built it to work, not to look like it will.

How's this for factory stance?

The Roadbeast will look better with these.

But it's going to tow better as well due to the larger contact patch and stiffer sidewall. Sacrificing a little ride quality for better function.

Run_Away wrote: The stock wheel gap on 3g Preludes is ridiculous and looks horrible. IMO the lower it gets, the better it looks.

That looks about right^^^

This looks as wrong as werewolf baby on the zombie thread:

2"ish drop on H&R coilovers. -1 wheelsize (went to a 17") overall loss approx 2.5" height.

Bone stock

I think mine looks a lot better. HOWEVER- as demonstrated in another thread...

THAT can happen. I'm willing to take the risk (it handles a TON better with the wider rubber and the coilover and sway bars) but as always YMMV.

EvanR wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

EvanR wrote: I'm not a designer. I assume the people whose job it is to design cars *are* designers. I respect their craft, and I respect their skills. I figure that people who are paid to design cars know best how they ought to look.

You could use that argument against *any* modification of *any* car. In 1993, Toyota put 15" wheels on the MR2. Otherwise, it looked the same. Almost everyone thinks it looks better. I got a set of '93 wheels for my '91 just 'cause I thought it looked better. What's wrong with that?

I bolded the part that I found important. I don't think either of the MR2s pictured looks any better or worse than the other. If you (and "almost everyone") thinks it looks better, the reason is that I simply to not possess the training or innate "designer's eye" that "almost everyone" possesses.

I don't see any difference, either

iadr wrote:

Why did you trim the fenders? If you hadn't, your wheel gap would have been much smaller!

ProDarwin wrote: Also annoying: massively disproportionate track relative to the body. 1st gen Saturn sedans/wagons are a great example of this. There is room for about 1/2" more wheel width in the rear than up front. Looks goofy as hell, especially with the factory wheels/tires.

'73-'76 Dodge Darts have about 3" more track width in the front than in the rear - here's a stock example:

It seems this was a result of several front suspension updates and never updating the rear. If there's an upside, it is that you can cram some really monsterous rear tires into them.

EvanR wrote: Why did you trim the fenders? If you hadn't, your wheel gap would have been much smaller!

Just kidding. This Nova makes me want to be a better woman!!

MadScientistMatt wrote: '73-'76 Dodge Darts have about 3" more track width in the front than in the rear - here's a stock example:

True, and it isn't just the 73-76 cars. I recall rolling a 71 onto a trailer, and when the back wheels came to the ramps they were nowhere near centered. Once I noticed it, it drove me insane.

ProDarwin wrote: True, and it isn't just the 73-76 cars. I recall rolling a 71 onto a trailer, and when the back wheels came to the ramps they were nowhere near centered. Once I noticed it, it drove me insane.

The earliest ones had maybe a half inch track difference front to rear, but they kept pushing the front track wider with each redesign, starting in '67 when they widened the K-member about an inch to fit a big block. The final '73-'76 run had it really get out of hand.

I just saw a picture of the new Dart, it seems to have pretty good stance.