Jason Coupe DeVille Resto - New Spare Going In

[Jason Edge]

I've had my worn original type spare in my 64 Coupe DeVille forever, but with the new (well unused and only 5 year old) spare from the last parts car this was a simple upgrade and a perfect example if why I got into the parts car side of things.

 

Here are a few pictures of the new spare and the original:

 

 

[Jason Edge]

I tried to see if there were any reproduction 8.20 x 15  Firestone Bias Ply tires with 1" or 1.25" whitewalls out there and so far no luck but, here is a U.S. Royal reproduction 8.20 x 15 bias ply with 1" whitewall that looks further away from the rim.  For this tire I have to say I prefer the "pie crust" outer crown look of the Goodrich Silvertowns.

[Jason Edge]

Tony, I'll probably go custom on my next car. Just after that tall original look for the golden boy.

[Jason Edge]

Jeff, I completely understood your issue,  but it is based on assumptions that all 4 tire brand were manufactured exactly the same and the distance and placement for 63 to 64 was exactly the same.

My point is I have a BF Goodrich reproduction tire and an original Firestone spare. Firestone didn't necessarily make an exact copy of the BF Goodrich, and BF Goodrich didn't make an exact copy of the Goodyear and the Goodyear did not make an exact copy of the of the U.S. Royal. These were separate independent tire companies.  I remember pulling in some other brands early on but was not as keen into the details and did not take measurements or take good mental notes for that matter!

I like to go with facts and the reproduction BF Goodrich white wall band starts exactly 1/2" off the rim. I have two Firestones I believe are original 1963 and 1964 era tires and one starts about 7/8" off the rim and the one I had in my car which was pulled from a 1963 parts car some years back as I recall is exactly 1".

My goal is to one day have an original example of all 4 tire manufacturers. But even with that said, the point was the tire whitewalls and placement were quickly changing from 1962 to 1963 to 1964. Hopefully I have made myself clear.

I would love to see an original Firestone, Goodrich, U.S. Royal and Goodyear for a 1962, then a 1963, then a 1964 all side by side.  There is a chance the original BF Goodrich for 63 or 64 were exactly 1" from the rim (putting my repro 1/2" off the mark) but I have absolutely zero proof of that. If you have some original 1963 and 1964 spares I definitely welcome some pictures with measurements.  My goal is to present things as factual I can and to continue to learn as I go along. I absolutely know that if I can could back in time and put the 4 tires side by side for both 1963 and 1964 there would be nuances between them. Maybe not as night and day as you have between say the brake systems and carbs used, but there will be some differences.

I will also add that almost everything reproduced today is off at least to some degree, but you find what is the closest to what you believe should be on your car. 

[Jason Edge]

That was an original "type" spare but not my original. The spare I had been using you see in the picture is a Firestone with a 1.25" white wall. They are just one of 4 suppliers (Firestone, Goodrich, U.S. Royal and Goodyear) and each tended to differ a bit in design, and white wall width however the 63's seem to be a bit wider overall.  From my experience the 63's tended to come with 1.25 to 1.5 while 64's tended to be 1.0" to 1.25.

I feel the 1" is more correct for the 1964 and the 1.25" is more correct for the 1963.  The 64 you posted with the slight overhead angle tends to be a 1" but I've got stock literature of them showing a bit wider whitewall. You have to keep in mind this was an ever changing design as you go from year to year in the 60's and an early or pre production picture of a 64 might show a wider whitewall than say a late 64 production picture. This is why from my experience I would say 1" to 1.25" is correct for the 64. Anything wide would definitely look out of place. 

You can see a write-up I did on my experience at: http://6364cadillac.ning.com/profiles/blogs/originaltires

[Jason Edge]

Just fyi..this is one reason I generally don't like to sell used coil springs unless someone is making a low rider and they clearly understand they will sit lower than new springs.   We also use them as yard art!

 

[Jason Edge]

Jeff,

Suspension standing height against factory specs is easy to check per instructions on page 4-15 in the 1964 Cadillac Shop manual.  For the front you measure from front rear lower control arm flange up to the center of the hole in the frame as seen in the shop manual illustration.  For my 1964 CDV the proper height would be 7 3/8" to 8 1/4".  Mine is almost exactly at 8" which is well within the correct tolerance.  I do have the HD springs which may push it up a tad.

I believe people have a tendency to have selective memory or perhaps believe what the want to be true for the past, but these cars were not low riders.  A coil spring with over a thousand pounds on it for 50 year is going to compress. Metal becomes fatigued and even thought these are stout coil springs they will compress.

Keep in mind that there were many variations on the springs depending on whether or body style and if you had regular or HD springs.  For 1964 you had 7 different springs (4 regular and 3 HD, and 5 on the rear (3 regular and 2 HD) and 2 variations of leaf springs on the commercial chassis leaf springs.  It would be hard to compare say new HD springs like I have on my 64 CDV vs tired old regular or HD springs but can make this observation.  You can take a new HD spring and sit next to a comparable regular spring, both on level ground and uncompressed, and the HD spring  will sit or so lower than the tired old regular spring but when you go to install in the car will force the car up to the proper height. When I first ordered my CDV HD springs from Kanter I thought I had royally messed up when I compared the two, but once I installed the spring I was greatly relieved.

For reference the springs are listed on page 4-32 and 4-33 in the 1964 Cadillac Shop manual.

Here are scans from that page:

 

[Jason Edge]

Chris, the grey isn't an exact match of the original dove grey but close enough and of course hidden unless I have to pull it out and use it.  I noticed a film of dirt on the outside tread of the spare and have wiped it down and rally pops now! I just love easy win wins like this....and the cool think this tire is the exact same tire I'm running on the car so if I did have a blow out or have to replace one of my driving tires I've got the perfect replacement. While not the ground hugging performance of the radials (another topic..LOL), I've been very pleased with the B.F. Goodrich Slivertown Bias Ply.  With the 8.20 x 15 and 1" whitewall it gives the car the correct height stance and to me just looks so much better than the short fat radials...not to mention they want fit in the overhead storage . 

Now, if I ever get to my next 63/64 Caddy, it will probably will be a custom job and will trick it out with probably every modern appliance available.  While I'm gradually returning everything on my 64 CDV to stock or something original for that year (other than pertronix ignition and carb), I'll nurture my customization cravings on the next project car! LOL 

Sorry to get off on a tangent. Here's a picture of my CDV front tire and wheel cover that I think looks much, much better than those low rider radials and especially the spoke and rim tires that some run...at least for the look I'm going after with my CDV:

[Chris Codd]

Looks like a great upgrade. The rim looks excellent with the new paint. Thankfully my hubcaps cover my rusty rims, but I'll repaint them one day :D