This morning I had the honor of naming my new *grandson at his bris. That means that I’m old enough to remember when 15 inch wheels were considered large.
I also remember when and why car companies started going to larger and larger wheel diameters. The tire industry had moved to radial ply construction and tire companies were starting to make lower aspect ratio tires. If I’m not mistaken, most bias ply passenger car tires in the 1960s were 78 series. After radials came out, 70 series tires became the standard. Soon 60s were available. A 60 series radial looked like a flat tire compared to a 78 series bias ply tire. I think it was Porsche that first started offering 16 and then 17 inch wheels to better exploit the new lower aspect ratio tires and keep overall tire diameter constant. Those low stiff sidewalls meant better handling and the wheels weren’t so much larger that increased unsprung weight was yet an issue (aluminum weighs more than rubber). So the original large rims weren’t for looks, but rather for function. In time they became valued for their look as well and designers at car companies realized there were aesthetic advantages in taking up the more of the empty space inside the wheel well with an interestingly shaped chrome or colored wheel, compared to a boring black rubber donut. I’ve been told by designers that one of the first elements of a new car design that they get down on paper on a computer screen is the shape of the wheel arches and the relationship of the wheel and tire to those arches. Professional car designers understand proportion and how the human eye/brain perceives nested circles. They also understand stance.
The owner of this 1971 Continental Mark III at a Detroit shine & show doesn’t.
The car looked to be in terrific shape, with glossy black paint and smooth, straight body panels. It looks awkward, however, because the owner insisted on mounting large wheels. The wheels themselves don’t look so bad. The Mark III has teardrop shaped wheel wells and it seems to me that non-round wheel wells can tolerate a broader range of wheel sizes than wheel arches that trace the arc of a circle. However, to fit such a large wheel/tire combination and retain fender clearance, the car now sits noticeably higher off of the ground.
It’s got the ground clearance and stance of a SUV, not a personal luxury car. It sits almost as high off of the ground as the Dodge Ram pickup next to it. Compare it to a ’71 Mark III with stock wheels and tires.
I’m even not sure that ground clearance per se is the problem, I think the rake is off as well. The Cadillac deVille donk at the same show was much higher off of the ground but seemed, to my eyes at least, to have a less awkward stance than this Mark.
All of this is outside of the fact that mounting those large rims have almost certainly compromised the vehicle’s ride and handling. I’m skeptical that appropriate springs have been installed to keep the total spring rate of the spring/wheel/tire combination as it was from the factory. Unsprung weight has got to be higher. It may look good (or not, in this case) in a parking lot at a car show, but I doubt it has the glass smooth ride that 1970s era Lincolns perfected.
*Aryeh Leib Schreiber, after his zayde [Grandfather], my father Leonard Schreiber DVM, alav hashalom [may he rest in peace].
Ronnie Schreiber edits Cars In Depth, a realistic perspective on cars & car culture and the original 3D car site. If you found this post worthwhile, you can dig deeper at Cars In Depth. If the 3D thing freaks you out, don’t worry, all the photo and video players in use at the site have mono options. Thanks for reading – RJS
The size of wheels has gotten to ridiculous extremes. IMHO, the only reason for larger wheels is to clear larger brakes. Nothing like econoboxes with factory 18″ wheels with inches of space between the brake calipers and the wheel rim. Stupid, and a waste of money. All that extra unsprung wieght and rubber band tire sideway simply ruins the ride for no purpose other than style.
Agreed. I actually put smaller wheels on my car. The ride is noticeably smoother, and I can’t say I’ve really noticed any loss of handling. But when I was looking for a set of wheels that would fit, every single place I went looked at me like I was speaking a foreign language.
Me: “I’m looking for 15″ wheels that will fit on my car.”
Them: “But you already have 16s.”
Me: “That’s right, but I want 15s.”
Them: “But you already have 16s.”
Me: “Which is why I need to know which 15s will fit.”
Them: “But you already have 16s.”
It was also sad that when they finally did get the idea, they didn’t even think to check for brake clearance.
I’ve spent a little time on the Panther forums and there are guys on there who try to figure out the smalles wheel their brakes will accept for the sake of better ride. Many people forget that the last of the Panthers came with 17in wheels.
What size wheels did your car come with?
Dan, as you likely know they increased the surface area of the brakes in ’98 and as such had to move to 16″ wheels. Otherwise, bolt pattern, etc. was the same.
@86er, some say you can make a 15 fit with caliper grinding. Personally that’s not something I would be comfortable with.
But, these amps go to 11.
From Spinal Tap
jjster6, my car came with 16s. It’s older (made in 2001), so that was large for the time. The problem I had was the stock tires wore out way too fast, and there weren’t many options in that size (and they were expensive), so I went a size smaller–better selection, better prices, better ride.
@Educator(of teachers)Dan
Very true. I have an ’09 Grand Marquis with the factory 17s, and they absolutely do kill the ride quality. I don’t know what Ford was thinking, nobody was buying these things because they wanted to be “hip” and roll around blasting kid’s music, like the Beatles. People (like me) bought these cars because of their durability and smooth ride. Besides, if the goal was to make them look more modern, the biggest wheels in the world aren’t going to hide the early 1990s body lines.
Agreed the donk thing is completely ridiculous. I’m old enough to have lived through a number of automotive fads, from mini-trucks to sport compacts to rat rods. I learned to appreciate the aesthetics of each and every one of these automotive fads. Until this donk thing came along.
A week or two ago I saw a crown vic on 26″ rims. How did I know? The owner was kind enough to include that detail as a part of the custom paint job.
I saw him rollin’, but I wasn’t hatin’ so much as laughin’.
I saw the same thing on an Explorer in the late 90’s who were that proud of their 20’s. You see, technology had only progressed to 20’s back then (yuk yuk yuk). Saw the same Explorer several months later with stock wheels, but still had the 20″ insignias.
What has tickled me as of late is the TIS series of emblems, that proclaim your wheel size as a feature of sorts, similar to fuel injection and ABS emblems of yore. As such, 20″ is the minimum, and I have yet to see any larger than 26″.
The latest ones I’ve seen say 24″ big ballin. They were on a GMC Yukon with all sorts of chrome stick-on goodies.
i saw 28″s once on a hummer.
My rims are 28″. Well, 700C, to be exact.
Some cars have bigger wheels, nowadays.
Big wheels other than 17 or 18″ are just too much.
Yesterday, I spotted a royal blue bubble Caprice with large wheels on it and it looked ridiculous – especially when the car looks to be teetering on stilts, rather than on normal sized wheels/tires and these humungous wheels of 20-23″ barely have any rubberbands on them for tires.
I saw a square Caprice teetering along and it looked like the guy was having difficulty keeping his front wheels in a straight line as he drove slowly.
I agree, the wheels on the Lincoln don’t look bad, but definitely look out of place on that particular car.
Yeah, the wheels/tires are not in scale with the car. It looks like a cheap toy car for 5-year-olds.
I like the wheels on the Mark III. Maybe a little oversize but it looks fine to me and clearly the owner is taking pride in his car. I’d rather see this mild statement on a car that somebody is making the effort to take care of vs. letting the car rot.
On the other hand the Cadillac is ridiculous. But to each their own.
Actually, the Mark III and the DeVille were two of the nicest detailed cars at that show. Obvious pride of ownership. I’ve gotten to the point where I can appreciate someone’s appreciation of a car even though it’s not to my taste.
I’m a big believer in the idea that the designers who work for car companies have more artistic talent than a guy who just knows how to pop-rivet on a body kit. At the same car show there were a couple of mid-’60s GMs intermediates, a ’64 Tempest and a Chevelle SS from the same year. They both had period correct wheels, Torq Thrust on the Chevelle and Cragar S/S on the Tempest. The Cragars might have been 15s but the Torq Thrust wheels on the Chevelle were 14s. Both cars looked great.
At the other end of the wheel size spectrum from the donked Caddy, if you look at the pics, parked back to back with the Mark III was a red Mark VIII lowrider, with 14″ wire spoke rims, with the back bumper on the ground. Those are smaller than the stock rims on a Mark VIII. As I alluded to in the post, wheel and tire size are foundational elements of any car design. Going too far in either direction from stock wheel sizes is going to be hit or miss unless you have a sense of design and know how to get the stance right. There was one car at the show with big wheels, a ’66 Chevy with 20″s that looked right.
Ronnie, that car is actually a Fleetwood.
Most people that ricedonk their cars barely ever actually lift the hoods. Thats why you always see them at garages.
This. I remember stumbling on a show called “Pimp my Ride” a few years ago. The “winner” had has beater outfitted with about $10-15k worth of dubs, chrome stick-ons, underbody lighting, and a killer sound system/dvd player. As he drove his newly “pimped” ride away trailing blueish smoke, I wondered why they never lifted the hood and spent some money where it would’ve done the poor bastard some good.
Not necessarily true there. PMR did towards the end of the show replace engines with crate drops.
Not to say i was a huge fan of the stuff done on the cars, but the shop that did the work eventually i’m sure took some flack for not doing anything performance related and decided a crate 350 would shut people up.
Mazel Tov, Ronnie!
Thanks. The baby is just about perfect, thank God, but then it was a C-section and they look better than regular deliveries. Spitting image of his dad, Moshe 2.0. With three redheaded grandparents, he’s a gingy for sure. Pretty mellow kid. He started fussing a bit as the mohel set things up, the mohel even joked to the baby that he hadn’t even started yet, but seconds after the cut he was blissed out again. I think it’s funny how worried the moms and grandmothers get at a bris. The men are pretty matter of fact, the women look concerned.
Mazal Tov To you & extended mishpucha Ronnie.
Those rims are fit for Pidyon Ha’ben coins.
That Super K wouldn’t happen to be at Telegraph and 8 mile would it? (I used to live in the area.) Having grown up with hot rod and custom magazines that espoused “Praise the Lowered” instead of “The Higher the Car the Closer to God” these DONKS are an abombination to me.
If you want functionality and style, don’t reach for the sky, drop the car about an inch all the way around or leave it stock. These sorts of raised vehicles make me want to go buy a massive old car just to make sure ONE is saved from these yahoos!
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner. I had to drop off some embroidery at a Motor City Camaro Club member who lives in Redford. He told me about the car show at the K-Mart. Pretty eclectic show with some worthy rides.
Telegraph Road, song by Dire Straits, 1982
Sorry, couldn’t help myself.
These high-risers are very common here in the South, which seems to be where they originated. What you typically see are GM B-Bodies and G-Bodys as well as Ford Panthers. What has been done to this Mark III is a real shame. At least the owner didn’t go for a candy-colored paint job.
Generally what the owners do is install a lift kit like what might be used on a pickup or SUV. The amateur conversions are usually pretty obvious. If the camber has not been adjusted to compensate for the larger wheels the outer half of the front tires will be worn slick.
My young kids saw a stock early 80s VW Rabbit diesel the other day. Rare sight around here. Anyhow even they noticed how small the wheels were – diameter and width. And the car’s overall size too.
I swear I’ll bet some of the bread and butter cars would gain 4-5 mpg if they’d go back to skinny small diameter wheels/tires.
Anything bigger than an 18 is huge. Even then, bleh. I’m quite happy with the 17’s on my Mustang. I remember my previous car, a Mazda2, came with 16’s. HUGE.
No mention of the Toyota Venza? 20 inchers on essentially a van, stock from the factory. They do make it look like a nice little hatchback, at least in pictures. This must burn though, when it’s time to replace.
I’ve wondered about the cost of replacements on those. Every driver I’ve seen of the Venza is a senior citizen, they’ll likely swallow their dentures when they see the bill from Goodyear.
Actually you maybe surprised with how not expensive 20 inch tires have become in relation to 18″ and 19″ tires.
I sold Dodge in 2002 when the new RAM 1500 came out that was available with 20″ wheels. It was awesome looking. Until the customer needed new tires and OEM replacements were $500 a tire. I’m sure it’s less expensive now.
The price of the 20″ tires is surprisingly reasonable. Comments above prompted me to check the price difference for the 18″ vs 20″ wheels on the new Explorer – it looks like only about a 10% premium for the big wheels. I like the look of the big wheels, but think 50 series tire is a bit aggressive for a 4WD “truck”.
“So the original large rims weren’t for looks, but rather for function. In time they became valued for their look as well and designers at car companies realized there were aesthetic advantages in taking up the more of the empty space inside the wheel well with an interestingly shaped chrome or colored wheel, compared to a boring black rubber donut.”
The boredom elicited by the black rubber doughnut can be mitigated with some tasteful whitewalls.
I would express my feelings on “donk”, but if you cleaned it up it wouldn’t be much of a sentence.
“The boredom elicited by the black rubber doughnut can be mitigated with some tasteful whitewalls.”
Or a thin red line.
It’s kind of bizarre how whitewalls disappeared. I guess they were seen as old fashioned.
Everyone assumes you want blackwall. I spent 10 minutes talking with the manager at Kal-Tire about wanting some whitewalls, and what do the boys in the back do? Mounted them blackwall-out. *Chalice!*
Once that was sorted out, the whitewalls improved the looks of my car immeasurably.
Whitewalls were a visual trick to make the wheel appear larger and the sidewall appear smaller. Once wheels actually got larger and sidewalls actually got smaller, whitewalls became superfluous.
Bumpy, that’s true, but many older vehicles and still current trucks are rolling on 75, 70 or 65 series tires where blackwall is a hideous affliction on the appearance.
I went in to get white-walls for my ’77 Chevelle as the sunflower-style hubcaps look better with a white stripe than without.
The guy there had a difficult time believing that I needed a set of 5 215-70-15 tires for it. When I got the car it had 5 different sizes and brands and styles of tires for all 4 whees and the spare.
The spare is still blackwall out.
Mazel Tov, Zaydie.
Ditto! Congrats Ronnie!
Thanks to both. See my reply to Domestic Hearse above.
On first arriving in California I was struck by the number of large SUVs with huge wheels and ribbon thin tyres (tires). I thought low profile tires existed to improve handling but since there are no bends in SoCal I just don’t get it. The freeway expansion strips must be bone jarring. Also, it displayed the exact opposite of what an Australian thinks an American car should be – soft riding for long straight highways.
In ignorance.. where’s that 71 Lincoln hood ornament? Was it pop up on start – neh, or was it Nadered out? I whiffed that more than wheels.. no luxo-barge of the era seems complete without one.
I don’t think the Mark IIIs came with stand up hood ornaments, at least not the early models but the pics I’m pulling up on the web don’t show them on most 1971s either. The stand up hood ornament appeared on the Mark IV. I think the Mark III looks better without it. What a beautiful car. Besides being a terrific movie, I enjoy watching the French Connection often just to see those great shots of the Mark III in action. The oversized wheels are definitely sacrilege.
It’s a Fleetwood, people. Get your Caddys straight. I understand it’s an easy mistake to make but I expect better from a car site.
Sorry about that. The car had no badging and I did a quick image search.
Somebody debadged a Fleetwood? (facepalm)
Today I saw a ’61 Cadillac convertible with huge rims. The square wheel arches and fender skirts made it work, sort of. The car was also lowered, which helped the look. Lavender paint and purple seats didnt.
That Fleetwood pictured above look hideous. Kmart is the perfect backdrop.
I’m with you Ronnie. I too, can remember when 15’s on a car were considered the ‘performance’ option. Additionally, I’m no fan of the Dub fashion, but I don’t pay attention to them either.
What drives me crazy when the factory up-sizes the wheels/tires for no apparent reason. Case in point, my wife’s G6. It’s the 4 cylinder sport sedan, but came with 17’s from the factory. Earlier versions with the V6 car came with 16’s, and after having driven them found no advantage to the 17’s on our car. Why did they change them? It sure sucked when I went to replace the tires, I think I spent about $75 more just because they were 17’s vs. 16’s.
Several years ago I bought a Sunfire GT that the previous owner modded with 17’s and rubber band tires. The car was sold to me with the original 16’s as part of the deal. As soon as I could, I yanked off the 17’s and put the original 16’s back on. The ride improved immensely and I can discern no difference in the overall handling. I sold the 17’s for $400 to some young kid willing to ruin a perfectly good back…
The Mark in the first photo doesn’t bother me all that much, but knowing what the car looked like originally, the larger wheels and tires do affect the look of the car in a negative way. But the Fleetwood in the following photos, ugh. No thanks.
While I can’t say I like the 18s and up, the 14 and 15s of yore were too small for the behemoths they were bolted too. I think 16″ is a good compromise for a bigger car. Regarding smaller sizes, my friend’s 97 626 with 13’s held the road like a tank, at any speed. Dare I say it, size don’t matter.. unless you are compensating.. haha
Thanks for posting the car porn. Even with the wheel implants, those Lincolns are still eye candy.
Lionheart – good name choice.
Will you guys ever get it.. Like it has been, like it will be, style is king.
Yep, the king of modern visual gags.
One of the more difficult sub-jobs of the hot rod project was selecting period correct wheels which could still sport modern performance rubber, or at least custom wheels appropriate for the era it was being styled for. To that end, finding Cragar 62s in 17×8.5/9.5″ with compatible offsets made the final selection a no-brainer, as the damn things were everywhere in the 70s and 80s. Even knowing 40 series rubber didn’t exist at that time, the casual observer doesn’t notice the anachronism – and those who take a closer look still appreciate the effort involved in not looking out of place.
I saw a very clean Fox-body Futura in a mall parking lot last year. The gloss black paint contrasted nicely with the 80s-era stripe graphics in primary colors – and then I saw the dubs it was rolling on. They might cost less than a good set of Center Lines, but the riveted disc look would have been a much more harmonious combination.
I had a similar issue with the Polara. It originally came with 14×5 rims and 7.50×14 78 series tires. I wanted to upgrade, but keep it a bit understated. Could have gone the 18 inch route with Torq Thrusts, but the wife said that’s too “hot rod” looking. We finally settled on 15 inch wires and mounted 255/60s, which weren’t too big and kept the stance and height in the ballpark. No regrets, and it sure rides and handles a BUNCH better.
On the suject of wheels, I for one am pleasantly surprised that the new Viper is actually retaining the same size wheels as the old Viper. Granted, they are fairly large to begin with (I believe 18″ in the front, 19″ in the rear), but they resisted the urge to go over 20″.
I used to have a 300M and the standard wheel was 17″. Interestingly enough, the wheel that came with the optional “performance handling group” was a 16″ wheel. Apparently the engineers knew something the rest of the aftermarket didn’t.
So, why is it that the U.S has outlawed the Muslim practice of circumcising females, but not the Jewish practice of circumcising their males? The Bris is archaic, inhumane, and possibly quite dangerous if the Rabbi sucks the blood. I am in favor of religious freedom, do not get me wrong, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.
You are right, the owners are bone heads that sacrificed niceties for looks. These vehicles look silly indeed and like you said probably ride like crap. Now and days 14 inch rims on a minivan is unheard of, but back in the 90s when mine was built they were the norm.
Why? Because they’re not analogous procedures.
In most cases, female circumcision usually involves removing the complete clitoris, not just the hood, depriving the woman of sexual pleasure. It’s hardly analogous to Jewish, Muslim or medical circumcision of males.
I suppose it’s possible that a man’s sexual pleasure is reduced but I’m guessing that guys with intact foreskins would rather have other parts stimulated. As for women, if it was that important to them, you’d find foreskins on dildos.
As for being inhumane, I’ve seen babies cry more vigorously about being hungry or needing their diaper changed. The kid is asleep a minute or two after the cut.
There are rare problems, but I doubt that Jews (or Muslims) would have continued the practice if it was statistically dangerous.
not sure I can agree with the premise
“Professional car designers understand proportion and how the human eye/brain perceives nested circles.”
look at the Fiero wheels in relationship to the arches and tell me bigger wheels wouldn’t fix the problem.
http://173.167.87.81/breon/index.htm
about mid-way down
What’s wrong with the Fiero wheels?
EDIT: Nevermind, I squinted and mentally merged the black tires and the dark wheel clearance void are and I think I see what you mean, the wheels themselves seem proportionately a little small compared to the overall wheel opening.
Looks like it’s “in” to have as thin as possible tires. Doesn’t work for me. The ride is too rough. People argue it gives better control. What, are you racing on a track with this thing ?
I don’t want to live long enough for these 26″ dubs to be considered ‘period correct.’ The amount of money and time people will put into ruining a perfectly good car.
Funny, but now when I look at potential cars I always look at the standard tire size…especially as I help my mother in deciding on her next car. The ride (and price) of 18″ rims just doesn’t excite me. I’m more interested in knowing I can actually afford replacement tires!
It’s hard to make a point about car design using this car. It has post modern appeal because it’s truly a temple to bad taste. It’s hard to make it worse than the cynical exercise it is.
Now if someone had done this to a 67 eldorado or something – then I might get mad.
I can’t blame guys much anymore for their choice of aftermarket wheels. Went to look for a cheap set of 235/75-15 whitewalls for one of my boats and they’re nigh on impossible to find for under $120/per. Used to be a whole set might cost $200.
Coker Tire… No, I didn’t say they’d be cheap…
I never understood how an economy with Trillions or so in debt could afford this stuff or why they’d bother.
The comment from car designers shows us whats wrong with car designers these days, and perhaps why we can’t see that tree that we’re backing into.
As long as the back wheel is tucked like on that black Caddy, I think a large wheel can look good. It’s not for me, but some donks can look really good, usually older models. Me, I’ve got 14s on my car, but i’ve still got the stock 13s on hand, too.
“I’ve been told by designers that one of the first elements of a new car design that they get down on paper on a computer screen is the shape of the wheel arches and the relationship of the wheel and tire to those arches. ”
Sure, for the prototype maybe… Then the production version comes out with twice the ground clearance, 2″ reduction in wheel size and 20mm reduction in offset.
I remember when 15″ used to look just right on a b-segment car, now 15″ looks like a set of shopping cart casters.
I’ll at least admit that the designers know how to match wheel design to their cars. It’s very difficult to find an aftermarket wheel that matches as well. What people usually end up with when choosing wheels for their rides is analogous to wearing sandals with a tuxedo.
The Big Wheel trend is even more ridiculous when shopping for winter tires and rims. I roll my eyes when I see some young guy sporting 18″ Blizzaks with steamroller treads on his Honda Civic. For 40% less money he could have picked up some nice skinny 15″ winter tires and rims that cut through the white stuff so much better.
+1 on that. I run 285/40×17 in the summer, but in the winter it’s a 225/55×16 winter tire. This is one instance where wider is not better.
Personally I think that Lincoln looks real good. The only issue I have with the wheels are the simulated bead lock side rivets. Do not belong on a car. Second, the at Ram next to it is a 2wd SS/T that actually sits lower than most Rams so its unfair to compare the ground clearance to it. As far as rim diameter, on a car I would say max diameter would be one that compliments the wheel well. The less sidewall the harsher the ride. No I dont understand such large diameter wheels on Trucks especially with 4wd. I personally have 16″ wheels on my ram with 35″ tall tires so when I go on the beach and air down, I have sidewall give. When I had factory 20″ wheels on my Suburban it rode like crap on the beach even aired down to 14 psi…
I would own that Lincoln in a heart beat… Long Live Land Yachts…
My biggest concern with those rims wouldn’t be the spring rates, it would be the brakes. I can’t tell from the photos if they’ve been upgraded but if not that driver is asking for trouble. Stock 70s ford brakes were barely adequate on a stock vehicle. Add that much rolling momentum and you’re just asking for a date with the back of an SUV.
The largest set of wheels in my “fleet” is the 15″ on my xB, and while I lust after various custom rims for it, I don’t want to go any larger in diameter. The Saturn & MR2 have 14″ and the ’64 Falcon has 13″(though any custom rims for this will be 15″ to clear planned future brake upgrades).
With undersized brakes he’d probably get ONE panic stop. If he’s in traffic where the traffic surges and stops – then I agree – he’s in trouble. 20 years ago when I drove 60’s Mustangs and Beetles with drum brakes that was the situation. One hard stop, after that you better take it easy until everything cooled down. The ’65 Beetle I kept now has four wheel disc brakes and 15″ wheels (stock diameter, slightly wider). The Beetle was scary after two panic stops in heavy traffic. Pathetic considering it only weighed ~1800 lbs.
To be honest, I see no problem with the ‘stance’. I just think that the wheels themselves are ugly.
This short article explains 1960’s tire sizes; http://vintagethunderbirdclub.org/tires.htm.
A 9.00-15 was a big tire, reserved for larger heavy cars (like a Caddy). As I recall, the switch to aspect ratio was 68-70? About when my dad replaced the 8.00 somethings (8.75?) on his 66 Olds with as I vaguely recall, a 70 series that looked much wider.
Yep, the wheels & tire combo for the Lincoln are a a couple size too big for the car. It might help if the front were dropped a little bit – looks nose high – but cars of the 1970’s just can’t tolerate giant rims like that without some careful attention, they’re too far from the 14 & 15 inch wheels they were designed for for the proportions to work.
The donked Caddy works better because the jacked up 4×4 look is part of the aesthetic (even if out of practical necessity rather than conscious design).
The reference Lincoln looks fantastic, even with the dowdy wheels – a set of slightly larger modern rims with low profile tires that keeps the overall diameter close to that, or maybe slightly taller with an accompanying suspension drop, could look great.
I’m not sure designers always know what they’re doing when it comes to stance, wheel wells and wheel/tire sizing. Take my Mustang for example: 1994-2004 Mustangs look ridiculous as delivered from the factory with enough gap between the fender and the tire to stick your head in. The original body was bad enough but the New Edge redesign in ’99 only made it worse – they have the stance of an AMC Eagle wagon.
On that subject… SN95 all came with 15″ (on base V6es), 16″ or 17″. 18″ wheels can look good in most cases but getting 19″ wheels to look right is very difficult and I’ve only seen a couple that I didn’t immediately think the car looked like a roller skate. 18″ & 19″ wheels look fine on 2005+ Mustangs but then they were penned with larger wheel sizes in mind and the tire diameters are taller on those than on the Fox & SN95 cars.
There’s an Escalade with maybe 22″ rims on it in the neighborhood – it’s not a donk and/but it looks wrong and suffers from some of the same issues the this Lincoln does – proportions look off, sits a little too high. I realized part of the problem is that there’s too much empty space visible through it – it still has the stock brakes which looks like they’re sized for a 14″ rim so they just look silly.
In summary, people are not good at proportions.
I believe 22″ wheels on the current Escalade are *factory*.
Perhaps they were 24″ or 26″ then, or it an model from when 20″ rims were still outrageous – they aren’t OEM for sure, not even Chrysler would let it out of the factory looking like it does.
We don’t see many of these giant-wheeled abominations at shows here in Alberta Canada, unless you count jacked-up 4x4s. I just have to remember the freedom of choice clause for car custom-even bad choices.
I live not too far from the other side of the tracks.
It’s funny to see an old Crown Vic with a lift kit bouncing along the highway on stock 16″ wheels with no hubcaps because the donk wheels got repo’d.
To each his own…
I love the Lincoln. The pride of ownership shows through even on my tiny little laptop screen, but I think the wheels could’ve been 2″ smaller and it would’ve looked perfect. Even as it is it looks great. One of the all time fabulous Detroit luxo-barges.
I removed the 16″ Pirelli performance tires on my wife’s Focus SES and installed 15″ with 60 radius tires ( which is within 100’s of an inch of the diameter of the OEM set-up) and the difference in the ride was astounding. The car doesn’t handle quite as well, I guess, but it’s not like she even drives it at 4/10’s of what it’s capable of!
Malaise-era iron + Bris = inevitable:
xhttp://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7ms5l_saturday-night-live-royal-deluxe-ii_fun