Mike, I found a copy of a comparision I wrote of the original rims I have on 6S296 and the repops I have on my 'vert. Without the accompaning photos (a fistful): While I may be proven wrong, I’d venture to say that there isn’t a wheel for the Shelby Mustangs that is more easily distinguished between original and reproduction than the ‘66 10 Spoke. Externally, there are two distinct differences, with a host of other variations I observed. On the original wheels, there is a raised embossment lug nut seat, and on the reproductions there is a counter sunk well. The second of the readily observed differences is in the recess in the outer portion of each of the ten spokes. On the original, this recess extends all the way to the ring which divides the inner and outer diameter of the wheel. The machining of the spoke’s flat face may not extend all the way to the center on the reproduction, but the originals cleanly meet the center hub. Less obvious on the face of the rim is the differences in the valve stem. The reproductions have a recessed spot-faced receptacle for the valve stem. While difficult to see with the valve stems in place, the original wheels do not have the same recessed area. Also on the frontside, the machining of the face runs uninterrupted from the outside of the reproduction rim across the wheel. In contrast, the original is machined on the outer lip, which is separated from the flat of the spokes by a raw cast finish. In a similar manner, the lip on the rear of the wheel is also different. On the original, only the outer most bead of the rim received machining. On the reproduction, the surface finishing goes from the outer most edge all the way to the center webbing. The reproduction wheels are much heavier than the originals, likely to U.S. Department of Transportation wheel strength requirements. This is shown in the drastic difference in the casting details on the backside of the spokes. The original spokes were hollow. The later rims filled in these recesses and thickened the much of the remaining structures. Note how far the back side was machined. Something very subtle in the rim’s lips are the outer beads. they’re slightly wider on the reproduction rim, and transitions to the rim lip at an angle. The originals were a rounded cut. I didn’t dismount my tires to examine for stampings or other identifying marks that would be hidden by the tire, but externally, I could find no distinguishing markings on the original rim. On the reproduction, I found a fistful. They are likely related to mold #, product ID, date of manufacture, and quality assurance stampings. While looking at the back there was also considerable difference to the machining of the inside of the center hub. The original isn’t machined at all; at least appearing to be a cleanly cast center. The later model, on the other hand was nearly fully machined with a bevel and larger diameter section nearest the mounting face. I’ll speculate this is to clear the larger bearing hub centers found on later Ford products such as the Granada. Tom Kubler --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
Thanks, again, Tom - great info. At 10:10 AM 4/13/05, Tom Kubler wrote: >Mike, I found a copy of a comparision I wrote of the original rims I have >on 6S296 and the repops I have on my 'vert. Without the accompaning >photos (a fistful): > >While I may be proven wrong, I'd venture to say that there isn't a wheel >for the Shelby Mustangs that is more easily distinguished between original >and reproduction than the '66 10 Spoke. Externally, there are two >distinct differences, with a host of other variations I observed. > >On the original wheels, there is a raised embossment lug nut seat, and on >the reproductions there is a counter sunk well. > >The second of the readily observed differences is in the recess in the >outer portion of each of the ten spokes. On the original, this recess >extends all the way to the ring which divides the inner and outer diameter >of the wheel. The machining of the spoke's flat face may not extend all >the way to the center on the reproduction, but the originals cleanly meet >the center hub. > >Less obvious on the face of the rim is the differences in the valve >stem. The reproductions have a recessed spot-faced receptacle for the >valve stem. While difficult to see with the valve stems in place, the >original wheels do not have the same recessed area. > >Also on the frontside, the machining of the face runs uninterrupted from >the outside of the reproduction rim across the wheel. In contrast, the >original is machined on the outer lip, which is separated from the flat of >the spokes by a raw cast finish. > >In a similar manner, the lip on the rear of the wheel is also >different. On the original, only the outer most bead of the rim received >machining. On the reproduction, the surface finishing goes from the outer >most edge all the way to the center webbing. > >The reproduction wheels are much heavier than the originals, likely to >U.S. Department of Transportation wheel strength requirements. This is >shown in the drastic difference in the casting details on the backside of >the spokes. The original spokes were hollow. The later rims filled in >these recesses and thickened the much of the remaining structures. Note >how far the back side was machined. Something very subtle in the rim's >lips are the outer beads. they're slightly wider on the reproduction rim, >and transitions to the rim lip at an angle. The originals were a rounded cut. > >I didn't dismount my tires to examine for stampings or other identifying >marks that would be hidden by the tire, but externally, I could find no >distinguishing markings on the original rim. On the reproduction, I found >a fistful. They are likely related to mold #, product ID, date of >manufacture, and quality assurance stampings. > >While looking at the back there was also considerable difference to the >machining of the inside of the center hub. The original isn't machined at >all; at least appearing to be a cleanly cast center. The later model, on >the other hand was nearly fully machined with a bevel and larger diameter >section nearest the mounting face. I'll speculate this is to clear the >larger bearing hub centers found on later Ford products such as the Granada. > >Tom Kubler > > >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Small Business - ><http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=31637/*http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/>Try >our new resources site! > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.8 - Release Date: 4/13/05 Mike Greene TENA Website Curator Trideum Corporation 256.704.6113 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.8 - Release Date: 4/13/05
