OV9

I was checking something out earlier that just reminded me of the importance of filling the wheel arches. I'm sure this isn't new info to anyone here, but it reminded me just how bad cars can look when this isn't done properly, so I thought I'd post....

I was looking at a "spotted" tweet earlier in relation to a 928, and realised it was a GTS with the fatter rear arches. I do hope it was a manuel....

Then I had to check whether it was only the GTS that got the fatter rear arches, as I wasn't sure and I'm not at @Delphi levels of 928 knowledge. The answer is Yup. Anyway..... the original 928 was alright visually and looked OK in Risky Business. But it didn't look mean. The last of the line GTS however. Mummy!

Launch edit (I think).


GTS. Nicer wheel design, and fatter rear arches, but crucially - well filled. (Ignore that bizarre reggie plate)



Some other loverly arch-fillers that spring to mind.





This one is a bit obvious as Singer are a bit fanatical about this, but they do it so very well




Also one of my favourite styling elements of the 'vora.


Lets finish with a bad example. Had the potential to look so much better....



Feel free to indulge me with some more....

The main reason I've never like E Type Jaguars is for this exact reason

The wheels/arches look awful to my eyes, with the wheels so far in-board...

This is why I dislike squares off arches. They look alright in some angles but wheels being round things means there’s always awkward gaps.

Mito Man wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 10:20 am This is why I dislike squares off arches. They look alright in some angles but wheels being round things means there’s always awkward gaps.

Prove it

You forgot teh obvious Porsche when it comes to arches...

GG. wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 10:34 am You forgot …

… loads

mik wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 10:26 am

Mito Man wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 10:20 am This is why I dislike squares off arches. They look alright in some angles but wheels being round things means there’s always awkward gaps.

Prove it

I can’t think off too many sports/supercars with it right now, usually found on 4x4s.

Cross eyed Countach.


Can fit a human in the rear arch here.

Nothing has ever been as well filled as 1990’s touring cars

jamcg wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 10:53 am Nothing has ever been as well filled as 1990’s touring cars

Mondeo was my go-to choice on TOCA but never noticed how much of the metalwork above the arch was removed. Looks like it could be mid-engined with pushrod suspension there's so little space above the wheel

jamcg wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 10:53 am Nothing has ever been as well filled as 1990’s touring cars

Must resist making a "Your Mum" joke....

The Mk1 Focus RS has a great stance.



The Dodge "fuselage" styling led to some shocking wheel to arch ratios, similar to the e-type

Mito Man wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 10:49 am

mik wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 10:26 am

Mito Man wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 10:20 am This is why I dislike squares off arches. They look alright in some angles but wheels being round things means there’s always awkward gaps.

Prove it

I can’t think off too many sports/supercars with it right now, usually found on 4x4s.

Cross eyed Countach.


Can fit a human in the rear arch here.

I'll give you the Vector but the Countach looks tidy.

Mik, you must be reading my mind or something, I was having similar thoughts about wheel arches recently. It's also incredibly tragic, but still...onward.

For me the critical thing is how much nicer they are if the arches/sills don't tuck, and instead follow the diameter of the wheel, if that makes sense. So take this for example:



Notice how the bottom of the the arch is almost in line with the rim of the wheel, and it just makes it look so much more 'complete' especially with the correct ride hight. See also David Pook's A110 once he's lowered it:

jamcg wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 10:53 am Nothing has ever been as well filled as 1990’s touring cars

I always preferred the earlier cars with their more stock bodywork. It doesn’t work as well for me on the 98ish cars when they could get away with chopping loads out and really pushed the rules.

The late mondeos pretty much were mid engined with how far they rotated and lowered the engines!

E30 M3s have terrible fitments as standard, especially the early cars with 15s, bmw clearly doctored most of the promo shots

It’s something a lot of manufacturers have got better at with redesigned arches which aren’t such rust traps and I guess driven by the trend for ever bigger and wider wheels, even so an awful lot of cars benefit greatly from a bit of spacing and lowering.

DaveE wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 11:33 am

jamcg wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 10:53 am Nothing has ever been as well filled as 1990’s touring cars

Must resist making a "Your Mum" joke....

Mito Man wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 10:49 am Cross eyed Countach.

I can’t un-see that now. You have ruined the Countach for me. FY.

Edit: the more I look at it, that front is awful. I’m ok with the rear.

@240PP It doesn’t ruin the Countach for me (although I still haven’t forgiven them for the Anniversary). I have no idea why they did this though - whilst they don’t meet @Matty ’s criteria very well, early cars did at least have round front arches.

mik wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 7:28 am @240PP It doesn’t ruin the Countach for me (although I still haven’t forgiven them for the Anniversary). I have no idea why they did this though - whilst they don’t meet @Matty ’s criteria very well, early cars did at least have round front arches.

that is very pretty, though I'd still have a qv with all the wings!