I used to run 235/60-14s (which is 25 inches tall) with 14x7" wheels (4-1/4" backspace) on the front of my Maverick and they never rubbed. Granted, it was a stock suspension and you've seriously modified yours, but something just doesn't seem right about it. Come to think of it, I met a young guy several years ago who had 245s on 18-inch wheels on the front of his Maverick.
15X7 rims. Honestly, I DO think my new setup has something to do with it. I am willing to bet that the hubs I have are thicker than the stock hubs, pushing the front tires out 1/4-1/2". No way to prove that now that I don't have the stock hubs anymore. The mustang II hubs have the disks, lugnuts, and all in one piece. You don't slide the disks onto the hub and over the lugs like you do on stock setups. Like these...
I also find it odd that the front of the tire is so damned close to the valance. Sorry to ask.. I know you said "stock settings" somewhere.. but I don't know what that is. What castor setting did the alignment tech give you?
I thought that too - I never had a predetermined point of install on my Mustang II front suspension cradle, as an R & C kit would give you, but I know my Mustang II lower ball joints are within an 1/8 of an inch from where my Maverick ones were - now you set the top of the spindle rearward for some positive caster and the tire moves back away from the valence - it's got me perplexed (I like using that word LOL)
I haven't done alignments since I gave up my stock car building days back in 04 so you did have me thinking that I forgot so I double checked and positive is angled back
The reason why I believe the tire is so close to the valance is because he has installed a R&C Cross member, so he could have been off by a 1" or so from his center wheel line. That is the only thing that I can think of as to why. Scooper, did you get a 56 1/2" kit? or ??
That picture where it is almost touching the valence...post #14. That was with the stock maverick suspension and 215/60r15 tires. BEFORE I cut out the suspension and put in the rack and pinion kit. Now, like post #26 above, it is nowhere near the valence. And stock specs are same for the Mustang II kit and the stock maverick setup 1971-1974. It was already in his computer. Caster -1/2 +/- 2 degrees max variation between wheels of 1 degree Camber +1/4 +/1 1 degree max variation between wheels of 1 degree Toe in 7/32" +/- 5/32"
Makes sense now. PS. I looked at my car several times on my way in and out today. My wheels are stock 14" Torino's and my 6.5" rim BS is so far back that I can fit full hand widths in there. Without a motor in it.. perspective can obviously be substantially skewed. However.. I have turned my tires through lock to lock with 4 people on the radiator support to get an idea if they will fly. Also had enough busted "too broke to fix" and parted out junk to be a fairly decent judge of clearances before the engine weight gets set back in the chassis. Seen hundreds of motors in and out with my dirty hands on many of them. My tires are 70 series 225mm BFG T/A's with 26.5" diameter. I believe that your rims may be a tad too wide and.. pun intended.. your offset is off. As for the factory numbers.. I don't give a squat whether such allowances make an alignment tech's job easier or not.. that's a large variation allowance in my book. You'll pay the same price whether they give you whatever "average cookie cutter settings" they decide on?.. or if you spec it yourself. What did your printout actually show for the finalized adjustment spec's?