G-machine nova setup?

[Mike Hall]

I May be getting a 66 nova Hardtop this weekend and I wanted to get some ideas on what it would take to build a super low stance G machine. I guess a full frame would be needed or would it? I want a stance like John Parsons and Doug Sinjem's nova. I like how Doug used the C5 front suspension which I plan to do as well. I guess the C5 stuff can be mounted to where there is enough room for a nice offset for the wheels. The AM full frame loaded with brakes and all is 13K which is not bad but would the setup they offer on there frames be the best I could get? They suggested the Tri 4 bar setup for the rear. I'm lost on all this suspension stuff so any help would be awesome. By the way the car will be powered with a LS1/56 setup with twin turbos. Nothing wild but I hope for 650-700HP. I look forward to suggestions from you guys.

Thanks
Mike

[customcam]

thats going to be crazee! mild @ 700 hp lol
i have the same question.
There should be a FAQ on chassis/suspension/wheel set-up/lowering spindles etc for idiots like me that have no idea on Features, Benefits and price
i should of done mechanical engineering

[Mike Hall]

650-700 HP is not wild compared to one of my last projects. I had a 1800lb Factory five cobra with a 600 rwhp supercharged 331 stroker. Sad thing is I never got to drive it on the streets because I was to young to insure. I did take it to my local airport (small town) and drive it up and down the runway and it was a Beast. I ended up selling the cobra and got me a camaro.

Mike

[Mean 69]

We are about to start development on a 65 Nova/Chev II car that will result in a tree link rear, and new front subframe/suspension setup that is worth considering (even though it doesn't specifically exist yet). It will be a dervitive of our first and second gen rear three link kits which do not require a full frame replacement, and the front will be based off of C5 Corvette components, with changes to the geometry that will better suit the smaller, far narrower track/silhoutte of the early II's. I would expect that we will have a prototype rear setup in less than two months, and probably a tad longer for the front due to complexity issues. This platform is a complete natural due to the modest wheelbase, relatively wide-ish track, and light weight. An outstanding foundation for a serious burner, TONS of potential!

I wish we had something today, but if your timeframe coincides with what I suggested above, feel free to PM me for more specific info.

Whatever you decide to use, have a blast with the project, and enjoy the journey as much as the destination!

Mark

[Sales@Dutchboys]

Are you building the car yourself?

[Mike Hall]

Mark, I will contact you for more info for sure.

This nova is about to nice to just cut the trunk and floors out but I think I will do what I have to in order to get it right. I do plan to build the car myself as thats what i enjoy. If i cant work on it I dont ejoy it as much. LOL

Mike

[novanutcase]

Originally Posted by Mike Hall

I May be getting a 66 nova Hardtop this weekend and I wanted to get some ideas on what it would take to build a super low stance G machine. I guess a full frame would be needed or would it? I want a stance like John Parsons and Doug Sinjem's nova. I like how Doug used the C5 front suspension which I plan to do as well. I guess the C5 stuff can be mounted to where there is enough room for a nice offset for the wheels. The AM full frame loaded with brakes and all is 13K which is not bad but would the setup they offer on there frames be the best I could get? They suggested the Tri 4 bar setup for the rear. I'm lost on all this suspension stuff so any help would be awesome. By the way the car will be powered with a LS1/56 setup with twin turbos. Nothing wild but I hope for 650-700HP. I look forward to suggestions from you guys.

Thanks
Mike

Hey Mike, It's funny you should be doing this kind of project since it is pretty close to the same type of project I have going on right now. I'm sure you and I both had the same experience of seeing both John and Dougs cars and saying to ourselves "Damn, I just gotta have one of those!". In fact, since Doug lives out my way I plan on visiting him and looking at his car and picking his brain. As far as the front end, I've been told by many people that AM has figured out the geometry issues so, hopefully, it's a no brainer. The real tough decision is what type of rear suspension to use. This has been my dilemma for the last few months and I have been posting like mad to try and get as much info as I can on this. From what I have learned so far(By the way, I am in no way qualified as a mechanical engineer so the following statement comes from what I have been told and what seems logical!) depending on how you want to drive the car(My car will be driven 99% of the time on the street with an occasional run down the ol' 1/4 mile!) it seems that either a truck arm or IRS is the way to go. I say this because, from what I've been told, the 3 and 4 link setups require a lot of tweaking to get them right. Since most of my driving will be street and not dragging the issue of hooking up the tires is not on the top of my priority list. Most of the performance I will want and need will be when the car is already in motion and I need it to handle like it's on rails. Basically, I want to be able to smoke BMW's and Porsches in the corners just to see the look on there face! Even better will be the look on there face when I pull away from them on the straights to! Can't wait! I, personally, have decided to go with the IRS suspension although, as of late, I have been PMing with John Parsons on this very subject and he feels that the narrow track these cars have prohibits an IRS from being setup in the way he feels would be worth it. My feeling is that if AM can figure out the front end then they should very well be able to figure out the rear also, although if John is telling me this he obviously knowd s his stuff so I am seriously considering his info. I will continue PMing with John and hopefully,together, we can come up with a solution. I will say that in JP's case he will be road racing his car whereas my car will be on the street most of the time so his application and mine are different. Also, street won't allow me to go at the speeds that he will which is where the difference in rear suspensions will be noticeable. Lastly, My feeling is that if almost every car maker on the planet uses IRS as there choice of rear ends there must be a reason and since most of my driving will not be going 120 through the curves then I think IRS is a good compromise, besides if you look at the latest issue of Popular Hot Rodding, there isn't one negative about IRS other than cost and the fact that it is difficult to modify it in to the rear. Since you and I are doing full frame builds the packaging issues are not an issue. My feeling is if your doing a full frame the cost of an IRS is the last thing on your mind, relatively speaking. In any case, I will keep you posted on what I learn in the ensueing weeks and months. If you hear of some good info please feel free to share it with me also.

[Mean 69]

Are you building the car yourself?

Yep. Looks to be an LS7 motor'd, street driven, in your face type of performance platform wrapped in a stock looking skin. Nice car. The owner has a collection of 911's, a really nie 67 GTX, bitcin' 57 Pro Street car, etc. And you won't have to cut the entire car up, more in line with what yu'd do for a mini-tub kit, or through floor SFC install.

I want to clear up a statement made in a previous response. Typically, an IRS is WAY more difficult to tune than a stick axle because of the additional kinematic issues that arise (bump steer, yes this happens at the back end too, camber gain, roll center migrations, etc). It is specifically a false statement to say that a three link is harder to tune that an IRS, especially if each of the systems is designed and engineered by folks that understand what they are doing. If a lay-person is trying to get each to work with a limited amount of knowledge, well, there's less to screw up on a stick axle setup relative to IRS.

At least in the case of our (Lateral Dynamics) three link systems, the hard work of sorting out the tuning and basic setup is done for you. Is it tunable beyond the "nominal" setting? Heck yes! Will you get lost in Neverland if you try something new? No, we won't let you, nor will our design, we limited it to parameters within a specific envelope.

As to whipping the poop out of the Porsche cars, Corvettes, and all of the other cars on a race track, well, bring your A-game and a seriously lightened car, with race tires. Lots of HP is a good thing, but if you have ever shared the track at speed with some of the modified late model cars on race tires lately, youll know that there is WAY more to the game than lots of throttle. A better objective is to have a car that you can drive really fast, and that won't do anything unexpected to freak the driver out at speed. I recently got beat up by three cars at Willow Springs with my 550 HP 69 Camaro, badly. One was a 911 Vision Motorsports race car, it flew by me so fast it wasn't funny, another was a new Ford GT, the third was a Nissan 350 GT, modified, with Hoosier race slicks, and a far better driver. It's a good thing to respect your "enemies."

M

[novanutcase]

Matt,

I'm not knocking any of the various types of rear ends that are out there! I just think that if your going to road race on a track or launch off the 1/4 then, yes, 3 or 4 link is a great way to go but if I am on the street I don't want to have to stop to add a 3rd member on! I feel that if you are going to build an everyday driver IRS(Properly set up!) or Truck Arm are probably the most flexible in terms of varying road conditions. Again, I feel that 3 or 4 link is great for a controlled enviroment and the fact that they are infinitely tuneable is the hallmark of those systems but for everyday I think IRS or Truck Arm covers the most area. Of course, I am not as knowledgeable on this subject as you are and I want to make sure whoever is reading this post understands this. I am a regular joe trying to put in the most kick ass but lowest maintanence system I can. I would love to hear your thoughts.

[Mean 69]

Cool! I love hearing everyone's opinions on things and do my very best to respect all of them. I will say, however, I am not sure I understand exactly how you came to the conclusion that you did, and I'd also really like to hear why you feel that the two systems you mentioned are better in terms of an every day driver, what specifically brought you to that conclusion? I'm not trying to start a fight whatsoever, rather I am trying to learn why these types of perceptions exist. I'll do my best in turn to explain our side of the story and be as honest as I can about the specifics of our deal. In my opinion, our setup is just as at home on the street as it is on the track, the two don't need to be mutually exclusive by any means. In fact, I have been running the three link on the street for years, and folks that have ridden in it are surprised at how civil it is after hearing the phrase "road race inspired."

I will state that I have not ridden in a car with a truck arm, but I have had several IRS cars. As far as tuning our system, the only base tuning that needs to be done is a simple wheel alignment (which should be done with EVERY suspension upgrade, including leafs), and setting the pinion angle. The rest of the stuff is provided for you (which position to put the control arms, and where the bellcrank should be positioned), and it is likely that you'd never need or even want to touch anything thereafter. There's really very little to it.

Anyway, if you can help me out with your impressions, I'll do my best to reciprocate in explining the specifics as best I can.

Thanks!
Mark