Chevy Nova Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
First post, (technically second if you count intro). I have had my '63 SS for, wow almost 5 years now, and haven't done much to it yet. I want to start with suspension and get that tuned in before I start going crazy with HP. My goal is 500 HP at the wheels, with amazing corner carving ability (l like the twisty's). So more of a pro-touring car. I think I will full frame it, but haven't decided on rear suspension design.

I understand that everyone has their own opinion of what is best and why, but what about for this body type?

IRS is great, but heard is more for comfort; 4-link is great heard it has a tendency to bind; 3-link is great heard it offers more quick adjustments on the track; torque arm is ok but heard it's heavy and inferior to 3-link.

Thoughts? I would like to hear any scientific reasoning and logic behind why one is better over another's geometry. With that I leave it to the community. Try to keep it clean and free from bashing each other. And sorry for opening this can of warms again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
hello, wheres everybody at, this is a relevant topic...... lets jump in and share what you have done and post oictures too please !
 

·
Premium Member
1967 Chevy II nova Hardtop
Joined
·
3,897 Posts
First off, The front suspension is the more critical of the two but you asked
about rear suspensions so here goes.
Geometry is important but so is weight. I chose a truck arm of my own design
using composite arms of 12.5lbs. each. It handles well and rides as nice as any
solid axle I've ever been in.
This is mine.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,822 Posts
I'm working on a full frame setup for my 63. At this time I'm pretty sure I'm going to set it up with a torque arm rear suspension.. I don't want to hack up my car so the chassis will fit within the confines of what the Nova was originally built with underneath. Initially, was intending to use a full G body chassis but didn't like the way the rear frame was going to be in conflict with the Nova's rear subframe.. I prioritize keeping the Nova's structural integrity over cutting it away to fit the Gbody frame. I looked at trying to use the G bodies rear four link suspension setup but still found it to be more intrusive into the Nova back seat and trunk area then I liked so I looked into torque arm systems and feel that this is probably the easiest to set up and least intrusive into the passenger compartment. I picked up a 3rd gen IROC Z28 Camaro rear suspension to play around with fitment and feel it will be the best fit I've found so far as the suspension goes. The Camaro's axle itself is too wide for the Nova but I knew that would be the case.. I can have it narrowed to 58" and then I can use the G body axle shafts and that should be workable. Alternatively, I can switch to another axle either a stock 8.2, a narrowed 8.5, or a Ford 9" but then I'll need to figure out a different torque arm setup. I don't plan on anywhere near the 500 hp suggested by the op but a small block and a T5 trans from an F body with rear gears around 3.55-3.73 range are the basic formula I have I mind.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,822 Posts
For all the work put in I would at least narrow the rear to 56" to get the full range of wheel options. Nice hot rod!:yes:
Thanks..! I will be good with a 245-255/45/17 on an 8" wide rim and run a square setup if possible. The problem is cutting down the 7.5 Camaro axle only makes sense to me if I can use the G body axles I already have. Having custom shafts made is going to make the 7.5 a good bit more expensive.. And then it would make more sense to get a better axle. I do have a couple of axles on hand I could use its just a matter of packaging the suspension neatly under the car and wanting it to look like it belongs there. If the 58" width doesn't end up working I can reconsider what width to trim down to from there. 56" is not a bad width to be at though..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #7 (Edited)
I chose a truck arm of my own design
using composite arms of 12.5lbs. each.
Wait, you can do that? What in the world are those things made of? And are the arms also the springs? couldn't see springs in the video. I am interested in your design, I understand what a basic truck arm set up is, but I am interested in how you designed yours. If nothing nothing else to admire the craftsmanship.

@Nova Thug
So you are building a full frame that will fit under the unibody? How are you going to attach the frame? And thanks for mentioning about the 4 link being intrusive, didn't think about it that much. What company was that set up from?

Thanks for the thoughts so far!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,822 Posts
@Nova Thug
So you are building a full frame that will fit under the unibody? How are you going to attach the frame? And thanks for mentioning about the 4 link being intrusive, didn't think about it that much. What company was that set up from?

Thanks for the thoughts so far!
The yes I'm designing a stand alone frame will be bolted to the Nova body. The GM triangulated four link is what would be more intrusive then I wanted. There are aftermarket four links systems that are configured a little differently that will bolt in without the intrusion problem but after seeing the very low profile torque arm setup, it's a way less complicated setup, has very little bind and should not create any intrusion issues.. All can be contained under the car body which means I maintain my factory floor with very little modification.. All of the parts pictured are made by GM. The front was an 85 El Camino and the rear axle and suspension are from an 86 IROC Z28 Camaro.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
watts bar

@ Pragmatist

I noticed that on your watt bar set up you choose to have the anchor point on the chassis to be the center link, instead of the two end links. Why did you choose to do this? I see that you can change the angle of the center link by, for lack of a better term, the slot system for the center bolt. Wouldn't this put more stress on the mounting bolt? I'm no engineer and no expert in suspension, hence this thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,822 Posts
You can set up a Watts link either way but the preferred method is the way Pragmatist has it set up. The pivot point stays in a constant location rather then constantly in motion with the axle. Sometimes compromises for space make it necessary to set it up the other way. As you can see on his setup the mount is pretty big and poses challenges on a street car for limited available space with the rear end, coil overs, exhaust routing, and fuel tank all needing room in the area. A track only car would not suffer the dilemma as a fuel cell could be located elsewhere and the exhaust probably would be simpler..
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top