Chevy Nova Forum banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
880 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Some of you guys are coming up with some decent improvements but why are you still applying the suspension to the upper? For the sake of a bolt on kit?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
880 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I can dig saving some cake, why not run a coilover down through the upper? Why keep all that Ford Falcon suspension, above the upper control arm, stuff going?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
6,502 Posts
Once the CPP (or Church Boys CPP)lower A arm is installed to replace GM's terrible design, the suspension improvements are dramatically improved. The upper A arm doesn't provide much improvement but looks good and completes the look. Different spring rates, coilovers or air ride enhance the ride even more. Rack and pinion by Church Boys or one of the numerous complete front clips improves from the stock steering box and gives you choices of engines and oil pans.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
4,171 Posts
I can understand why you ask these questions. With my limited time of looking into the situation I've came up with this. The location of the mounting points on the upper arm do not provide much room for a coilover to pass thru while the suspension is unloaded. The upper arm is positioned so that the balljoint center is almost lower than the inner pivots. When the suspension is unloaded the travel that these cars have cause the upper arm to really point down at the road. To put a coil over thru the upper arm the travel would have to be greatly reduced so as not to bind on the coil over itself.

I would still like to investigate this scenario further once I get caught up with our other products. I've designed my lower arms to accomodate this type of addition to our product line down the road. My arms allow for plenty of room for a shock mount.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
880 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
But the stock suspension has a tremendous amount of travel built into it. With that comes a terible bump steer.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
880 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Instead of just replacing the intire front clip with a 3000 dollar or more investment, why not sort the stock short comings and upgrade?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,392 Posts
I did exactly that. I got the CPP / Church Boy lowers, Church Boy rack / cross member and CPP coil over kit. Today, I would get the all new Church Boy arms along with their rack and add the coil overs to it. I’m sure those Church Boys will soon have uppers to finish off the look and some cool coil overs???:cool:

So far everything is coming together nicely. I think you have already seen my thread. I try to update as I go but it is a slow moving project.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
880 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Only means I may be King of slow moving projects. Upon 10 jack stands it waits. My Chevy II has been on jack stands longer than most members on this site have been registered, yet at the same time my Chevy II has learned much from the members of this site. My idea for the site store would to be offer up a decal or sticker that goes something like this:

This car built with Stevesnovasite
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
880 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
The stock upper control arms are mounted to a shaft which is bolted to the frame. If it bolts on, it can be moved around. To go a step further, the bulky shaft assembly can be eliminated by use of rod ends on the control arm. Bolt in adapter plate goes where the shaft was.
Now is when you tell me it's already done.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,816 Posts
Here's my take.

My car was already together, so I didn't want to completely disassemble the front end, as are most of the guys doing this mod.

There is no down side to this modification, and it actually improves handling characteristics exponetially.

Church came up with a great mod, that enhanced a good mod, that you can do in stages, as your budget allows, without disassembly of your entire front end.

Ample ride height adjustment with coil overs. Not as rough as a clip, so you can still get the "soft" ride of stock suspension.

I like the look of retaining stock components and engine bay, as most do, and has been mentioned before.

I don't have 3K in my front end suspension. A clip, with inner wheel wells, brackets and headers, is over 4K, it is closer to the ground than this conversion, and rides rougher due to higher spring rate.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. The upper control arm/spring setup, is just not enough to justify me spending that kind of money. If I was building a car that I wanted to put an LSx, or big block in, then maybe. This fits a lot of guys budgets, and is the hottest thing going right now for the average guy.

I don't think Church is done yet, who knows what he's got up his sleeve.....:D

T,
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
4,171 Posts
The stock upper control arms are mounted to a shaft which is bolted to the frame. If it bolts on, it can be moved around. To go a step further, the bulky shaft assembly can be eliminated by use of rod ends on the control arm. Bolt in adapter plate goes where the shaft was.
Now is when you tell me it's already done.
I can honestly say that this has happend, someone mentions something and a day later I show some photos.............not this time there is way more thaught in this one. It has been rolling around in my head from time to time. I have to take things one step at a time as I am not a big corporation with a full time staff.

Here's my take.

...............I don't think Church is done yet, who knows what he's got up his sleeve.....:D

T,
You are right Tom I'm not done yet and SNS will be the first group to find out :yes:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
316 Posts
I really think that Church will come up with the right set up because he is not a big operation . From what I have seen they look a each part as a oppurtunity to improve and each time they do improve . I can not wait till somebody (Church) changes the upper control arm and centers the wheel in the wheelhouse . :rolleyes:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
880 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
TomM, I share your take for the most part. I like to see stock appearing vehicles that have clever perfomance mods. The concept of upgrading in phases is known to be favorable for both down time and budget. Mr. Church is doing a fine job bringing this long waited luxury to us.
At a car show I will see a Chevy II with a clip. Looks to me like someone with deep pockets bought someone else's stuff and bolted it on their car. Then I see a Chevy II that is all stock (at first glance). This car I will look at for a while.

I do not share your comment "ample ride height adjustment with coil overs". Nowhere do I see adjustable shock mounts in these kits. You don't think the adjustable spring platforms on the shock are for ride height adjustment do you? And "rides rougher due to higher spring rate" just gross me out.

Other than that, I think you hit the anvil with the hammer:)
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top