G-machine nova setup? [Archive]

Mike Hall

03-16-2006, 01:56 PM

customcam

03-16-2006, 02:34 PM

thats going to be crazee! mild @ 700 hp :rolleyes: lol :thumbsup:
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 :D

Mike Hall

03-16-2006, 02:56 PM

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

03-16-2006, 04:30 PM

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

03-16-2006, 04:52 PM

Are you building the car yourself?

Mike Hall

03-16-2006, 05:03 PM

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

03-16-2006, 05:20 PM

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! :rofl: 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. :rockin:

Mean 69

03-16-2006, 06:11 PM

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

03-17-2006, 09:32 AM

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. :cheers:

Mean 69

03-17-2006, 04:43 PM

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

Mike Hall

03-17-2006, 07:10 PM

Mark, what company do you work with? Did you say you already have some Camaro stuff ready now? I just purchaced a 68 camaro to go along with my Nova. LOL

Mike

novanutcase

03-17-2006, 07:38 PM

Yeah... I hear you. Not trying to start a fight, just trying to give my two cents. It's really hard to determine what is what with all the claims that are out there. The only thing an average person like me has to go by is what the companies claim and what I can distill it down to as far as getting to the truth and, of course, the input I get here. I've driven 3 and 4 link cars that my friends have had and they did corner pretty nicely but seem pretty stiff over all as far as ride. Compared to the sports cars I have driven that employ IRS in their rear end, they seem to have a smoother range throughout unlike the 3 and 4's I drove. They were kind of hooky at certain points in the turns under certain road conditions and it felt a little weird. Maybe theirw was not set up right? I don't know. It just seems weird, as I've said before, that practically every car manufacturer nowadays uses IRS as their rear end. Wouldn't it be cheaper for them to go with a solid axle and 3 or 4 link? This is one of the many things that I don't understand. Also, every one I have talked to can't really give me a reason why IRS is bad other than cost and difficulty of installation. Anyone want to clear this up?

Mean 69

03-17-2006, 08:35 PM

Aaahhh, now we are getting somewhere. (Oh, and by the way, Mike, I am the founder/President of Lateral Dynamics LLC, you'll be hearing lots more from us very soon, and yes we have a nice solution for the rear of your first gen F body at this time).

There are likely a couple of things going on with the link setups that you have ridden in. If the cars skamper about over bumps, it is likely that the spring rates and shock damping are the primary culprit, going "straight" over bumps is the easiest thing for a suspension setup to handle. Unfortunately, the majority of link setups on the road today, on typical muscle cars, are of the four link drag race type design, which is horrible for a street driven car. In the case of a four link, drag race or otherwise, there is an inescapable bind in the system in roll, there really isn't anything that you can do about it short of introducing compliance in the setup (such as rubber bushings, the best thing you can do for such a system). Most of the setups use rod ends in all pivot locations, which is murder on a four link setup. On a three link, it's completely fine, because the system is not overconstrained like a four link. The only decent (and admittedly poor) analogy I can come up with is a four legged stool. If you are on a flat surface, and all four legs are exactly the same length, you're good. If not, the stool will rock, because it is over-constrained, too many points trying to meet the ground at once. A three legged stool will never do this, it'll be stable and won't rock. Picture this as a suspension setup, going through roll, over bumps, etc, and you might be able to picture why a three link is "better" than a four link. Anyway, the drag race setups are not good at all for comfort, or overall handling, they bind, period. This is likely what you experienced, and would be cause for being skeptical for certain, I certainly would be.

And once again, I agree that the IRS, if done correctly, and made strong enough, is THE way to go, but it isn't all that simple. In the case of the domestic producers, well, they can't get the IRS right, except in the case of the Corvette, and the Viper. The new GTO, and the previous version Cobra Mustang both have serious issues that prevent them from being good candidates for retro-fitting. Just as bad, the new Mustang's three link setup is horrible, not the correct way to go about things either. Keep in mind that the domestic producers are far more interested in profit, manufacturing efficiency, etc, than they are in planting tires with 600 RWHP in all conditions. They could easily solve the issues, they have the talent, but not the economic desire. If you are dead set on an IRS system, I'd call the guys at Maximum Motorsports, who deal with the later Mustangs, and get the goods from them if possible, might be able to adapt to your muscle car? Not sure, but Chuck and his team are top notch, they race (and win), and are terrific overall. We're looking into IRS as well, but it will be at least a year before I expect we are ready to even prototype a setup, and at this point, I don't expect it to outperform our current setup. IRS is good, but only if all things are considered in the design, and this is not the general case.

And by the way, the reason that the new Mustang has a three link and Panhard bar, is because it is cheaper than the IRS they tried to put into the car. And to top it off, the three link they used, is basically, crap (not only my opinion, but the opinion of the engineers who were forced to package it in the an extremely short amount of time).

Mark

race-rodz

03-17-2006, 10:27 PM

i will throw in my opinion on truck arm set-ups as i have used them several times. very easy to set up, great for a street vehicle, ride "nice" with proper spring rates. handling is decent, again "good" for a street car, usually better than the factory IF set up right and straight line "hook" is respectable.

the downside, packaging..........really long arms that need to go someplace usually occupied by other components. the fact the the arms are rigid mounted to the housing means the arms/bushings need to flex(bind) during opperation.

overall its a pretty decent arrangment for a street car, or better yet a 63-72 gm truck like it came in, there are a lot better suspension choices out there, it all really depends on your driving needs and style.

like i said, i have ran several of them with great results, but these were mostly STREET cars, usually with air ride....and the set-up fit the bill perfectly. i have one going together now, in a personal project 40 ford pick-up, the reasoning was to make it "nascar style" using weight jacks and adjustable height panhard mount. AND because i wanted to see just how well i could make a truck arm set up "work". i will be posting pics of the truck when it gets a lil closer to completion, but its a WAY backburner project, as time allows while waiting for parts for the "other" shop truck.

novanutcase

03-18-2006, 11:20 PM

Thanks for the info Mark! I already e-mailed them and am waiting for a response. By any chance, do you know if the hub to hub rear on a nova is the same as the mustang rear? I've alredy contacted Wayne Due about bending me a frame for my project but, of course, he needs to know what kind of rear end I am going to put in the car. I will try and contact him also and get his thoughts on this. What have you heard as far as mustang rear ends and the problems they have? I was thinking about a Cobra R rear end since Doug Sinjem was using one but if it has serious problems then it's probably not a good idea to use it unless I can correct it with some aftermarket products and a good tuner! Anyone know the total length of a '66 Nova? I need to make sure it fits in my garage. Otherwise I will have to make my garage bigger!

Mike Hall

03-20-2006, 08:17 PM

Well, I ended up not getting that rust free car and went with a car that need floors and trunk work. Looks like I may just go with a full frame setup. I would love to design my own frame and suspension but I don't even know where to start. I still think I would like to use the C5 front suspension with I guess a well designed 3 link rear setup. Anyone know of a good book on designing chassis and suspension components?

A few things I want to do with this car is move the engine back enough to have room for twin turbos and all that good stuff. The nose on this car is so small its going to be hard to get two turbos mounted along with intercoolers. How much could I move the engine back without causing a major lose of interior room?

Mike

Mike Hall

03-20-2006, 09:25 PM

If I go with the full frame chassis would there be any issues with going to a Aluminum floor and firewall? I built a factoryfive cobra replica back in 99 and it used a steel tube frame with aluminum interior and floors. I don't see why a well designed tube chassis in a nova could not have aluminum floors. I bet you would lose a good bit of weight with aluminum. I got this idea after looking at some nova race cars.

Mike

Matt@Lateral Dynamics

03-20-2006, 09:26 PM

10" of engine set back and 10" of driver set back and you're good. :)

Mike Hall

03-20-2006, 09:35 PM

Cool, 10" should give me the room for the turbos. I think I will design and build a custom core support which will make more room for the intercooler.

Matt, PM me with some info on that rear setup you guys already have. I would love to see about setting one up in this car.

Thanks
Mike

novanutcase

03-20-2006, 10:29 PM

Matt,

are you sure you can pull it back that much? Mike are you planning on having a back seat? As far as a frame, at least for me, I'm going to go with the experts on this one and have Wayne Due bend me a frame. He already knows how to setup the front end geometry for C-5 setup. My dilemma has been the rear but you already know my opinion! :)

Mean 69

03-21-2006, 03:26 AM

If you plan on doing a full frame with sheet metal interior, etc, make certain that you do a well thought (as in seek professional advise) full cage for the car. A full frame by itself is not nearly as strong as a uni-body car with all of the funky little stampings, nooks, crannies, etc that the factory put in (ASSuming you run SFC's on the uni-body car, not trying to start a war here, merely stating the general case). Or rather, more specifically, the full frame car won't be as torsionally rigid in many cases. The point is, flat pieces of sheet metal are nowhere near as strong/stiff/rigid as the stamped pieces. If it were me, and the last ounce wasn't a big issue, I'd retain the stock floor pan. For a full on race car, well, that's completely different.

10" will help everything out just fine, thank you very much. You'll have room for the rack with the C5 front stuff without having to sacrifice steering, or requiring to lift the motor up (though there is another way to skin that cat, coming soon to a Lateral Dynamics front suspension system near you, just look for the car screaming by you on the road course, that'll be one of ours). Unfortunately, you don't just get to "bolt in" the C5 stuff and declare victory, but it is damn fine start (the spindle in particular) for designing a setup for our cars, they did a great job on getting the scrub radius WAY down which is important for the big tires we all want to run. If you are going to run turbos, the motor setback will really help weight distribution too, assuming you are going to hang the 'screws off of the front of the motor.

M

novanutcase

03-21-2006, 09:47 PM

Mean!

Are you trying to saya that a full frame chassis will flex more than the OG uni with subs? Are you also trying to say that if you go full frame then for rigidity that is comparable to a uni you need to install a frame? Just wondering because i've been told different.

:bow:

Matt@Lateral Dynamics

03-21-2006, 11:07 PM

A full frame without an extensive cage has the potential to be much less rigid than the stock uni-body, is what Mark is getting at. And if it is as rigid, it's probably heavier.

race-rodz

03-21-2006, 11:16 PM

i agree, a normal ladder frame chassis will twist a lot more than a sheetmetal uni-body, now if a true cage is engineered into the same ladder chassis, then if designed correctly, will be more rigid than the uni-body even with sfc's.

but, i would be willing to bet that the ladder chassis and cage with alum "tin" will weigh in about the same as the uni-body with sfc's and a minimal cage, now for a street car, i would lean hard towards replacing the floor pans and adding sfc's, unless cubic dollars arent an issue.

comparing it to the FFR chassis, it is designed basically as a place to install drivetrain/suspension, and hang a body.... without a roof to "truss" it all together. so in reality, this is like comparing apples, oranges and grapes.

i have a "ladder"frame/cage in my 34 ford RACE truck project, a 64 1/2 unibody/sfc STREET CAR mustang, and also a super EXOTIC full round tube chassis cobra with viper suspension, each of them was designed/modified for a specific purpose with what i thought the vehicle was realistically gonna be subjected to....each design has its pro's and con's, and it really just comes down to the best overall design that fits your specific needs and budget.

race-rodz

03-21-2006, 11:17 PM

matt jumped in there while i was still reading....but you get the idea.

Mike Hall

03-22-2006, 12:20 AM

So I should replace the floors? What about moving the engine back far enough to make room for twin turbos? What front subframe would I use? The rear frame rails on this car are set wide so They would have to be totaly removed to make room for 335's in the back. I am the type of person that will take advise and go with it so what should I do? The floors are sorta bad off as well as some of the firewall. The floors are easy to fix but there are no firewall parts out for this car. The rust is on the flat areas behind the fender so I guess I can just patch it.

I have yet to start work on the nova as I have to get my wifes 66 bronco finished up first. This will give me time to figure on what I should do with the nova. Lets here what You would do.

Mike

Mean 69

03-22-2006, 03:30 PM

It's hard to say a recipe for any particular car, they are all so individual by nature. I intend to build one in the future, but this will be the shop race car, and it'll have a full glass body. If I had a steel car, I'd probably replace the factory floor pans, and repair the rest of the rust as appropriate, you can smooth the firewall easily and the other areas too. I wouldn't personally go too wide on the rear tires, because the front tires will only be so big from a packaging aspect, and too big in the rear will hurt the ultimate cornering balance of the car. I think a 245/275 front to rear, maybe as high as a 295 rear is about right from a grip to aesthetics standpoint. If you move the motor back, that will better help the balance and the seemingly small-ish front tires will work better than one might think (r compound tires, please...).

There really isn't a good front setup that I have seen, at least from my own perspective, I am sure others will have their own opinions (it's what makes the world go around, and there's nothing wrong with that). It's a tough place to be in currently, but help is on the way in the future. For the rear, I am biased to the three link. Especially with a very high output motor, you need to be able to plant the tires firmly, and the setup needs to be strong, there really isn't a big downside to running one all things considered.

If you don't have an engine already, consider a turbo V6. Yes, really, you can save even more front end weight. If you are core, dry sump it, and drop the motor down as far as possible. Setting it back will become less important, but still a great idea anyway. I guess what I am getting at is if you want to build a real burner, a pre-68 Nova is the perfect candidate, and keeping it as light as possible is going to help EVERYTHING else out. It is the perfect candidate car for a super high performance buildup. I just wish the darned things weren't so expensive now!

Mark

novanutcase

03-24-2006, 07:08 PM

Well...maybe not lies but...this is a new revaltion to me. So the general consensus is that for a pro-tour street machine I should keep the unibody, put a Due front clip w/C-5 components with sub frame connectors? Since I was going to do a full frame I was going to put an IRS in but if I'm going to keep the uni-body then an IRS will be to much of a PITA to do! Now, the car is going to sit REALLY low without help from air bags(See Doug Sinjems Car on this site!) so can this be accomplished with the uni-body?

Sales@Dutchboys

03-24-2006, 08:04 PM

I think that it can be done without having to have a full frame under the car.....

race-rodz

03-24-2006, 08:04 PM

i musta missed the part about this being a "box" nova.......... i thought we were talkin about 2nd gen.

with that being said, and budget is no issue..... i say look to parsons IImuch car for inspiration. i have had a couple early novas, and wasnt thrilled with the way the cars drove..... they feel like everything is flexing, steering sucks, and checking/changing plugs is a F.P.I.T.A.

Sales@Dutchboys

03-24-2006, 08:05 PM

novanutcase

03-24-2006, 09:18 PM

Just kidding! So....before I go on let me put up what I have in mind and anyone that can tell me I should do something different...well I totally respect and will consider your opinion.

'66 or '67 Nova body
Full frame chassis w/C-5 front end and IRS rear from Wayne Due
Crate LS2
T-56
Supercharger(Trying to get 600 RWHP to the floor!)
Wilwood superlite 6 piston on the front and 4 piston on the back.

As I have said in previous posts, I'm just trying to gather as much info as I can so that I can make the best car I can THE FIRST TIME. Don't really look forward to have to change out anything, especially since I was planning on doing a full frame. Do you still think the uni is better than the full frame in terms of flex and weight? I wasn't planning on putting a cage in the car since I want it to look stock but if it will add considerably to the stiffness of the entire car then I will need to rethink that. Also, do you think that the full frame will be heavier than the uni? If so, does the trade off in weight versus rigidity make it worth doing a full frame? Wayne will be pulling the engine back as far as we can and still make it look stock(Don't want to be driving around with the engine in my lap!) and I will be putiing a fuel cell under the package tray so that we can try and center as much of the gross weight of the car towards the center. I'm even thinking of fabbing up some way to keep the battery under the back seat with an access panel or something and putting chromed fiberglass bumpers so that each end is as light as possible and we can have as even a weight distribution as possible. Any comments or tips would be greatly appreciated as I am about to launch this project and I want to make the right decisions. :beathorse

Mike Hall

03-24-2006, 09:30 PM

If I can build a Great handling Nova that will allow the wheels, stance and motor setup I want with the unibody Then I will do so. I don't think I will be able to achieve all the things I want out of this car with the unibody but I will listen to see what these guys have to say. This car must handle well and have a low stance like Doug's car first off. After that I would like to be able to fit twin turbos under the hood with room for a nice size front wheel. Turbos are not a must but they are something I have wanted for a while.

Mike

Mike Hall

03-24-2006, 09:40 PM

Novanutcase, did you find a car yet?

Mike

novanutcase

03-25-2006, 12:15 AM

Just trying to work out the details. My main concern is that Wayne won't have the time or the inclination to do my ride. I really think that either him or Art Morrison could really do a great job as far as the full frame chassis. Again, my take on the whole thing has been that a full frame setup will give more rigidity to the car but now I am hearing otherwise. Also, I'm hearing that the stock uni body frame will probably be lighter although I have a feeling that for the stance that you and I are looking for, if we go unibody, we would need to cut into the floors and weld sub frame connectors in that way so that there is nothing hanging below the chassis. Of course, to do this we will also have to figure out how to run the exhaust above the floor pan. This is why I have been leaning toward a full chassis. This way I can build it the way I want which is super low, super clean, and super fast! I figure that with Wayne Due building me the chassis I can accomplish the clean bottom which I think will help aerodynamically plus we won't have to worry about leaf springs hitting the ground, etc. Also, if you haven't noticed before, I feel that a properly tuned IRS is THE way to go. I think that it will give us great performance just cruising from point A to point B or carving through the turns in the canyons(Are there Canyons in GA?) A full frame chassis will enable us to do this cleanly and efficiently since we won't be limited by the constraints of the Uni-Body in terms of the rear end. I have asked Wayne that for this project I want to keep as much of the mass centered so I plan on moving the engine back as far as I can and moving the gas tank under the package tray. This should drastically improve the balance of the car and with the proper horses under the rear wheels should prove to be one hell of a ride! I'm even thinking to place the battery somewhere under the rear seat and have an access panel built into it. I also thinking of replacing the stock bumpers with chromed fiberglass ones but the only problem I have with that is if someone even barely touches it, there goes the chrome! In any case, it seems as though you and I have similar ideas as to what kind of car we want to build. IM me if you have any questions and I will give you my honest opinion as to what I have learned up to that point.

Matt@Lateral Dynamics

03-25-2006, 10:16 PM

super low, super clean, and super fast!

That being the case, you need a tube chassis and a full on cage to do it right, in my opinion. Cut out the entire stock floor and firewall, stock wheel wells, ditch the inner fenders, and start over. Now you're building a race car.

If you or your friends are good with fabrication, then doing a car this way is actually easier then working around the stock ****.

I will reiterate, though, that a full frame car without a cage will not be as rigid as a decently prepared unibody car. And if you're talking about being "super fast", you'd be down-right stupid to not run a cage. A good cage.

JohnnyR

03-26-2006, 11:56 AM

Super fast, super clean and super low. Novanutcase, I think you are going to have to compromise in some areas. Like Matt alluded to, I think you are on the verge of building an all out race car. You should be able to do a six-point cage without it being too intrusive. Especially if you go with a post car. As far as tucking exhaust ABOVE the floor boards, that sounds a bit radical for your "mostly street driven" car. I think a visit to Doug's place is in order.

Mike Hall

03-26-2006, 02:20 PM

You know, I was planning on a cage the whole time. I think with 650-700rwhp a cage would be a good idea anyhow.

I think I may just build up my 68 camaro first then work on the nova after there are some proven cars out on the road. Im also having a problem finding good nova sheet metal so This project may come after I get my camaro done.

Mike

novanutcase

03-26-2006, 04:59 PM

Fine....you rat bastards I'll put a full cage..well since I don't have to do it to NASCAR standards I guess I can do it so that it is as stealth as possible! Anyways, I think I almost got the car situation figured out.

Mike Hall

03-26-2006, 06:41 PM

LOL, cages are cool. When you see a cage in a car you know its no joke. Well i guess thats true to a point but you know what im saying.

Mike

novanutcase

03-26-2006, 09:24 PM

I guess from a safety standpoint a cage is kind of a must. I just hate having a daily driver that you have to hop over the bar that goes across the door opening to get in. This will be especially NOT COOL when your taking out some hottie in high heels! Now that I'm single! Right JohnnyR! :thumbsup: I heard they have cages that get around this problem by actually coming apart when you open the door and then click in when you close it. Anyone ever heard of this?

race-rodz

03-26-2006, 10:16 PM

swing out door bars and low mount door bars kinda defeat the purpose of the cage, while they ARE better than nothing(and technically legal in some racing sanctions), in the event of a "cage test" guess where the weakest link will be.

it sounds like you have pretty much decided to build a full on race car with plates.... and that is COOL. but before you decide on how to make it "user friendly" you should probably get a hold of some tech regs for whatever kind of racing you wanna do, and make sure that the whole thing is "legal". otherwise, it will be a giant waste of time and money when you show up to your favorite event and are turned away because the car wont pass tech.

JohnnyR

03-27-2006, 07:43 AM

The funny part is that he doesn't plan on doing any real racing. He just wants to stiffen up the chassis. Novanutscrape, I recomend you take a look at The Mule's cage set up. Totally stealth. Nothing obstructing the passenger entry and exit.

-j

novanutcase

03-28-2006, 09:31 AM

Lemme guess JohnnyR......You like camaros right? LOL to those reading this post other than JohnnyR, he and I are partners in certain ventures so he showed me the sweet '69 that he owned in his "idiot" days. He's been jonesin' ever since and since he has kinda had bozo partners in the past, he kinda got taken advantage of so I'm trying to hook him up and get some benjamins in his pocket and a '69 camaro in his garage! Sorry JohnnyR, hope that wasn't TMI!!! :_paranoid . Oh.....before I forget......I BOUGHT A '66 NOVA COUPE!!!!! F#*K YEAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!! It should be arriving this afternoon! I can't wait. Now I gotta see when Wayne Due will have some time to build me the frame. I'll be posting pictures as soon as I can. Wish me Luck!!! :fluffy: :fluffy: :fluffy:

JohnnyR

03-30-2006, 06:28 PM

So Nutcase, when are you gong to post pictures of your new ride you just picked up? Also, when you finalize your plans with you-know-who, post them. We want to know who's shop is going to build this beast.

-j

Mike Hall

03-30-2006, 07:14 PM

Did you get your nova from south carolina?

Mike

novanutcase

03-30-2006, 08:18 PM

JohnnyR knows how crazy busy we've been so I've only been able to see my 66 at night in my garage. Maybe I'll just shoot photos of it there. Mike Hall- I ended up buying a car right here in sunny so cal.

Mike Hall

03-30-2006, 08:22 PM

Well lets see it. LOL

Here are some pictures of the nova i picked up a few weeks back.

Mike

novanutcase

03-30-2006, 11:42 PM

You asked for it so here it is......

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g170/novanutcase/PICT0011.jpg

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g170/novanutcase/PICT0010.jpg

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g170/novanutcase/PICT0009.jpg

Where it may go? Perhaps...........

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g170/novanutcase/PICT0019.jpg

:lol:

Sales@Dutchboys

03-31-2006, 04:31 AM

Looks like a project....

novanutcase

04-11-2006, 12:34 AM

Hows your project coming along? Here's a little update for you and everyone else on my project. Wish me luck!

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g170/novanutcase/IMG5.jpg
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g170/novanutcase/IMG4.jpg
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g170/novanutcase/IMG1.jpg

Mike Hall

04-11-2006, 02:32 PM

Are you doing away with the rear seat? I thought about getting a complete C5 chassis and doing away with the rear seat but i have not made up my mind yet.

Mike

novanutcase

04-12-2006, 08:18 PM

Not sure yet.....I may just use the engine and sell the transaxle and rear end. I may just get a t-56 and I'm still trying to decide about which IRS to go with.

Mike Hall

04-13-2006, 08:10 AM

Oh Ok. I have gone out and purchaced another 66 nova. LOL I need to stop buying cars and start buying parts I guess. LOL I think im goign to sell my 69 camaro and the other 66 nova. Not sure yet though. I may hang on to all of them being there not getting any cheaper.

Mike

Turbo Deuce

04-13-2006, 11:11 AM

I am just a novice here, but it will be interesting to see how you package a twin set-up in a 66-67 nova. I have a single T76 turbo in a 67 chevy ll and ended up with an air to water because of lack of room for an intercooler. I am sure it can be done as long as you are creative with the innerfenders and build a core support that is narrower that stock. Something with a longer nose would be a lot less headache.

Another issue I had even with the single turbo was the piping. I will say that my frontend is outdated because I used the Fatman fab pieces that leave the shock towers, but there is still not much room with a front cross member and rack for the pipes. I used the driver fenderwell for the down pipe and have some heat issues on the fender to solve and I have not solved the exhaust plumbing to the rear since the down pipe is on the wrong side of the subframe.

I did keep my air conditioning so that takes some of the room also... but what is a street car without air!!

Good luck with your projects I will be watching the progress. :thumbsup: