PDA

View Full Version : g body front suspension ?'s



gen3bu
12-29-2004, 07:48 PM
has any one tried to use the 68-74 nove front lower controls arms for the improved handling?

Zefhix
12-29-2004, 07:59 PM
One person who can really help you on the g-bodies is Marcus @ SC&C
(www.scandc.com) He posts here as Marcus and his suspension knowledge is invaluable especially when it comes to the g-bodies. :)

TPI Monte SS
12-30-2004, 04:27 PM
has any one tried to use the 68-74 nove front lower controls arms for the improved handling?
Will they even fit? How would it improve handling? :confused:

I have 3rd-gen F-body lower A-arms on my '88 Monte SS. Once the steering stops are ground down, they work perfectly. 2wd S10 lower arms will also fit, but all have the same basic geometry as the stock G-body arms. There's no real advantage with any of them.

gen3bu
12-31-2004, 03:31 PM
Will they even fit? How would it improve handling? :confused:

I have 3rd-gen F-body lower A-arms on my '88 Monte SS. Once the steering stops are ground down, they work perfectly. 2wd S10 lower arms will also fit, but all have the same basic geometry as the stock G-body arms. There's no real advantage with any of them.


very true. all g-body, 2wd s-trucks, and third gens are the same.
i saw on o web site that was selling them as a performance suspension part to improve turning camber and loading camber in turns and it also pushes the lower ball joint further away for a better ride - i think, i am trying to find it again and i will post the link.

TPI Monte SS
12-31-2004, 07:09 PM
i saw on o web site that was selling them as a performance suspension part to improve turning camber and loading camber in turns and it also pushes the lower ball joint further away for a better ride - i think, i am trying to find it again and i will post the link.
Excellent, please post if you find it!

Marcus SC&C
01-01-2005, 09:01 AM
I`d be interested to see this too. I haven`t measured them to see if they`d fit (I never saw a reason to) but the LBJ housing sizes are different and the stud dias., heights and tapers are different. The Nova LBJs studs are shorter and thicker and won`t fit all the way through a G spindle so some kind of special LBJ would be needed. If they do fit the frame,their only "advantage" (that occurs off the top of my head) could be that they may be longer allowing the use of wheels with more backspacing and thus a better scrub radius. The tradeoff would be needing a longer UCA to keep the camber in range and a reduction in the spring and shock motion ratios which is generally a bad thing. Excellent geometry (apart from the scrub radius,which is a common issue with almost all older cars) and handling can easily be had on the G chassis without swapping LCAs. I like to keep an open mind though,a link to the Nova arms swap would be great. :) Marcus SC&C

gmachinz
01-01-2005, 12:26 PM
I question why even mess with anything other than the stock Monte LCA? I was told by Global West before doing my swap that the best scenario was to retain my stock LCA's and stick with the B-body spindles. Aside from the front-end feeling a little stiff, I experience no more bumpsteer than stock, and the scrub radius is greatly reduced with the Impala SS wheels/45-series tires. I wouldn't mind experimenting with an adjustable center link, though-that would be interesting. Lotsa pot-holes here in Iowa, though- :confused:

gen3bu
01-01-2005, 05:02 PM
http://www.speedwaymotors.com/xq/asp/strBase_List./hilt./source./base_no.91034300/str_base_no.2559000%2C91034300%2C91034314%2C910483 36%2C91634034%2C/header_title.Keyword+Search/page_name.search%2Fkeyword%5Fresults%2Easp/search_type.lower+control+arm/search_option.AllWords/deptsearch./deptSearch_id./dept_id./dept_id_p./dept_name./dept_name_p./ShowImages.yes/sq.0/cont.1/intPgNo.1/redirect./qx/product.htm


i think that is the link i saw, i am still looking

Kenova
01-01-2005, 06:49 PM
Okay..
Now I know why this thread seems familiar. Years ago I used to subscribe to Circle Track (mostly for the tech). They had an advertizer who was selling GM LCAs to widen the front track on GM based stock car frames by approx. 1.5". Thing was, this outfit wouldn't say what the arms were originally used on.
Lengthening the LCA would increase the swing radius of the ball joint slightly, which could probably be used to an advantage.

Ken

gen3bu
01-03-2005, 07:34 PM
marcus
would it be feasible to install the nova lca's, c5 spindles/brakes, and the pro-lite uca's?
then just add some backspacing to the wheels?
i have aslo considered swapping in a rack and pinion - any ideas?

Marcus SC&C
01-03-2005, 08:50 PM
Sure it`s feasible. I`ll measure both LCAs tomorrow and if there are any suprises in store. It would be nice to be able to use deeper backspacing for a better scrub radius provided there are no downsides. Do a search on the R&P swap,the short answer is you can`t do one *properly* with the existing chassis. Yes people have done it and say it`s fine but that doesn`t make it so. ;) Use a good fast ratio box with Moog HD components and you won`t miss it. IMO you`re much better off spending the money on a really outstanding set of shocks,tires etc. Marcus

Marcus SC&C
01-05-2005, 06:25 PM
I pulled an LCA off of a `69 Nova subframe yesterday and measured it next to a G body LCA. They absolutely will not interchange. They`re not even close,the frame side of the G LCAs are a full inch wider overall among other things. That got me thinking,hey folks have been doing this swap so how can this be? I called Speedway and talked to one of their circle track techs and it turns out there`s a typo on the website. The Nova arms they use for the swap are for `75-`80. They "should" be the same as `70-`81 F body as well. As soon as time permits I`ll dig through our parts stash and measure one of those to see if it alters the spring and shock motion ratios etc. Marcus SC&C

gen3bu
01-05-2005, 06:51 PM
thanks for the info.
i am straddling the fence on a r&p conversion (for the lightweight factor), and a zq8 gear box with a steering quickener p/n hre-5220 or hre 5222 from summit mounted under the dash.
i also like the g5 kit you sell but it is a little rich for my pockets.
thanks again
kevin

gen3bu
01-13-2005, 05:14 PM
I pulled an LCA off of a `69 Nova subframe yesterday and measured it next to a G body LCA. They absolutely will not interchange. They`re not even close,the frame side of the G LCAs are a full inch wider overall among other things. That got me thinking,hey folks have been doing this swap so how can this be? I called Speedway and talked to one of their circle track techs and it turns out there`s a typo on the website. The Nova arms they use for the swap are for `75-`80. They "should" be the same as `70-`81 F body as well. As soon as time permits I`ll dig through our parts stash and measure one of those to see if it alters the spring and shock motion ratios etc. Marcus SC&C


any news yet?

Marcus SC&C
01-13-2005, 06:12 PM
Sorry not yet. I have too many different projects going right now and not enough of me. ;) I`ll try to get to it soon though. Marcus SC&C

gen3bu
01-15-2005, 07:44 PM
how would it work to use the 70-81 f-body lowers, stock uppers and b-body spindles?

Marcus SC&C
01-16-2005, 06:17 PM
The UCAs would be too short with 1.5" longer LCAs (even with the taller spindles),the BJ plate would still be the wrong angle with taller spindles causing potential BJ bind in jounce and the steering arms would still be in the wrong location roughly doubling the stock bumpsteer. Nice try though. ;) Marcus SC&C

gen3bu
01-17-2005, 05:50 PM
how about the f-body lowers, c5 spindles, and adjustable tubular uppers?

Marcus SC&C
01-18-2005, 07:26 PM
That may work,possibly well. I plan to check that configuration out...when I finally get around to it. ;) Marcus SC&C

gen3bu
01-19-2005, 07:56 PM
thanks for the help!!

wally8
01-20-2005, 07:42 AM
Just saw this thread and thought I'd throw in what I know.

The Nova LCA's are used on most IMCA modifieds that are using what we call metric frames (the newer G bodies). Everyone has already hit on the reason. The extra length can be used to advantage.

They bolt right into place with no problems. We use aftermarket UCA's and I can't remember the measurement right now. It wouldn't matter anyway because the stock upper mounts are chopped off and new ones put on. They do turn better than metric frames with stock LCA's (on dirt).


Later....

Wally

Marcus SC&C
01-23-2005, 09:38 AM
Wally do you know offhand if 2nd gen F body LCAs are in fact the same as the `75-`80 Nova LCAs. I`m almost certain the subframes are so the LCAs "should be". The local yards are fresh out of Novas of those years but there are lots of 2nd Gen F cars yet. Marcus

wally8
01-23-2005, 07:56 PM
Hey Marcus,

Unfortunately no, I don't. I can only assume they're not since the mod manufacturers seem to be specific about Nova arms. They are getting nearly impossible to find.

Have you checked a Hollander's exchange manual?

The modified manufacturers are trying to get IMCA to accept tubular LCA's for that reason along with fully fabbed frames. I see AFCO has introduced some tubular LCA's but I can't seem to find a price for them or find them online. They should be relatively cheap compared to other manufacturers.

Sorry I couldn't help.


Wally

gen3bu
01-23-2005, 08:39 PM
i am still looking for either lca
keep coming up empty handed

gen3bu
01-31-2005, 06:12 PM
anyone else want to chime in on this one?

Marcus SC&C
02-01-2005, 06:03 PM
Here`s a little info that should help. The LCAs in question fit not only the Novas and their clones `75-`79 but also F car `77-`81,A body `74-`77 and B body `77-`96. Should be no problems tracking them down now. :) Marcus SC&C

wally8
02-01-2005, 07:18 PM
Good info Marcus. Have you confirmed the measurements exactly or is that what your next step is?

BTW, have you looked at the A body thread? I'm curious on your input on spindles.


Wally

gen3bu
02-03-2005, 07:40 PM
i also noticed some disturbing suspension angles tonight while following my brother home from work he was driving my s-10 and it looks like the camber curves under load while turing are the opposite of what makes sense to me. the inside wheel looked to have @ 2-3 degrees of negative camber. shouldn't the inside wheel have positive camber for better stability and traction?

Norm Peterson
02-04-2005, 10:04 AM
Inside wheels usually do gain negative camber. Part of it is due to the roll of the chassis and part of it is from the shape of the camber curve when the wheel moves into 'droop'. Fortunately, this is the lightly-loaded wheel, so it probably looks worse than it actually is.

You might be able to get positive camber gain in droop, but I think the adverse effects would outweigh the gains (one possibility might be a long upper arm/short lower arm - ugh).

You're right about what positive camber on the inside wheel can provide - look very closely at the left side of the NASCAR Cup cars when they're stopped. You'll see that there's some static positive camber on the LF wheel. But even they aren't trying to completely revise the basic shape of the camber curve, opting instead to start from too-much positive and letting it roll/droop to where they want it.

Norm

Marcus SC&C
02-06-2005, 04:56 PM
gen3bu if you think the inside wheel`s geometry is bad,next time check the outter one. They gain + camber in turns and roll the tire sidewall under. :hammer: I wish I knew what they were thinking when they designed a lot of factory cars and trucks. Oh BTW (shameless plug warning) our geometry correcting Street comp Stg.2 for G body cars fits 2wd S-10s too. :) Marcus SC&C

gen3bu
02-06-2005, 07:27 PM
well i plan on selling the s-10 to fund the bu. oh well it has been a fun ride, but we'll see if it actually gets sold or not.
btw - any more info on the longer lca's yet?
kevin

gen3bu
02-19-2005, 08:44 PM
ttttt

ProTouring442
02-20-2005, 03:23 AM
Here`s a little info that should help. The LCAs in question fit not only the Novas and their clones `75-`79 but also F car `77-`81,A body `74-`77 and B body `77-`96. Should be no problems tracking them down now. :) Marcus SC&C

What about the Cadillac Seville that was Nova based? I don't remember the years, but it might provide yet another source.

gen3bu
02-23-2005, 07:51 PM
Here`s a little info that should help. The LCAs in question fit not only the Novas and their clones `75-`79 but also F car `77-`81,A body `74-`77 and B body `77-`96. Should be no problems tracking them down now. :) Marcus SC&C


hey marcus,

what do you think about taking the uca, lca, and spindles from any of the above (probably a wagon to get 12" brakes), and modifing the uca mounts to correct the geometry, ic, and rc? can you send me the link to your website, i seem to have misplaced it.

kevin

gen3bu
03-21-2005, 07:42 PM
marcus, i have been doing more research, and thinking about all of this.

what if i used the b-body lca's, b-body spindles and 12 inch rotors(modified for c5 brakes), g-body uca's, and relocate the uca mounts to the side of the frame rail instead of the top(this will also move the instant center farther out).

then take the spindles to the local machine shop and have the toe rod tapered hole filled with a press fit plug and re-drill the tie rod hole from the top and move it @1/4-1/2 inch closer to the ball joints to get some of the steering ratio back. by moving the tie rod to the top i think it will correct some of the bumpsteer. i saw in another thread that you said the out tire rod needs to be moved up 1.25 inches and it seems to me this is about right. this will also improve wheel clearance at the tie rod.

let me know what your thoughts are.

thanks
kevin

Marcus SC&C
03-21-2005, 09:19 PM
I don`t think the UCA would have to go out that far. You still wouldn`t want to use a stock UCA because their UBJ mounting angle is way off when using a taller spindle,especially if the car is lower than stock. Our adj. UCAs would do the trick without moving the perches. There isn`t enough meat at the end of the steering arm to move the tie rod taper enough to make any meaningful difference in ratio or ackerman. The tie rod`s pivot axis is say 1.5" below the centerline of the steering arm. Swapping it to the top moves it to 1.5" above the centerline for a difference of 3". Now it`s way too high. Don`t feel bad,these same ideas didn`t work for me when I tried them either. ;) That`s why we developed the StreetComp Stg.1/2 and G-5. Marcus SC&C www.SCandC.com [email protected]

gen3bu
03-22-2005, 06:15 PM
no offense, ireally want the g5 setup, just out of my price range. i'll let you know of my next dumb idea.

thanks
kevin

gen3bu
03-22-2005, 06:42 PM
ok here it is.

what would the dimnsions changes need to be to work with the b-car spindles?
where does the tire rod need to be located in comparison to the mounting point?
how much closoer to the rotor center does the tie rod need to be moved to regain/improve the steering ratio?
how high should the tie rod be placed in order to fix the bumpsteer issues?
how much does the b-spindle swap inccrease track width?

now i am thinking about having the machine shop make some outer tir rod end relocation brakets that mount to the stock tie rod location on the b-spindles.

sorry if it is getting too far out there, just thinking outside of the padded box/room again.

thanks
kevin

Marcus SC&C
03-22-2005, 07:52 PM
I tried just about every wacky thing you can think of to try and make the B spindles work well on the G chassis. I`m a low buck guy myself at heart but at some point you have to say "This just ain`t a good idea no matter how cheap it is." To put the tie rod end where it needs to be you`d have to lop the steering arm off. Of course then you wouldn`t have anything to bolt it into. If you want a bandaid for the B spindle bumpsteer you can use our tall LBJs. They`ll put the bumpsteer back to just a little worse than stock. Section the stock upper arms to shorten them slightly and take the angle out of the ball joint mounting plate. Reinforce and weld back together. If you can`t do that,buy a set of our adj. UCAs with the greasable bushings,they`re $100 cheaper than the rubber bushed arms. I sell the arms with the LBJs for the same price as a std. Stg.1 kit. It`s actually a pretty popular kit with drag racers who want to fix the bumpsteer to help the car go straight. The B with tall LBJs won`t drive as nice as a Stg.2 but it will have a little more - camber gain (and an RC a bit higher than ideal). Still it should drive/handle better than the straight B swap. Marcus SC&C

wally8
03-22-2005, 08:18 PM
Here's what I can tell you about IMCA style modifieds, most of which are using the metric frame (g-body).

A few caveats: I don't recall exact measurements and I don't have one in my shop now to go measure, the roll center is a little higher than what you'll want for a road course.

Most use either the stock spindle or a pinto spindle. Pinto's are becoming popular because they're much stronger and lighter. Tall BJ's top and bottom. Relocated UCA mounts (not sure on the specs but they are a little higher than stock IIRC with 2 degrees anti-dive), Nova LCA's to increase track width (15.5"). These are the two types of UCA's that are used, usually the adjustable: http://www.speedwaymotors.com/xq/asp/strBase_List./hilt./source.2191/base_no.91034364/str_base_no.000%2DCATALOG+RACE%2C91034290%2C910343 00%2C91034364%2C91034371%2C91034380%2C91034386%2C9 1034393%2C91034395%2C91034397%2C91034410%2C9163430 9%2C91645470%2C91720002S%2C91720005S%2C91721003%2C 91721005%2C/header_title.NEW%21+Race+Products%2DA%2DFrames+%26 +Struts/page_name.prod%5Flist%5Fdisplay.asp/search_type.L2%7E26/search_option./deptsearch./deptSearch_id.2/dept_id.L2%7E26/dept_id_p.2/dept_name./dept_name_p.NEW%21+Race+Products/ShowImages.yes/sq.0/cont.1/intPgNo.1/redirect./qx/product.htm

http://www.speedwaymotors.com/xq/asp/strBase_List./hilt./source.2191/base_no.91720005S/str_base_no.000%2DCATALOG+RACE%2C91034290%2C910343 00%2C91034364%2C91034371%2C91034380%2C91034386%2C9 1034393%2C91034395%2C91034397%2C91034410%2C9163430 9%2C91645470%2C91720002S%2C91720005S%2C91721003%2C 91721005%2C/header_title.NEW%21+Race+Products%2DA%2DFrames+%26 +Struts/page_name.prod%5Flist%5Fdisplay.asp/search_type.L2%7E26/search_option./deptsearch./deptSearch_id.2/dept_id.L2%7E26/dept_id_p.2/dept_name./dept_name_p.NEW%21+Race+Products/ShowImages.yes/sq.0/cont.1/intPgNo.1/redirect./qx/product.htm

(I don't work for Speedway BTW :-), we just buy from them most of the time.)

To fix bumpsteer the steering box and idler arm mounts are lowered about an inch on the frame. A stock drag link is used and a bumpsteer kit is used at the spindle. Link here: http://www.speedwaymotors.com/xq/asp/strBase_List./hilt./source.2191/base_no.91636055/str_base_no.000%2DCATALOG+RACE%2C1756041%2C6680105 %2C91032211%2C91032213%2C91032215%2C91032800%2C910 34299%2C91034302%2C91034303%2C91034313%2C910353%2C 910354%2C910355%2C91636055%2C/header_title.NEW%21+Race+Products%2DTie+Rods%2FDra g+Links%2FSpindles/page_name.prod%5Flist%5Fdisplay.asp/search_type.L2%7E179/search_option./deptsearch./deptSearch_id.2/dept_id.L2%7E179/dept_id_p.2/dept_name./dept_name_p.NEW%21+Race+Products/ShowImages.yes/sq.0/cont.1/intPgNo.1/redirect./qx/product.htm
This doesn't eliminate bumpsteer, just gets it to pretty decent levels.

That's the cheapest way I know to do it. You can work with the mounting points in some software to get the exact dimensions figured out for your app.


Wally

WOOSHH
03-28-2005, 01:57 PM
I was told by both GW and Hotchkis that there are no problems with the B-body spindle as long as you use B-body control arms.They said you run into bumpsteer issue's when you try and use a B-body spindle with stock G-body control arms.Does this sound correct?

dennis68
03-28-2005, 02:32 PM
Whom ever told you that was an idiot and knows nothing about suspension/steering geometry. They should go straight to suspension for dummies school before saying one more thing about any suspension design component. I'm sure both of their boss' would love to know that their sales crew are spewing crap like that to the public.

Upper control arms have zero affect on bumpsteer. The reason you run into increased bumpsteer is a result of the steering arm relocation on the B spindles, not something you could realistically change. Correcting bumpsteer on an "A" or "G" body with "B" spindles requires huge amounts of time and fabrication including relocating the steering box and idler arms, using different centerlinks and steering linkage and even cutting/rewelding the steering arm on the spindle(not recommended).

[/OFF-RANT]

Norm Peterson
03-28-2005, 02:49 PM
Upper control arms have zero affect on bumpsteer.Not entirely true. Since bumpsteer is a observable manifestation of the 'error' between the projection of the tierod and the position of the FVIC, anything that affects where the FVIC is or how it moves will affect bumpsteer as the wheel moves away from the static position. This also includes UCA changes that affect caster and caster gain.

Norm

dennis68
03-28-2005, 07:43 PM
OK Norm, agreed. I was mad as hell. Typical salesman, tell the customer whatever it takes to sell the product. UCA will have an impact on bumpsteer however it be will miniscule, and not even close to being enough to be noticeable on a chassis that will wind up with around .250" of toe out at 2" of bump.

Marcus SC&C
03-28-2005, 08:19 PM
Norm`s technically right (as usual ;) ) but the difference the UCA makes on bumpsteer in this case is about the same difference as falling off a 1000ft. cliff or a 1003ft. cliff ie. there`s no discernable difference in the degree of suckage. It`s pretty simple,the place for B body spindles is on B body cars. Why would you want to install anything on your car that makes some aspect worse when there are win/win alternatives? Marcus SC&C

gmachinz
03-28-2005, 08:49 PM
Marcus, can you expound on a win/win alternative for G-bodies in terms of spindles? I have done the swap and have spent a lot of time adjusting my front end to give me a great feel of the road with really no problems. To give you an idea of what I did, here goes:

'85 Caprice wagon spindles
'85 Caprice rotors ( to maintain 5 on 5 pattern and because for some
reason, the 12" vented rotors were about 1/16" thicker than 1LE
ones)
'70 Camaro calipers ( I found a lot of differences in factory style ones,
these allowed another 1/16" between the pad mounting ears)
Hotchkis upper a-arms.
Hotchkis adjusting sleeves
Stock lower a-arms w/new rubber bushings
Bilstein shocks
Lowering springs (about 1.5")
All other front pieces were new stock '78 Monte Carlo components
And lastly, 1996 Impala SS 17x9 wheels w/Firestone Firehawk SE50 EP's

This car does ride a little firm, but not bouncy and it absolutely sticks to the pavement around curves. It hits bumps at various angles and speeds and even with my quick ratio Iroc-Z box, I get no spooky input at the steering wheel at all. What can I do to improve this design? I run about 1.5-degree negative camber and .5-degree toe in. -Jabin

Norm Peterson
03-29-2005, 05:28 AM
OK Norm, agreed. I was mad as hell. Typical salesman, tell the customer whatever it takes to sell the product. UCA will have an impact on bumpsteer however it will miniscule and not even close to being enough to be noticeable on a chassis that will wind up with around .250" of toe out at 2" of bump.Sorry for sounding picky, guys. But, to borrow Marcus' delicate and descriptive terminology, I was thinking more in terms of cases where the basic 'degree of suckage' is about an order of magnitude less 'sucky' than for the specific case at hand.

The rest was pretty clear (and I hope none of those spit-out nails hit anything fragile or expensive or ended up in the driveway :) ). If the SFD classes haven't already filled up for the summer session, there's a web page author located somewhere in the UK for whom I recommend that a seat be reserved (recent rant of my own, elsewhere).

Norm

Marcus SC&C
03-29-2005, 06:53 PM
G,if you`re happy with your car leave it alone. The traditional bandaid for poor bumpsteer is to use stiff springs and shocks so the suspension doesn`t move much,because when it moves it`s bad. This does a fair job of covering it up for the casual driver. You`d notice it more with stock springs and shocks and or if you drive on uneven roads a lot. It also gets more noticable the harder you drive it. Many people get used to sawing the wheel back and forth as they go over bumps and such,thinking it`s the bump making them do it when it`s really their steering. They don`t realize the difference until the bumpsteer is gone and they can keep their hands still going down the same road. Believe me,it feels great when it`s nearly gone!

Basically the G body spindle`s steering arms are about 5/8" too low from the factory for best bumpsteer (there are other issues too but this is the big one). This is a LOT! BTW we`re talking about spindles which is why I`m refering to the arms. Specifically it`s the outter tie rod end pickup points that are actually moving around,changing things. Depending on specifics an 1/8" vertical can make as much difference as a 3" mismatch horizontally. The B body spindle arms are 5/8" lower STILL! The bumpsteer burys the dial indicator on the bumpsteer gauge after only about 2" of travel.

That`s the basic tech. The bad news is there is no true bumpsteer fix for the B swap. The spindle just doesn`t fit the car properly. The good news is that you can get the bumpsteer almost back to stock though. Our tall stud modular LBJs combined with more + caster (+4.5*-+5*) will raise the steering arm almost back to where the G spindle arms are. It`s going to raise the RC a bit more and make the camber curves more aggressive too. You may want to drop back a little on the front swaybar dia. or run a larger rear one (or stiffer rear springs) because it`ll induce a little more understeer and reduce your static camber to say -.5* (for the street) but to cut the bumpsteer in half IMO it`s well worth it.

Norm,you have a way of making even "suckage" sound like a viable technical term. ;) Marcus SC&C

gmachinz
03-29-2005, 07:36 PM
Thanks for the advice, Marcus. I guess I'm at the point where I will need to go to a track event and push it to see what it does. I'm building my '87 SS now and I want to do something different with it-I thought about airbags/springs but I'm still undecided. I'll keep looking for alternatives. -Jabin

Chevy350
07-03-2005, 03:55 PM
Here`s a little info that should help. The LCAs in question fit not only the Novas and their clones `75-`79 but also F car `77-`81,A body `74-`77 and B body `77-`96. Should be no problems tracking them down now. :) Marcus SC&C

After measuring/trying a '79 Malibu/G-body LCA on my brother's '77 Caprice, I can definately say that the '77 B-body arm WON'T fit the G-body. The B-lca is roughly 1.5" wider between the bushings/frame mounts.

Did anyone ever find out more about the disco Nova LCAs? And if there are any other cars that these LCAs were used on? And can confirm the distance between the bushings? One of the next days I'll measure under a friends '79 F-body, to see there also.

I guess maybe you were right Wally, as you mentioned that it specifically was the Nova arms that should/could be used.

gen3bu
07-03-2005, 06:17 PM
i will be bringing the car home from work soon and i think i will end up making my own lca's and ucas, to reduce the scrub radius and probably get the g5 kit for the least bumpsteer.

Marcus SC&C
07-05-2005, 06:49 PM
Chevy,that`s interesting. The interchange info I posted was via a friend with a Hollander interchange manual. DIsco Nova and 2nd gen are the same I know that. Could be the starting year for B body is later? Maybe even as late as the jellybean style? This topic has been way on my back burner but I`d still be very interested to hear what you come up with. Marcus

Chevy350
07-07-2005, 03:28 AM
Of course, Marcus - Here's what I found:

The same friend mentioned above has 3 2nd gen Pontiacs, so I measured on all his cars :) Year first, then rough measurements:

'70.5 F-body: 11" between bushings in inner pivot line. (No length, measured on a bare subframe)
'71 F-body: 11" "same as above", and 15.5" from inner pivot line to center of LBJ
'79 F-body: 11" ------"-------, and 15.5" -------"-------
'77 B-body: 11" ------"-------, and 15.5" -------"-------
'79 G-body: 9" ------"-------, and 12.5" -------"-------

Come to think about it, I actually know of a guy with a disco Nova... It might take a while for him to measure - if he even bothers at all. No promises here, sorry - but I'll try!

Edit: Just got off the phone with the guy, I'll be heading over to where his cars are next tuesday to measure! He actually has two, but I don't know of what year they are. Late '70's is all I know. Stay tuned...

gen3bu
07-07-2005, 04:38 PM
what do you guys think of move the front lca mount to maatch the longer lca width?

wally8
07-07-2005, 06:28 PM
Gen3bu,

That is done all the time with modifieds. Usually the holes are moved outboard. You can reinforce the holes with some large washers if you need to.


Wally

Q ship
07-08-2005, 11:17 AM
Chevy,that`s interesting. The interchange info I posted was via a friend with a Hollander interchange manual. DIsco Nova and 2nd gen are the same I know that. Could be the starting year for B body is later? Maybe even as late as the jellybean style? This topic has been way on my back burner but I`d still be very interested to hear what you come up with. Marcus

Well, the title of this kept me from looking through it sooner-but I can state with certainty that the 2nd gen F-body, 4th gen X-body(disconovas), and 77-96 B-bodies all use the same front control arms. Period. I took the arms off my '71 Camaro, used them on a '83 Caprice, and now they will be going on my '77 Nova. I didn't realize the G-bodies were different! Learn something new every day....

Hey what about the S-10 series trucks, aren't they like the G's? I could measure my 4wd Jimmy's if anyone is interested.

gen3bu
07-08-2005, 03:27 PM
the 4wd is a completely different system (torsion bar type). i measured a 1975 nove today and foud it was 11 innches inner bushing to inner bushing, and 18 inches from centerline of the pivots to the centerline of the ball joint was 18 inches. i would consider that 11x18 for simplicity sake and the g-body is 9.5x15.5 - i guess it depends which leg of the lca gets measured, i will have to check the other one on monday.

kevin

Q ship
07-08-2005, 06:09 PM
the 4wd is a completely different system (torsion bar type).
:hand: Uh, yeah, I forgot that! Oh well, just for the heck of it, the inner bushing dimension on the T-15 is 11" also. I also measured my disco's arms and the Camaro arms, they are the same. Just for clarity, I get 15.5" measuring from the lbj centerline to the point halfway between the bushings(chevy350's method), and 18" lbj center to the rear bushing rear face (along the "back leg" of the arm). Was that how you measured Kevin? It gets confusing if we are not measuring the same way.

TPI Monte SS
07-08-2005, 07:00 PM
Hey what about the S-10 series trucks, aren't they like the G's?

2wd S10's share the same front suspension (upper/lower A-arms interchange, and spindles too). 4wd will not work, as mentioned above.

gen3bu
07-09-2005, 03:20 PM
we need pics and/or drawings. yes i measured to the bushing centerline from the grease zerk. i will recheck it monday.

Supercharged 86
07-09-2005, 06:47 PM
Not to change the topic, but I think these would considerably help bump steer on the stock spindle. I lowered my car so I really don't need them quite so much, but they look like they'd be helpful...

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

Chevy350
07-12-2005, 06:06 AM
John; If the steeringarms are too low already, won't those make matters even worse? As adjusting for extreme positive caster helps BS (raises the steeringarms), with it's own backsides with it...

Wally; It makes sense if it's usual to modify the lower mounts in the frame, as none of the advertisers ever have mentioned they would be bolt-on:
Speedway Motors product (http://www.speedwaymotors.com/xq/aspx/paging.yes/dept_id.26/display_id.2095/qx/Product.htm)
I just assumed they would... Thanks to all for clearing this up!

Brian D: Thank you for measuring on your Nova, too bad to hear about your Caprice - but the lighter X-body definately is a better choice for OT'ing.

Supercharged 86
07-12-2005, 06:47 AM
Well, the idea is that they are adjustable to dial in the BS with the hight of the heim tie rod end. Think about it, it's basically as if there is no stud on a tie rod. You could take the nut on top of the heim off and have it right against the spindle or even put it on top if the BS that horrible I guess. Usually raising them so they're justabout as high as they can go under the spindle works unless your car is jacked up.

Chevy350
07-12-2005, 09:34 AM
The adjustable part is understood, but I assumed it only fits one way into the spindle (because of the taper). In that case, it could help - but the B-spindle steeringarm is still of the wrong length and angle (Ackerman), in addition to the height issue, in the G-body (and A-body). If recall correctly, that is...

Dust87ss
07-12-2005, 10:35 AM
For what John posted to work on a G-body, you'd need to weld tabs on the centerlink and lower the inner tie rod.

Supercharged 86
07-12-2005, 11:09 AM
Why is that? It has a sleeve that attatches to the orignal inner tie rod.


And also, I thought there was enough of a thread left on top of the spindle to mount the heim above, but now that I see the picture, it looks like there probably isn't enough room.

I didn't know you were all talking about B spindles. Why use them anyway? You can get SCandC C5 spindles and barakes or use tall upper ball joints. I came in late and probably missed a lot. With B spindles, the heim tie rod ends still wouldn't be enough to fix the problem I guess.

Dust87ss
07-12-2005, 11:47 AM
According to Marcus, the steering arm on a G-body is about 5/8" too low from the factory. I think placing the adjustable rod on top of the steering arm would be way too much, so it would need to be lowered from the inner tie rod.

Flipping it to the top when using the B-spindle swap may work, but, like Chevy said, you would have to deal with the taper in the steering arm then.

In any case, you could just use Maucus' tall LBJ and improve both the stock and B-spindle.

Marcus SC&C
07-12-2005, 05:20 PM
Flipping to the top of the B steering arms is too much. The center axis of the tie rod end or heim would need to go roughly IN the steering arm. I have several styles of bump steer spacers like the one in the pic above in stock at the shop. In some cases they`re just the ticket but not in this one. Believe me I tried all the "quick fixes" (plus a bunch of off the wall ones) for these common swaps before the tall modular ball joints. Remember we were a full time hot rod and custom shop (and still are!) for 18 years before we started selling suspension products. :) Marcus

BigBlockOlds
07-12-2005, 05:56 PM
Marcus, so are you saying that with my Stage II kit, using the Pro-lite arms, tall upper and lower ball joints and stock G body spindle, I should not need to mess with installing an adjustable tie rod end to take out more bumpster?

Thanks,

Steve1968LS2
07-12-2005, 06:47 PM
BTW.. call Global West.. they have some new G body stuff coming out.. spindles or control arms.. not sure which. It is not on thier website yet..

Just an FYI :)

gen3bu
07-12-2005, 07:11 PM
steve - call me, the number is in your pm from friday afternoon.

kevin

Marcus SC&C
07-13-2005, 06:28 PM
Andrew,yep that`s right. :) Marcus

Slow Ride
06-14-2006, 08:33 PM
2wd S10's share the same front suspension (upper/lower A-arms interchange, and spindles too). 4wd will not work, as mentioned above.

The forward LCA bushing will need to be changed from S-series to G-body. I got the G-body GW lowers for my S-10 and the bolts wouldn't go through. Had to get larger inserts for the delrin bushing. I believe the g-body uses 12mm hardware and the s-series uses 14mm.

I'd also like to find some handling solutions for the 4th gen X-body, since I picked up a grandma fresh '77 Pontiac Ventura today, and I'd like to try a pro-touring type build. My 454 BBC 2wd S-10 Blazer with bigs-n-littles don't turn too well.

Marcus SC&C
06-18-2006, 09:04 AM
Wow,this thread`s an oldie but a goodie. The `77 Ventura uses the same subframe as `70-`78 2nd Gen F body so any of the parts that work on those will work on it was well. Check out some of the recent 2nd gen threads here. They seem to be getting more and more coverage lately and we intend to bring out some new stuff for them in the near future too. Mark SC&C