PDA

View Full Version : Impala spindles Vs. Metric spindles



AH55
09-06-2011, 08:05 PM
I converted my metric modified to nova lowers this winter and after talking to some people decided to try impala spindles(big car) as I couldn't afford to try the pinto spindles. Well, I've had alot of problems with the RF shock hitting the upper ball joint collar, which we might have solved by notching the spring cup and flipping the shock.

The car handles pretty well in the tacky, but occasionally skates the front end in the slick. I'm just wondering what the advantage would be with these spindles over the metric spindles? I am currently on a #650 RF spring and a 600 LF spring and am getting a ton of shock travel and camber gain. It just kind of sucks that being impala/nova I'm unlike any other cars around me to try and get some options for spring rates and various setups as I'm thinking the car needs stiffer springs. I'm also curious if the Impalas are better why Pierce and other builders run nova/metric spindles. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.
Armond

dirttrackrocker
09-07-2011, 02:22 PM
Is this a track where you carry a lot of speed into the corner?? 650# might be just a tad light on a nova lower. Nova lowers have a 30% ratio, as opposed to a Chevelle lower that has a 36% ratio. Meaning a Chevelle lower with a 650# spring has 234# at the ball joint. A Nova lower with a 650# spring has 195# at the ball joint. If you go up to a 750# you get 225#.

AH55
09-07-2011, 05:09 PM
Is this a track where you carry a lot of speed into the corner?? 650# might be just a tad light on a nova lower. Nova lowers have a 30% ratio, as opposed to a Chevelle lower that has a 36% ratio. Meaning a Chevelle lower with a 650# spring has 234# at the ball joint. A Nova lower with a 650# spring has 195# at the ball joint. If you go up to a 750# you get 225#.

I would say its just an average 3/8 med banked track..nothing special. Those numbers are very interesting. so you just use the percentage of the lower a arm multiplied by the spring which is giving 195# actual weight at the ball joint? and I'm assuming more weight on RF would be better? I have a 700# spring to try this weekend but may end up getting a #750. Thanks for the help.

dirttrackrocker
09-07-2011, 05:43 PM
Yes... spring rate X ratio 36% for Chevelle, 30% for Nova and 23% for Metric. This is why most people making Metric chassis say you need to be up over 1000# on front springs. Some don't agree, but, I know in my Metric mod I have a 1050# in the RF. Anything less bottoms out.

AH55
09-07-2011, 06:06 PM
Yes... spring rate X ratio 36% for Chevelle, 30% for Nova and 23% for Metric. This is why most people making Metric chassis say you need to be up over 1000# on front springs. Some don't agree, but, I know in my Metric mod I have a 1050# in the RF. Anything less bottoms out.
Dude, thats great info. When I ran metric lowers I was on a 1000#RF also, and I've seen Don Adams on here saying they call for em. That formulas going in the race book...Thanks.