PDA

View Full Version : nova lower ?



texas pride
05-04-2012, 12:36 PM
ok i have a 4 bar modified with a metric clip and i have metric lowers but i dont like having to run stiff springs so im thinking about going to nova lowers but i think i heard somthing about having to run special bushings with novas in order to fit a metric chassis i know when your running nova lowers on metric you have swap the lowers to the oppsite side. so if you have to have special bushings and please corect if im wrong about that. where would you buy the bushings for a set of nova's.im fairley new to mods so im still learning. thanks for the help guys

racinjj
05-04-2012, 02:12 PM
The biggest obstical you will have is relocating the screw jacks and shock mounts. You just need some spacers (1/2" id and 1/2" long) in the front mount because the nova lowers are narrower in the "front" bushing than the metric. Its not a simple bolt up, their is some fab work to get it all correct. Plus it widens the front track of the car so you should put at least 1" of spacers on each side in the rear if you have a 58" housing.

texas pride
05-05-2012, 12:04 AM
Where can I get the bushings ? Does speedway sale them

racin6mod
05-05-2012, 10:29 AM
any local machine shop can make the spacers for you. as stated above this is not a simple thing to do correctly.the reason for the stiffer springs on a metric front end is more about motion ratio the wheel will see pretty much the same rate. the nova lowers are more about widening the track width you'll need to change tie rods lengths and most everything in the frontend,I've seen racers try to just change the lowers and go racing that does not work.

HEAVY DUTY
05-05-2012, 10:41 AM
You can use flat washers for the spacers. The nova lowers widen the track width by 5/8 on each side, but lengthen the wheelbase 1 5/8, which helps steering clearance when the wheels are turned full lock.You will need to drop the spring rate 150 to 200 lbs to get the same spring rate at the balljoint. Spring rates are just numbers.I dont understand the fascination with trying to see who can run the softest right front spring, I thought the object was to get around the racetrack the fastest.A few years ago everybody was trying to see who can run the highest gear and now they are trying to see who can turn the most RPMs and run the lowest gear and softest RF spring.What I am saying is, put what spring it needs to go fastest and quit worrying about what everybody else is running. We never ran less than 1000 in the right front of a metric and now never run softer than a 700 with novas.

dirttrackrocker
05-05-2012, 10:51 AM
Good advice here^^^^^^^^^^^^

cavemod
05-05-2012, 07:35 PM
Amen Brother!!I got a metric car w metric lowers and bottoming out on anything but slick smooth w a 850 in the rf so we're gonna bump it up to 1000 and give'er.The nova lowers maybe better according to some but the cost of a nova lower versus a metric is the reason i'm still using metric.Go try and find nova lowers at your local boneyard versus metrics also.

texas pride
05-05-2012, 09:39 PM
Well my car hasn't hit the track yet this season I'm hoping to test in two weeks and I'm some what new to mods.and I've been worrying that that stifff of a spring mit not let the car roll good.plus my uncle gave me like three sets of nova lowers.so I've tryn to figure out the best way to go. Do y'all have good luck running the the metric lowers and does the the car still roll good. Sorry if this a dum question guys I'm just trying to learn

cavemod
05-05-2012, 11:34 PM
A while back a post on this forum talked about motion ratios of the different lower control arms comparing the chevelle ,nova ,and metric lowers with the metric having the lowest percentage wise (23% if I recall corectly?).In other words the what the car actually feels .this is why they require the stiffer spring .Like I said before with an 850 in my rf i'm bottoming out on every track condition except smooth slick tracks.Heavyduty says 1000 on the rf with metric lowers which is what I'm changing to for the normal springtime tracks we see around here but will drop the rate some in the dog days of summer when the tracks have a tendency to dry out.He also state a 700 on a nove lower because there motion ratio is higher.While the shaw and harris (chevelle based) that I'veworked on in the past were running 600 or 650 in the rf because they have the highest motion ratio of the 3 mentioned control arms.The choice is yours modifications to the screwjack locations and other front end pickup points,wheel spacers,different offset wheels or wider rear end due to track width or heavier springs for the same result.I use metrics because I got a freind in the bone yard business who sells me a lower and spindle of a metric car for $25(whole front stub for $125). body roll is not an issue as long as every thing else is clearanced properly lower to frame wise shock and tierods are an issue also. this is why people convert to the nova lower to begin with to bring the tie rod away from the frame for clearance from what i've learned.When and if I make the switch I would say maybe a shorter idler and pitman arm??Maybe some one can enlighten us on whether they need changing also???

texas pride
05-06-2012, 12:12 AM
Yea that's what I was thinking in reguard to the tie rod my chassis builder notch out the frame in front on both sides I figure they were making clearance for the tie rod

js11
05-06-2012, 11:34 AM
If you switch from metric to nova, you can use the stock metric pitman and idler (I have for years). However, you will notice that the tie rods will not be squared (they will run forward towards the wheels because you just increase the wheel base by putting the novas on). This will affect various things like ackerman, etc. There are ways to compensate for that (ask your chassis builder or other drivers running that setup). However, the tie rod angles are not something that will make the car undriveable.

As for clearance, yes some folks notch out the underside of the horns (not sure if that's legal, if you're ump), but if you put sufficient spring in the car, this is not a problem. No one said you had to bottom out the RF to be fast. Spring choice should be enough to get the car to do what it's designed to do in concert with the driver's driving style, and the track's condition. Don't be afraid to change springs at the track.

Good luck

AH55
05-06-2012, 11:52 AM
If you switch from metric to nova, you can use the stock metric pitman and idler (I have for years). However, you will notice that the tie rods will not be squared (they will run forward towards the wheels because you just increase the wheel base by putting the novas on). This will affect various things like ackerman, etc. There are ways to compensate for that (ask your chassis builder or other drivers running that setup). However, the tie rod angles are not something that will make the car undriveable

JS, is there another pitman and idler to correct this? I am on nova lowers for going on two years now with metric pitman and idler. My tie rods point forward like you say and it makes the car a bear to turn when off. We also have a PS problem while running and I wonder if this is it. Thanks.

js11
05-06-2012, 02:45 PM
Not sure. But I do know of different car builders and drivers who have tried using shorter pitmans and idlers, and it sounded like they just ran into other problems and gave up.

My thoughts are that most folks have either changed spindles (e.g., went to a pinto spindle), or they made their minds up to live with the angled tie rods and worked with different caster and camber splits, or changed to a camaro drag link (or afco draglink) to speed up ackerman, etc. I've even seen folks weld different mounting points on the metric spindle (also not ump legal) to improve the geometry.

cavemod
05-06-2012, 04:37 PM
I believe that going to the nova lower would reduce the need for clearancing the frame for tie rods because of the added wheelbase length providing the metric spindles are used, where as the pinto spindle having a shorter distance from the center of the lower balljoint hole to the tie rod hole might still need to be clearanced and also have less effect on the ackerman??I don't have a degree in engineering but relating the topic here to what i have currently.Thanks for the info on the idler and pittman though.

AH55
05-06-2012, 04:58 PM
Not sure. But I do know of different car builders and drivers who have tried using shorter pitmans and idlers, and it sounded like they just ran into other problems and gave up.

My thoughts are that most folks have either changed spindles (e.g., went to a pinto spindle), or they made their minds up to live with the angled tie rods and worked with different caster and camber splits, or changed to a camaro drag link (or afco draglink) to speed up ackerman, etc. I've even seen folks weld different mounting points on the metric spindle (also not ump legal) to improve the geometry.
Oh, so the Pinto spindles take the angle out of the tie rod and improve geometry with the Novas? I'm on Impala spindles, which if I remember correctly, the steering arm is slightly shorter than the metric....but not much. I might have to look into the pinto's. Thanks for the info.

Seaman66
05-06-2012, 05:18 PM
I was told my car is a small metric with nova lowers.....how can i tell? and how do I know which spindles I have?? car came with a set of spindles too so i'm wondering what they are as well. Any specific markings/measurments on any of these things??

chapa9
05-06-2012, 06:04 PM
I would say it would be a lot of wasted time and money for you to convert to a nova lower. If your new to mods stick with what the car is built on. The different spring mounting is why you run stiffer. I run a 950 in rf and I get plenty of roll ect on rf. DO NOT WORRY ABOUT WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE HAS!! Concern your self with your car. Work on getting the most out of your car.

cavemod
05-06-2012, 06:41 PM
I was told my car is a small metric with nova lowers.....how can i tell? and how do I know which spindles I have?? car came with a set of spindles too so i'm wondering what they are as well. Any specific markings/measurments on any of these things??

The metric (late 70's early 80's cutlass regal etc)spindle measures 6 1/2 inches from the center of the lower ball joint hole to center of tie rod hole .I know for a fact the pinto is alot shorter distance along with no curve in the arm itself.As far as the big metric impala i dont have that dimension because i don't use them.All the chevelle based stub cars I've been around used the pinto style.I'm not sure if the overall heigth and arm length is different between the big and small metric spindles either but I know a guy who has used amc pacer javilin 2pc spindles on metric cars in the past also.I agree if you have metric lowers and spindles currently on then use them don't change unless your an engineer and or have a ton of knowledge about what does what when you change over or you might be giving up like people have in the past. I guess the guy who could answer this best is heavy duty or someone else who has a ton of experience with metric cars and what works and what doesn't.Or is this one of those top secret things that people don't discuss w/o a fee being paid???Bottoming out the rf IS NOT a good thing unless you like having a mid corner push been there done that. Many of the local racers tell me the only way to get rid of the push is go to the nova lower setup,but I also was running an 850 rf spring.Unfortunatly only me and racingjj are the only 2 metric a mods at the track I run at. .

Extreme Race Cars
05-06-2012, 07:32 PM
Switching to Nova lowers is a huge improvement!!!! I use a '70-72 chevelle pitman and idler arm w/metric spindles and use the stock metric w/pinto spindles. I've used stock metric and mid '80s camaro drag links... not a lot of difference between the two performance wise. I used polyurethane bushings for years... now I use UB Machine Monoball bushings. Spring rates are usually 100 to 200 lbs less than metric. You will have to move your weight jack bolt and your upper control arm mounts. You could just make an upper control arm to work with your exsiting mounts but it would not have the ideal caster or camber gain numbers. Why make the switch? If your getting beat in the corners... thats why.

TeamGRT12x
05-07-2012, 01:25 AM
There is a method to the madness with a soft RF spring and lots of gear, but it generally isn't suitable for weekly racing conditions. Just wanted to add to what Don said, do what makes your car fast, not what the guy beside you does. I went thru a discussion with a friend recently about what was working 3 years ago, and how well it probably works now but everyone follows suit when one car just blisters everyone with something different. Half the time, that guy just got lucky and the rest of the cars were off.

dirttrackrocker
05-07-2012, 08:04 AM
A while back a post on this forum talked about motion ratios of the different lower control arms comparing the chevelle ,nova ,and metric lowers with the metric having the lowest percentage wise (23% if I recall corectly?).In other words the what the car actually feels .this is why they require the stiffer spring .Like I said before with an 850 in my rf i'm bottoming out on every track condition except smooth slick tracks.Heavyduty says 1000 on the rf with metric lowers which is what I'm changing to for the normal springtime tracks we see around here but will drop the rate some in the dog days of summer when the tracks have a tendency to dry out.He also state a 700 on a nove lower because there motion ratio is higher.While the shaw and harris (chevelle based) that I'veworked on in the past were running 600 or 650 in the rf because they have the highest motion ratio of the 3 mentioned control arms.The choice is yours modifications to the screwjack locations and other front end pickup points,wheel spacers,different offset wheels or wider rear end due to track width or heavier springs for the same result.I use metrics because I got a freind in the bone yard business who sells me a lower and spindle of a metric car for $25(whole front stub for $125). body roll is not an issue as long as every thing else is clearanced properly lower to frame wise shock and tierods are an issue also. this is why people convert to the nova lower to begin with to bring the tie rod away from the frame for clearance from what i've learned.When and if I make the switch I would say maybe a shorter idler and pitman arm??Maybe some one can enlighten us on whether they need changing also???


Motion ratios. Spring Rate at ball joint

Chevelle 36% x 650 = 234

Nova 30% x 775 = 232

Metric 23% x 1000 = 230