Speedway G-comp suspension

-
blown71duster

blown71duster

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 22, 2005
Messages
523
Reaction score
44
Location
Troy,Ohio
I saw where they are making some really nice stuff for gm. I have seen some mopars getting aftermarket suspensions put under them, like Detroit Speed just built a really nice Charger.
If you didn't mind some fabrication , I wonder if something like this could be made to work with its 56 inch track width . Looks really nice for the price .





How’d It Stack Up?

Slalom Average Speed Skidpad Lateral g’s Road Course Lap Time
1965 Chevy Nova, 3,080 pounds 48.1 mph 0.96 g 01:50.4
2015 Camaro SS 1LE, 3,866 pounds 47.2 mph 0.96 g 1:53.67
We put the Speedway Nova through the wringer on the 420-foot slalom course, the Streets of Willow Springs road course and the skidpad. And, because some of those numbers are a little ambiguous for those not familiar with the slalom or road course, we paired the car against a 2015 Camaro SS 1LE (which is their Track Pack) for comparison. The Nova ate up the skidpad, matching the 0.96 g number put down by the 1LE Camaro. The mix of more power and less weight, combined with aggressive suspension settings, allowed the Nova to trounce the 1LE on the road course and in the slalom.
 
What tires and tire size did that nova have?

Notice the weight of that nova. A 65 nova is one of the lightest chevys. Not an accident they picked it. Like picking a 64 valiant over a 70 challenger.

Would like to see those upper coil overs tied into the front roll bar down tubes.
 
Take 800 pounds out of the camaro and things might be quite different
 
autoxcuda said:
What tires and tire size did that nova have?

Notice the weight of that nova. A 65 nova is one of the lightest chevys. Not an accident they picked it. Like picking a 64 valiant over a 70 challenger.

Would like to see those upper coil overs tied into the front roll bar down tubes.
Click to expand...

They have a competition setup , which may be what they are using . It uses a c7 Hubs and uses 275/35r18 tires.
I would think you could get an A-body down to 3k pounds pretty easy .

G-Comp Unser Edition 1962-67 Chevy II Nova Front Suspension Kit
 
Found the build sheet on ,looks like they are running 255/35r18 on the front:

G-Comp '65 Chevy II Nova Build List

Just throwing this out as a possible another option for suspension, The G comp comes with a forged spindle , and with the wilwood brakes could have a 4.5 bolt pattern.
 
Last edited:
A torsion bar car can corner just as well without all the complete redesign of the suspension. Just sayin
 
I think a plus to this type of setup would be it is nice when you eliminate the torsion bars , you gain all the room to move the engine up or down. Drive line angles can be made to the rear transmission frame area easier .
If your building a car and the owner wants a modern new car feel, I don't think you will ever get it as good as you can with a rack and pinon gearbox.
 
Every suspension system has its pros and cons. Sure, when you get rid of the torsion bars you get more room for headers and things. And you can go rack and pinion. But you also load the chassis in a direction and location where it wasn't intended to carry suspension loads. And if you want to get really picky you probably raise the CG of the system because the coilovers are above the LCA's.

Don't get me wrong with some applications there are reasons to do the conversion. But just to have rack and pinion steering? That's a lot of work for a preference in steering feel. The worm gear boxes don't effect performance at all if they're in good repair. And now that you can get a borgeson power steering box, well I know what I would do.

There's no real improvement in handling capability, as shown by the performance of the Hotchkis cars and a few others. And in this case so far there'd be a decent amount of fabrication needed. You're chopping up a $4,500 suspension system. For that price you could get a Hemi Denny or alterkation set up and just bolt it in. Still a mustang II based system.
 
The main advantage of coilovers if you were to run on multiple tracks is the ease of changing setup.

When I was thinking of getting into time attack with my cuda I was just gonna have different setups of torsion bars leafs and roll bars. There was only a few tracks and few races a year. But don't look like I'll be doing that now.
 
I would ask over at one of the pro-touring sites about this suspension you might get some feedback on it. I don't think it would be to hard to fit it to a mopar if you wanted to do some fab work but there are certainly easier ways to get a coil over front end.
 
273 said:
The main advantage of coilovers if you were to run on multiple tracks is the ease of changing setup.

When I was thinking of getting into time attack with my cuda I was just gonna have different setups of torsion bars leafs and roll bars. There was only a few tracks and few races a year. But don't look like I'll be doing that now.
Click to expand...

I think the "ease of tuning" argument worked a lot better 5 years ago, a lot of parts have come to market even in just that time, let alone the last 10 years. There are several brands of high quality, adjustable shocks that are readily available for road handling mopars now. And torsion bar selection has improved as well. No, there still aren't quite as many torsion bar rate options out there as for coilovers, but, how many do you need? The changes needed from one track to another aren't usually night and day, and realistically even someone that tracks their car frequently as an amateur wouldn't encounter dozens of tracks, probably just a handful. You realistically need what you would run "normally", then maybe a step up and a step down. There are already 1.03's, 1.06's, 1.12's and 1.18's available off the shelf. And there are a couple company's out there that will make custom torsion bars for you if you've got the money, Firm Feel will do it. For most track cars I think if you bought a set of 1.12's and 1.18's, then had a set of 1.16's and 1.2's made you'd be golden. And if you keep the torsion bar sockets lubed up changing the bars isn't really any harder than changing coilover springs. Sway bars selection wouldn't be any better with the coilover set ups, might even be worse. The way to do it would be to make up a splined sway bar set up, and that would be true regardless of the suspension package.

It's not to say there aren't any reasons to use coilovers, but there aren't as many as there used to be. The torsion bar suspensions have a lot more aftermarket support than they used to, and a couple of glaring holes in the aftermarket have been filled in just the last few years. Getting the parts to set up my Duster was remarkably easier than getting the parts for my Challenger when I set it up almost 10 years back. Not a whole lot of options then.
 
blown71duster said:
Found the build sheet on ,looks like they are running 255/35r18 on the front:

G-Comp '65 Chevy II Nova Build List

Just throwing this out as a possible another option for suspension, The G comp comes with a forged spindle , and with the wilwood brakes could have a 4.5 bolt pattern.
Click to expand...

Just had a look at the build list, I like how they show you all the parts and the cost. Looks like $30,000 for parts add a car and the odds and ends and it would cost around $50,000 to replicate. If you are not planning on competing with your car you could build something decent for a lot less, might not be the same performance as the Nova but it would still be fun.
 
I bought an old pro street Dodge Challenger project. I will be cutting out the rear suspension and putting something modern with coilovers.
I plan on doing the same in the front , I want to slam it down with some big tires all the way around. I want to set the front clip at ride height and get the body as low as I can to keep a 6.1 hemi under the hood ..
Going for a look like the Alloway's she devil Challenger ,with T/A styling.

1970-dodge-challenger-She-Devil-alloways-hot-rod-shop.png
 
I love how folks refer to coilovers as "modern". The Mustang II suspension design, which pretty much all of the coilover conversions are based on, is 40+ years old too. They're just springs and shocks, there's not one thing fancy or more "modern" about them. Same for 4 link, 3 link, triangulated 4 links, all of those suspension designs much older than most people realize. The "Ram Rod" '49 Plymouth drag car was running a multi-link rear suspension in 1958. Ram Rod - The High And Mighty - Hot Rod Magazine

"The Plymouth also featured what may have been the first adjustable four-bar rear suspension in a drag car. For inspiration, the chassis committee drew from the Jaguar XJC, one of the last great live-axle sports racers. But with a twist: According to Ramcharger Bill Shope, the Ram Rod used a telescoping left upper link. The setup was intended to work as an offset three-link on acceleration, reverting to a conventional four-link under braking, when the slip-link bottomed out. "

Challenger's can be lowered more than A-bodies will using the torsion bar adjuster. The geometry on the E-bodies is slightly different so they have a little more available travel if they're at a comparable ride height as an A body. I had my Challenger lowered to the point that my above the steering link headers were only 3.5" off the ground. I raised it up about 3/8" from there because I got tired of dragging on speedbumps and driveway transitions. It runs 275/40/17's all the way around, 1.12" torsion bars, FMJ spindles, the B/R body 11.75" disks and an 8 3/4" rear. I even ran 2" drop spindles on this one for awhile before I realized I could lower the car that much without them. The limiting factor on running these cars low isn't the torsion bar suspension. If you run torsion bars large enough to actually handle the tires that will fit on these cars you can lower to the point that header and exhaust clearance is a problem for anything that sees any kind of street time. Here's a shot of my Challenger, you can see I have the tires well tucked into the fenders. And the tires on this one are only 25.6" tall.

IMG_3018.jpg
 
I have a Challenger in the shop right now with coilovers front and rear. I love not having to deal with those torsion bars , I was able to raise transmission up two inches to get my driveline angle correct which also pulled up the TTI headers , nothing hangs down now. The rear set a little high , which was corrected by lowering the shock mount , took a few minutes to get the ride height corrected. I personally would never go back to the oem /torsion bar setup . To each their own.
 
I can actually change a torsion bar in like 5 mins, I don't know how long it takes with a coil over
 
Could you post up some pictures of what you are doing? I'm interested in any kind of alternative suspension systems on Mopars.
 
blown71duster said:
I think a plus to this type of setup would be it is nice when you eliminate the torsion bars , you gain all the room to move the engine up or down. Drive line angles can be made to the rear transmission frame area easier .
If your building a car and the owner wants a modern new car feel, I don't think you will ever get it as good as you can with a rack and pinon gearbox.
Click to expand...
There are only 2 reasons for eliminating torsion bars, you actually need more room for your exhaust, or you want to change the entire front steering/suspension to put a
rack & pinion up front and a rear sump on the engine. How far & where up and down would you be moving the the eng./trans assy.? Between the floor/frame & the road
surface, you only have so much room to go down, & custom headers along w/a dry sump system are in the future if you want to push that one.$$$$$$$$$$$$$
 
There is NO performance gain in changing to a rack and pinion, it's a lot of fabrication work to change the "feel"
 
replicaracer43 said:
There is NO performance gain in changing to a rack and pinion, it's a lot of fabrication work to change the "feel"
Click to expand...
Right, but it's the easiest thing to put in front of the wheels so you can put a full pan w/a rear sump in.
 
With the Torsion bars ,the TTI headers go under them so you can't raise the Transmission up in the rear. If they hang down your stuck with bad ground clearance.
Without them I was able to raise the rear up, to allow good clearance.I had the Hemi engine set in the car at first with stock K setup , I wouldn't have been surprised if there was going to be some problems with the torsion bars rubbing the headers.Things got tight in that area real quick
Also the torsion bar frame is very structural. with coil overs in the front you can cut it for clearance for larger transmissions, overdrive etc. TKO in this case . I have seen some of the factory rear torsion frames eliminated and thin fabricated ones put in for custom mounts and better clearance for exhaust.
These coil over setups with rack in the front just make it easier to build a street car with Engines and transmission that didn't come in them stock.

IMG_0674.JPG


IMG_0663.JPG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top