We had a '66 SS in the family from new until 1994. It was my first car and under my care/abuse from '76-on. That car should not have had a V8 in it. Lousy 4-wheel drum brakes, weird front suspension, single leaf rear suspension, and no front fender liners so they rotted out in 5 years. While I was restoring it in the mid-'80s my daily driver was a 1984 Celica GTS. Driving that car made it quite clear just how bad the 1962-1967 Chevy II design was.
Vehicle sighting - 1967 Chevy Nova
- Thread starter Number_35
- Start date
Originally Posted by clinebarger
Originally Posted by caprice_2nv
Originally Posted by 4WD
Yep … worked at a machine shop in my high school years … 2 guys there jammed a 327/350 in one …
frame would twist badly … they never had good results … scary car …
Was the next body style better in that regards? I rode in one with a factory 427 4 speed. Fast car, but terrible brakes. The owner later upgraded it with aluminum heads and a 6 speed trans. The mechanic that worked on it helped me with my 87 Cutlass a few times when I was in high school.
The 2nd gen Nova (X-Body) was based on the 1st gen F-Body, It needed subframe connectors just like the F-body did. But was leaps & bounds better in terms of rigidity than the 1st gen Chevy II.
Still had the poor front-end geometry inherent in almost all GM vehicles of the era.
Originally Posted by caprice_2nv
Originally Posted by 4WD
Yep … worked at a machine shop in my high school years … 2 guys there jammed a 327/350 in one …
frame would twist badly … they never had good results … scary car …
Was the next body style better in that regards? I rode in one with a factory 427 4 speed. Fast car, but terrible brakes. The owner later upgraded it with aluminum heads and a 6 speed trans. The mechanic that worked on it helped me with my 87 Cutlass a few times when I was in high school.
The 2nd gen Nova (X-Body) was based on the 1st gen F-Body, It needed subframe connectors just like the F-body did. But was leaps & bounds better in terms of rigidity than the 1st gen Chevy II.
Still had the poor front-end geometry inherent in almost all GM vehicles of the era.
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
Still had the poor front-end geometry inherent in almost all GM vehicles of the era.
Light years ahead of the Chevy II set-up which was almost identical to the Mustang/Falcon front suspension of the same era. Before the Mustang II.....I wouldn't call the front end geometry on any domestic vehicle very good.
Still had the poor front-end geometry inherent in almost all GM vehicles of the era.
Light years ahead of the Chevy II set-up which was almost identical to the Mustang/Falcon front suspension of the same era. Before the Mustang II.....I wouldn't call the front end geometry on any domestic vehicle very good.
Originally Posted by clinebarger
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
Still had the poor front-end geometry inherent in almost all GM vehicles of the era.
Light years ahead of the Chevy II set-up which was almost identical to the Mustang/Falcon front suspension of the same era. Before the Mustang II.....I wouldn't call the front end geometry on any domestic vehicle very good.
Gm A bodies 73+ we're pretty good, just in time for the much less stylish body. Also b bodies 71-96 are pretty good, despite being large boats.
My friend who's almost twice my age and grew up back in those days was a Ford guy back then, but he recalls the gm cars like the Camaro being light years ahead of Mustangs at the time in the handling department.
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
Still had the poor front-end geometry inherent in almost all GM vehicles of the era.
Light years ahead of the Chevy II set-up which was almost identical to the Mustang/Falcon front suspension of the same era. Before the Mustang II.....I wouldn't call the front end geometry on any domestic vehicle very good.
Gm A bodies 73+ we're pretty good, just in time for the much less stylish body. Also b bodies 71-96 are pretty good, despite being large boats.
My friend who's almost twice my age and grew up back in those days was a Ford guy back then, but he recalls the gm cars like the Camaro being light years ahead of Mustangs at the time in the handling department.
I believe that you could get it in a 396 cu in at one point. Or maybe it was the Chevy II
Originally Posted by clinebarger
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
Still had the poor front-end geometry inherent in almost all GM vehicles of the era.
Light years ahead of the Chevy II set-up which was almost identical to the Mustang/Falcon front suspension of the same era. Before the Mustang II.....I wouldn't call the front end geometry on any domestic vehicle very good.
Chrysler A-body. Chrysler's torsion-bar front suspension was exceptional. (It's good even by today's standards.)
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
Still had the poor front-end geometry inherent in almost all GM vehicles of the era.
Light years ahead of the Chevy II set-up which was almost identical to the Mustang/Falcon front suspension of the same era. Before the Mustang II.....I wouldn't call the front end geometry on any domestic vehicle very good.
Chrysler A-body. Chrysler's torsion-bar front suspension was exceptional. (It's good even by today's standards.)
Ahead of their time for sure, Exceptional isn't the word I would use. They blew out Strut Rod Bushings quite often, Not that Ford & GM products that used Strut Rods didn't do the same (My '65 & '66 Impalas had strut rods).....They reminded me of Chrysler front ends without the Torsion Bars
GM used Torsion Bar set-ups on '60-'62 trucks, I've heard Chrysler sued them over it? But I can't confirm that. Of coarse GM took Torsion Bars & ran with it on their 4x4 IFS trucks.
GM used Torsion Bar set-ups on '60-'62 trucks, I've heard Chrysler sued them over it? But I can't confirm that. Of coarse GM took Torsion Bars & ran with it on their 4x4 IFS trucks.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Al
I believe that you could get it in a 396 cu in at one point. Or maybe it was the Chevy II
Starting with the '68 X-Body redesign.....You could get a big block. A SBC barely fit in the '62-'67 Chevy II
I believe that you could get it in a 396 cu in at one point. Or maybe it was the Chevy II
Starting with the '68 X-Body redesign.....You could get a big block. A SBC barely fit in the '62-'67 Chevy II
Originally Posted by clinebarger
Ahead of their time for sure, Exceptional isn't the word I would use. They blew out Strut Rod Bushings quite often, Not that Ford & GM products that used Strut Rods didn't do the same (My '65 & '66 Impalas had strut rods).....They reminded me of Chrysler front ends without the Torsion Bars
GM used Torsion Bar set-ups on '60-'62 trucks, I've heard Chrysler sued them over it? But I can't confirm that. Of coarse GM took Torsion Bars & ran with it on their 4x4 IFS trucks.
I would. Stock geometry and factory parts down to the wheel bearing grease:
![[Linked Image from i.pinimg.com]](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f0/90/c0/f090c0c1032d374512a0dbc014c911f4.jpg "[Linked Image from i.pinimg.com]")
https://www.allpar.com/history/mopar/lapping-valiant.html
Ahead of their time for sure, Exceptional isn't the word I would use. They blew out Strut Rod Bushings quite often, Not that Ford & GM products that used Strut Rods didn't do the same (My '65 & '66 Impalas had strut rods).....They reminded me of Chrysler front ends without the Torsion Bars
GM used Torsion Bar set-ups on '60-'62 trucks, I've heard Chrysler sued them over it? But I can't confirm that. Of coarse GM took Torsion Bars & ran with it on their 4x4 IFS trucks.
I would. Stock geometry and factory parts down to the wheel bearing grease:
https://www.allpar.com/history/mopar/lapping-valiant.html
Similar threads
