79 Nova Wheelbase

[Perspect Scale Modelworks]

Can someone tell me what the wheelbase is on the MPC '79 Nova? I may be able to use the chassis for another project.

Thanks

[Ace-Garageguy]

The real car's wheelbase is 111 inches.

Divide by 25, as the MPC kit is 1/25 scale.

Therefore the actual wheelbase of the kit should be 4.44 inches.

[Ulf]

See my q a few days ago regarding AMT 77 + MPC 79 Chevrolet Nova kitbash.

I think think think another Nova like Revell's 69 and sub frame and front end from a Camaro is a way to build a detailed Nova out of MPC's 79 Nova.

[mcs1056]

1 hour ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

The real car's wheelbase is 111 inches.

Divide by 25, as the MPC kit is 1/25 scale.

Therefore the actual wheelbase of the kit should be 4.44 inches.

I think a Nova's real wheelbase is 111" on the left, and 114" on the right, with the differenct built in to the rear axle. That's how you get that sweet ofset (Beagle) tracking. 

[Cool Hand]

[Perspect Scale Modelworks]

38 minutes ago, Cool Hand said:

Perfect. Thank you. Nice looking Nova by the way

Edited September 3 by Perspect Scale Modelworks
Spelling

[Ace-Garageguy]

5 hours ago, mcs1056 said:

I think a Nova's real wheelbase is 111" on the left, and 114" on the right, with the differenct built in to the rear axle. That's how you get that sweet ofset (Beagle) tracking. 

I guess this is a joke, but 1) I don't know what a "differenct" is, and 2) never in over 50 years of working on real cars have I ever seen a staggered rear axle. 

And the 112 mm shown above is 4.4 inches...like I said.

[Rob Hall]

As far as actual cars with different wheel bases on each side, the only one I know of is the Renault R4..may be others more obscure.

[stitchdup]

poorly repaired original minis tend to have differing wheelbases. its one of the easy tells for accident damage

[Fat Brian]

44 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

I guess this is a joke, but 1) I don't know what a "differenct" is, and 2) never in over 50 years of working on real cars have I ever seen a staggered rear axle. 

And the 112 mm shown above is 4.4 inches...like I said.

I remember something would fail in the rear suspension of these cars, particularly in rust belt areas, and cause the rear axle wander a bit.

[Ace-Garageguy]

1 hour ago, Fat Brian said:

I remember something would fail in the rear suspension of these cars, particularly in rust belt areas, and cause the rear axle wander a bit.

Ah ha. I see...

[Can-Con]

1 hour ago, Fat Brian said:

I remember something would fail in the rear suspension of these cars, particularly in rust belt areas, and cause the rear axle wander a bit.

My '79 was so rusty at the end of it that when you jacked up the back bumper, the 1/4 panel would start folding up on that side but I never had the axel "wander" even then. 

[Ace-Garageguy]

1 hour ago, stitchdup said:

poorly repaired original minis tend to have differing wheelbases. its one of the easy tells for accident damage

I've seen more than a few cars where the front control arms have been bent or displaced in "accidents" and not repaired correctly, with a resulting difference in wheelbase side-to-side...with attendant crabbing because you just can't align something like that, many more rusted out suspension mounts on the rear resulting in all manner of weird unintended dimensional changes and crabbing, a badly lozenged frame on a brandy-new big GM SUV (after hitting a bollard) that an "expert" body shop somehow missed, I'm familiar with the above-mentioned Renault with an engineered-in different wheelbase on each side, and I've recently seen a late-model Ford Bronco that hit a curb hard enough its wimpy rear axle housing came away with camber without bending a wheel (that all the estimators and "experts" also somehow missed), but I've never seen a solid-rear-axle American vehicle that came with some kind of offset wheelbase "with the differenct built in to the rear axle"...so I guess I'm just too stupid to get the joke. 

[Ace-Garageguy]

17 minutes ago, Can-Con said:

My '79 was so rusty at the end of it that when you jacked up the back bumper, the 1/4 panel would start folding up on that side but I never had the axel "wander" even then. 

First E-type I bought was so badly rusted structurally (and subsequently covered over with something like thick tarpaper and bondo) that you actually had to put a floor jack under the center of the sill to open the passenger door (not convenient on dates), and when you went down the road you could feel it was somehow "different" from other similar cars...but it didn't wear tires oddly and the wheels were in the centers of all the arches and it didn't seem to be crabbing.  

Edited September 3 by Ace-Garageguy
punctiliousness

[Rob Hall]

When I grew up in the Florida Keys in the 80s, the local newspaper would run a weekly pic of a ‘Keys Cruiser’—either something old or customized but also often something very, very rusty. A friend from high school had a rusty ‘75 Granada he sawed the roof off of to make a convertible, for instance.   A neighbor had a rusty mid 70s Cutlass wagon where the body mounts had broken off the frame and it went down the road with the body at an angle (maybe 10-15 degrees) to the chassis…

[thatz4u]

2 hours ago, Fat Brian said:

I remember something would fail in the rear suspension of these cars, particularly in rust belt areas, and cause the rear axle wander a bit.

AKA Dog tracking, sometimes caused by a poor rebuild by shadetree body man.

[mcs1056]

5 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

I guess this is a joke, but 1) I don't know what a "differenct" is, and 2) never in over 50 years of working on real cars have I ever seen a staggered rear axle. 

And the 112 mm shown above is 4.4 inches...like I said.

1) Who are you...Peteski? Its an error typing.

2) As others have noted, that era Nova had structural/rust issues. It bacame rare to see one tracking straight.

[Ace-Garageguy]

23 minutes ago, mcs1056 said:

1) Who are you...Peteski? 

Really?

I'm just little ol' me.

Edited September 4 by Ace-Garageguy

[peteski]

I have a reputation! And from a newbie member no less. Awesome! I love it!

Edited September 4 by peteski

[bobss396]

Slightly older Novas were 110", I recall this from my racing days.

The minimum WB was 108", which excluded cars like the Mustangs from the class I ran.

[1930fordpickup]

Novas have a reputation of the rear leaf springs breaking or sagging so they tend to dog track.  Very very common. Even my brothers low millage 72 had this problem after awhile. 

[espo]

On 9/3/2025 at 6:16 PM, thatz4u said:

AKA Dog tracking, sometimes caused by a poor rebuild by shadetree body man.

AKA "Dog Walking" has another possibility with vehicles with a parallel rear leaf spring suspension, if the differential has had an impact that actually moved the differential from its proper mounting position on the leaf springs. 

[Ace-Garageguy]

Never mind.

 

Edited Monday at 01:04 AM by Ace-Garageguy
punctiliousness

[TECHMAN]

8 hours ago, espo said:

 the differential has had an impact that actually moved the differential from its proper mounting position on the leaf springs. 

 

On 9/3/2025 at 5:32 PM, Ace-Garageguy said:

I've never seen a solid-rear-axle American vehicle that came with some kind of offset wheelbase "with the differenct built in to the rear axle"...

First, let me say, I am neither a know-it-all, nor a "walking encyclopedia", BUT, I was a certified TECHMAN (thus the nickname) and worked meets at tracks sanctioned by IHRA, NHRA, IMCA UMP, and even Texas Motor Speedway (the NASCAR track)......  With that said.......

Nova was a leaf spring rear suspension, the only way to "off-set" the wheelbase in the rear, was to either move the entire leaf spring (mounts and all), OR, (and I caught some cheaters at "circle-track" races), had welded the original "locater hole" and "re-drilled" a new on further back in the spring perch (driver side) and farther forward(Passenger side) to shorten the driver-side wheelbase (advantage on a circle-track).

Drag meets that I worked, the "common" was to "play with" the front control arms to move one front tire forward, and the other side back.  This gave you an "advantage" at the starting line (keeping the beams broken while the car was actually in motion) helping the driver to not red-light, and improving his/her reaction time.  Thus, most sanctioning bodies limited the wheelbase variation to 2 inches.

Have seen COIL spring cars that would "crab-walk" from being in accidents (street cars) and a few "dirt-trackers" that had "reworked" the rear control-arms (or mounting locations) in order to make the car "rear-steer"  (where the wheelbase will actually change during acceleration/deceleration).  The newer "stock cars" , modifieds, late-models, etc., this is the common set-up now.

All things said:  The Chevy Nova rear suspension will track straight IF nothing has been altered or damaged, and from the factory, both sides were the same....😊

Hope that helps...

DJ

Edited Monday at 01:34 AM by TECHMAN
additional info

[TECHMAN]

On 9/3/2025 at 6:43 AM, Perspect Scale Modelworks said:

Can someone tell me what the wheelbase is on the MPC '79 Nova? I may be able to use the chassis for another project.

Thanks

S  O  R  R  Y  for helping "de-rail" your original question, seriously.   To try to help:  If you are considering a racecar for the Nova chassis, you will be able to find several different bodies to use it under that were "close" to the same wheelbase (you can always google search the vehicle wheelbase of the body) and with a little "modeling skill", you can "adjust" the wheelbase on the Nova chassis to fit.  Look forward to seeing what you build.  

DJ