240 Irs

[BDKR]

Has anyone actually done an IRS conversion on a 240?

And BTW, if you don't know the answer don't tell me about how it would suck.

[Mueller]

this is something I would think one of those crazy yet talented swedish guys would have done by now :-D

would love to see some pics.....I always thought the 242 would be closer to being "510-ish" if it had an IRS....but with body panels made 10X thicker !!!

[quinn_volvo]

And BTW, if you don't know the answer don't tell me about how it would suck. .

[BDKR]

would love to see some pics.....I always thought the 242 would be closer to being "510-ish" if it had an IRS....but with body panels made 10X thicker !!!


Tell me about it bro! Of course, a 242 is a little bigger, but I agree.

There really isn't any reason not to unless it's simply a matter of cost. Rodders have been doing this stuff for ages.

[MrBill]

I'd look to the small-block swappers to the answer. Hardcore guys enjoy doing stuff like that, and I bet (at least in america) its been done with the vette rear end/transmission.

[Captain Bondo]

What are you wondering, or what is it more specifically that you are actually wondering? If you're trying to determine if it is doable then of course the answer is yes.

I have spent sometime looking at it and am quite certain I could do it rather easily. When and if I get around to the 142 is will get IRS more just because I like doing **** like that and I've already done a non-stock solid axle swap. Might as well try something different.

People seem to like the jag stuff becuase of the inboard brakes but they always seemed like a nightmare to me.

I think the lincoln Mark VIII or some manner of Mustang Cobra (or maybe both?) got what was essentially an aluminum 8.8 center section but used as an IRS setup. Sounds good to me! :-D

[BDKR]

What are you wondering, or what is it more specifically that you are actually wondering? If you're trying to determine if it is doable then of course the answer is yes.

I have spent sometime looking at it and am quite certain I could do it rather easily. When and if I get around to the 142 is will get IRS more just because I like doing **** like that and I've already done a non-stock solid axle swap. Might as well try something different.

People seem to like the jag stuff becuase of the inboard brakes but they always seemed like a nightmare to me.

I think the lincoln Mark VIII or some manner of Mustang Cobra (or maybe both?) got what was essentially an aluminum 8.8 center section but used as an IRS setup. Sounds good to me! :-D

I've exchanged a couple of emails with Dave at team321.com and I'm seriously considering it. I'm at the stage where I need to send him measurements, but it's the kind of thing where I also really need to decide on the financial expenditure.

Oh well....

[Poik]

I think the lincoln Mark VIII or some manner of Mustang Cobra (or maybe both?) got what was essentially an aluminum 8.8 center section but used as an IRS setup. Sounds good to me! :-D
The newer Cobras got the IRS with the 8.8 center section. My friend has one in his foxbody, it's almost bolt in (for better and worse). It's great for putting in a Mustang because they designed it around the chassis to be completely bolt in, without changing suspension mounting points on the frame or anything. But, the nature of that is that it's a cluster **** if you ask me.
http://mysticcobra.net/system/00irs.jpg

[Mueller]

I think the lincoln Mark VIII or some manner of Mustang Cobra (or maybe both?) got what was essentially an aluminum 8.8 center section but used as an IRS setup. Sounds good to me! :-D

did some reading on these aluminum pumpkins a few weeks ago, different versions are stronger than others, a steel reinforcment "girdle" is avialable to help keep them from blowing up...

IRS (http://www.factoryfive.com/table/irs/irsdonor.html)

[Captain Bondo]

LOL, from 321's website:

<big><big><big><big>
Team321 uses a Ford 8.8 differential used in Thunderbird, Cougar and Lincoln Mark VIII from 1989 - 1997


</big></big></big></big>The mustang stuff looks like a cluster****, but it also looks more compact than the pics at the 321 site. Not sure how all of that would fit back there to be honest, but it looks like they do a few different styles. The mustang gear looks pretty useable actually if you used different shocks.

[carnut1100]

Would it be feasible to fit 760 IRS?

[Poik]

Would it be feasible to fit 760 IRS?
Probably just as feasible as any other feasible option, but why?

There are simpler and stronger options out there guys..

[DaytonAE86]

I would say that its worth it, I've seen an S13 IRS on an AE86. It worked well, according to the guy who did it (check out www.club4ag.com).

The Mustang IRS looks like it has some adjustable bits, but the nicest thing is that its an assembly, almost ready to drop in (back half the car, box up a nice section for the IRS, get some different springs and shocks to fit with current strut towers). Its easier said than done, but a setup like that would be 100 times easier to find and install than say, something from a BMW or Nissan.

Why would you want to do this, for drag racing, it would just make launches harder. The only place I could imagine seeing any benefits would be out on track, with less unsprung weight.

[Poik]

Its easier said than done, but a setup like that would be 100 times easier to find and install than say, something from a BMW or Nissan.
We'll come back to this. You are wrong by the way.

[DaytonAE86]

What, as far as a setup that can be bolted straight in? Show me how im wrong, the AE86 setup had to have a completely new subframe fabricated. As far as I know, a BMW IRS bolts to a subframe, but is it something that can be pulled as a whole assembly (with all suspension mounting points) and swapped as a unit.

[Poik]

http://www.unofficialbmw.com/e30/suspension/e30_rear_suspension.jpg

3 bolts plus spring/shock location.

Edit: Also, spring/shock can be incorporated with a coilover setup mounted where the shock goes.

[DaytonAE86]

Still nowhere near as contained a unit as the Cobra IRS. Not to mention parts availability and cost (8.8 LSDs are a dime a dozen). Its doesn't look bad though, and would probably weigh less. It would be a great combo for those running getrag trans with the crazy gearing.

[Poik]

Ok what are you talking about? It's every bit as contained as the Ford IRS, more so actually. It's more compact, a LOT lighter, cheaper, and more easily available. And the type of transmission does not come into play when selecting the rear suspension type. Are you on drugs?

Let me just ask you this. Have you made measurements on the Ford IRS and found out where one would have to reinforce a 240 to mount one? Have you done the same thing for a BMW E30 rear IRS assembly? I have, and the E30 assembly is hands down an easier project.

[DaytonAE86]

Ok what are you talking about? It's every bit as contained as the Ford IRS, more so actually. It's more compact, a LOT lighter, cheaper, and more easily available. And the type of transmission does not come into play when selecting the rear suspension type. Are you on drugs?

Let me just ask you this. Have you made measurements on the Ford IRS and found out where one would have to reinforce a 240 to mount one? Have you done the same thing for a BMW E30 rear IRS assembly? I have, and the E30 assembly is hands down an easier project.

I resent the comment out drugs, its been over a year, but whatever.

I was looking at the aftermarket assembly, not the OEM one. Still looks like the Ford IRS is braced and held together well.

As for transmission and rearend type, I'm talking about the gearing of getrags, how you get such a short first and second and third (well, every gear really) with a stock volvo rearend ratio, unless you drop to a numerically lower rearend gear. The only way I would consider a getrag swap would be in an IRS car that I can swap both trans and differential in one fell swoop, and not have to worry about getrags crazy gearing.

And yes, I've been under an E30, taken a look at it, said **** that, and checked out the selection of 8.8s......

It may be lighter, but I'll take something with parts that I can order straight from summit :-P instead of a weak E30 IRS, might as well go with E36 stuff.

[Poik]

It may be lighter, but I'll take something with parts that I can order straight from summit :-P instead of a weak E30 IRS, might as well go with E36 stuff.
This comment shows that you know nothing of what you are talking about. Yeah, might as well go with E36 stuff, except the point of the E30 stuff is that it is simple and compact, cheaper, and more readily available. The ring and pinion are the same 188mm diameter from the E30 big differentials as in the E36 (and E46 to current as far as I know). And the gear ratios can be had from 2.93 or lower up to 4.45 or so. What are you going to order from Summit anyways for an 8.8 if you ever even decided to collect just the parts?

[DaytonAE86]

The reason I mentioned E36 stuff was for adjustability. I'm wouldn't swap in an IRS just to say I have IRS. I would want it for the added adjustability (toe, castor and camber). The E30 rear suspension doesn't offer that, that was the biggest downfall of the M-Coupe, was being saddled to a 15 year old rear suspension design that couldn't put the power down as effectively as the E36/E46. Yes, its compact (is that always a good thing?) and you wouldn't lose as much floor space, and its simple (is that always a good thing) so its easy to fix. But, if its just a stock IRS with no adjustable bits, and the design leaves out alot of room for adjustment. I atleast want to be able to tweak toe and camber, without that, there would be no reason for me to go IRS "Oh boy, I just cut off about 70 lbs unsprung weight, with 20 hours of work"

[Poik]

You wouldn't spend 20 hours of work to cut off 70lbs of unsprung weight? I sure would.

Number one, you gain negative camber and toe characteristics that the live axle does not have.

Number two, you can buy eccentric bearings to adjust camber and toe (though not independently)

Number three, if you can install an E30 rear suspension into a Volvo 242, I don't think you will have a problem adding rod ends to the trailing arms :roll:

[DaytonAE86]

I wouldn't work 20 hours for 70 lbs of unsprung weight with a possible ****ty turnout.

Your completely missing the point, one look at the E30 IRS is enough to tell me its not up to what I want from an IRS. If you can settle with camber and toe that are not independently adjustable, fine. I've had my fair share with a RAV4 and the adjustable cam bolts... short of pulling the frame, I can't get that thing adjusted right in the rear. If it was capable of just a bit more adjustment, I don't think I would be turned off to the idea of an E30 suspension.

One look at the Ford IRS, and Nissan IRS, and they are superior designs. The Nissan probably has the best geometry, and the Ford is probably the strongest.

[Poik]

If you can settle with camber and toe that are not independently adjustable, fine.
See Number Three above.

[Poik]

Also, if I had my druthers I would use the E36 rear suspension (Z-axle), which is one of the best designed IRS assemblies in production cars. But, finding a wrecked or parts E30 is a lot easier than finding an E36.

[DaytonAE86]

Meh. I've debated 760 IRS on my car, with a BMW or 8.8 diff and adjustable rod ends on stock (strengthened with some heebtastic welding) arms. This will probably never happen because I have an 8.8 sitting right now, waiting to be ****ed with.

My whole point is, why go with a subpar design. Back to the OP. If your looking for a more stock application, yes, the E30 IRS would probably work fine and take relatively little if any extra floor space. But to me, that defeats the purpose of going through all the trouble of installing it. Space is't too much of a concern, I have no back seats. Adjustability is 1, strength is number 2. All the better if I don't have to fabricate stuff and can just order it off the shelf. That aftermarket Ford assembly looks ungodly tough and supremely adjustable.

http://www.factoryfive.com/table/irs/images/irsjig.jpg

Has anyone even thought about just building their own around a differential?????
http://www.theneonworks.com/images/IRS/CIMG0134.JPG

[Kuikka]

Allso E30 M3 rear end isn't super strong. Friend of mine kept breaking those on 1802TI and eventually went for M5 rear end and then onely driveshafts fails occasionally. And that is on track with approx 450hp with street tyres as per rules of class.

And lucky for me I'm onely intrested in straight line so 9" here I came...

[Poik]

What broke? Which version of E30 rear end?

[Kuikka]

Few LSD:s and ring and pinion gears. And year model I don't know but basic M3 from e30 stuff.

Btw. allso here in rallying they started to have problems in group F where e30 M3's are really fast. Reason is that in it's time no problems, but with modern engine tech they make 30Nm more and 1500RPM more then before they have to go really numerically high gear ratios and have onely 1,5 gears in contact continously in ring gear.

[tjts1]

I doubt anybody is actually going to swap an IRS into a 240 but just for fun heres some heavy reading on the E30 semi trailing arm suspension.
http://www.e30m3performance.com/tech_articles/susp-tech/index.htm
"Rear Suspension - Camber and Toe Curves" is especially interesting.

[Spac]

3rd generation RX-7?

If you're just going to end up with a semi-trailing arm rear end, I wouldn't think the conversion was worth the effort... The RX-7 (and many others) are much nicer than any semi-trailing arm junk.

RX-7 Turbo stuff doesn't break behind 500hp 13BTs, has big range of diff ratios, and big range of LSDs. Most likely source of breakage is the CVs in the half-shafts, but there are solutions. Plus you can buy 9" conversions if you really want to get serious (although I've NEVER heard of anyone saying they've broken a Mazda 8" diff).

[impulse922]

03/04 cobra stuff. now thats IRS.

[hokman]

this is something I would think one of those crazy yet talented swedish guys would have done by now :-D

would love to see some pics.....I always thought the 242 would be closer to being "510-ish" if it had an IRS....but with body panels made 10X thicker !!!

To be honest, 240 doesn't have thick panels at all. You have to go see jaguar e-type or merc w116 for rock thick panels.

[JohnMc]

I remember my E30's rear suspension as being slightly wonky.

A fun trick you could do with it was to haul on the parking brake, and then either bump the rear end up or down a couple of inches with it in 1st or reverse.

[740Weapon]

if you give up due to cost...half the problem with feel is unsprung weight with a solid axle.

an aluminum diff cover, a sway bar mounted to the chassis NOT the axle, and some light wheels might help the feel of the car.

you could prob get an aluminum drive shaft and some lightweight linkage components as well.

If you want camber, i am pretty sure it has been shown that a giant hydraulic press can add some camber to the rear axle.

[BDKR]

I really wish I knew why everyone keeps talking about swaps that have a very high probability of being far less then optimal.

Here is a pic of the team321 unit.
http://team321.com/321HotRodIRS/images/AssembledDisplayModel.jpg

This is just one possible configuration BTW. Additionally, I don't have to use the Ford 8.8.

There are two more big points that swapping a unit from another car can't account for.

1) Variation on design based on available space.
2) Client specified track width.


Why would you want to do this, for drag racing, it would just make launches harder. The only place I could imagine seeing any benefits would be out on track, with less unsprung weight.


I'm not a drag racing guy. Never have and most likely never will be. I prefer apex straffing. The more challenging a complex of corners, the better. :)

[BDKR]

Just to back up what I said about variation on design based on the client car, take a look at this page here.

http://team321.com/321HotRodIRS/321HotRodIRShome.html

[Alex Buchka]

03/04 cobra stuff. now thats IRS.

Bad idea really. The whole design had some serious compromises in order to make it a bolt in subframe under the existing mustang body. Wheel hop is a big problem.

[Nick]

New favorite thread.

I've been secretly thinking about this for a while now. I'll be interested to see where it goes.

[John V, outside agitator]

To be honest, 240 doesn't have thick panels at all. You have to go see jaguar e-type or merc w116 for rock thick panels.

Agreed. I always thought from looking at the things that real 510s were fairly stout, and that stoutness is helped by the shell being relatively short.

Wanna see stout or thick, then look at an old Saab 96. Sills are maybe 2.5 times thicker than 240, floor 2 times, pillars thicker and then shoved inside the pillars are fformed tubes with about 120 wall.

240s are a good basic shell but the do want strengthening and some additional "doubler" panels.

:nod:

[BDKR]

New favorite thread.

I've been secretly thinking about this for a while now. I'll be interested to see where it goes.

It's definitely represents a serious cash outlay. OTOH, there is some potential if the effort is expended.

I personally haven't made the commitment yet. I WANT TO, but there is just so many other things yet to do on the car. I may just continue to maintain a rapport with 321 and put the project off until sometim in the future.

I wanted to open this thread just to see what the current think is on the topic.

[John V, outside agitator]

Just to back up what I said about variation on design based on the client car, take a look at this page here.

http://team321.com/321HotRodIRS/321HotRodIRShome.html

Big question is : why?

Lots of work but what's the problem you're trying to solve.
Defining that would make the cost/work to benefit ratio clearer.

[BDKR]

Big question is : why?

Lots of work but what's the problem you're trying to solve.
Defining that would make the cost/work to benefit ratio clearer.

In a lot of ways John, it's the same as for a good many of us. Capt Bondo kind of elluded to it as well.


...When and if I get around to the 142 is will get IRS more just because I like doing **** like that and I've already done a non-stock solid axle swap. Might as well try something different.


1) I just want to do it.
2) An IRS setup is superior for what I want out of the car.

I'm not a drag racer, but instead a guy that likes to go around corners. After having done so in F body Camaros, 3 generations of Legacy Wagons (including the Outback), E30's, 510's, and as of late, 240's, I can say that 240's and Camaros really don't feel that planted out back when it starts to get bumpy. A little faith, good tire choice, and throttle application helps deal with that, but I'd rather not have that feeling at all.

Now I do believe that a live axle setup can really be well tuned, but doing so doesn't do anything for the "Holy ****!" factor and the sense of satisfaction of having turned my 244 into a frackin' stomping GT car.

[Poik]

I really wish I knew why everyone keeps talking about swaps that have a very high probability of being far less then optimal.
Newsflash, a redblock is far less than optimal.

[BDKR]

Newsflash, a redblock is far less than optimal.

Yeah, they're not very effective as differentials. :roll:

[volvorsport]

i have to say , regards IRS , on a really smooth race track (ie what you want) , the live axle would be muchh better . always at the camber angle you started with .

IRS can be better (unsprung weight) ,but also because a wider spring base gives you teh same roll resistance with softer springs for traction . BUT if you have setup a live axle properly , on a smooth surface it has no camber/toe irregularities that it can often have .

Grp a cossies always struggled with semi tailing arms , and its inherent camber /toe until they modded it for WRC use , they were allowed to modify it properly , so dont just assume IRS is always better , especially where e30 rears are concerned because they are semi trailing too .

besides , just find a GRp a axle , its got negative camber as std !

[Karl Buchka]

besides , just find a GRp a axle , its got negative camber as std !

"Just," yeah... good luck with that. Although, I do happen to know someone who has one lying around...

[blkaplan]

I can say that 240's and Camaros really don't feel that planted out back when it starts to get bumpy. A little faith, good tire choice, and throttle application helps deal with that, but I'd rather not have that feeling at all.

One thing that i noticed helping to pickup up a lot of rear grip was extending the rear track width, its very narrow compared to front from the factory. The 285's helped to but its the outward position which made the difference.

[BDKR]

i have to say , regards IRS , on a really smooth race track (ie what you want) , the live axle would be muchh better . always at the camber angle you started with .

IRS can be better (unsprung weight) ,but also because a wider spring base gives you teh same roll resistance with softer springs for traction . BUT if you have setup a live axle properly , on a smooth surface it has no camber/toe irregularities that it can often have .


The real world roads tend to be kinda bumpy. Driving 8/10's-9/10's over mountain roads you may not be familiar with makes me want to err on the side of IRS.

And some of these tracks that various sports car clubs down here use are pretty damn bumpy. Sebring and Moroso are terrible!


Grp a cossies always struggled with semi tailing arms , and its inherent camber /toe until they modded it for WRC use , they were allowed to modify it properly , so dont just assume IRS is always better , especially where e30 rears are concerned because they are semi trailing too .

besides , just find a GRp a axle , its got negative camber as std !

Well, I don't actually assume IRS is better in all situations. I believe I've given my reasons as a matter of fact. I've had far less "high-pucker-factor" moments in fast bump sweepers in IRS cars then live axle.

OTOH, if your style is to park it mid corner and square the exit in a plume of tire smoke and aggression, it prolly doesn't matter what you have outback.

[BDKR]

One thing that i noticed helping to pickup up a lot of rear grip was extending the rear track width, its very narrow compared to front from the factory. The 285's helped to but its the outward position which made the difference.

One thing you may notice about the 321 option is that I can spec the rear track. Now that implies that some body work may be in order. I kinda wanted to have the guy that did you flares do mine if I take that route.

[DaytonAE86]

Wow, now that is a nice IRS. Looks like its got all the adjustability I'd ever dream of.

How much does a setup like that run, and what other diff options are there?

[John V, outside agitator]

In a lot of ways John, it's the same as for a good many of us. Capt Bondo kind of elluded to it as well.



1) I just want to do it.
2) An IRS setup is superior for what I want out of the car.

I'm not a drag racer, but instead a guy that likes to go around corners. After having done so in F body Camaros, 3 generations of Legacy Wagons (including the Outback), E30's, 510's, and as of late, 240's, I can say that 240's and Camaros really don't feel that planted out back when it starts to get bumpy. A little faith, good tire choice, and throttle application helps deal with that, but I'd rather not have that feeling at all.

Now I do believe that a live axle setup can really be well tuned, but doing so doesn't do anything for the "Holy ****!" factor and the sense of satisfaction of having turned my 244 into a frackin' stomping GT car.

HHoooookay.
You know I hain't a racer in drag too, and what I do involves roads bumpier, more crowned, and in general trickier than any asphalt I've ever seen in North America (Irish, English, French!!! and some Italian asphalt can be really narrow, rough, and loose).
And the car that thru time has been able to STILL go with nearly anything down these type of roads has a simple live axle with 23+" locating links upper and lower.

Tons of the Swedes using Volvo on their roads (which are often much much smoother) go crazy fast as you have seen in these crazy vids of GpH and GpF, and all they've done is build their cars like the above hinted Ex-squirt.

Want some more vids as a reminder?


--->Have you at least considered the easier mod of doing proper location of a live axle with long links/Coilovers?

I sorta work by the principal: A Good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.

And a good plan is one that I know what the results will be THIS good, vs "I really have no idea at all if this will work any better than stock poo poo"

[Poik]

One thing you may notice about the 321 option is that I can spec the rear track. Now that implies that some body work may be in order. I kinda wanted to have the guy that did you flares do mine if I take that route.
A little bird told me that there are these things called "wheels" that let you spec the rear track width too.

[BDKR]

HHoooookay.
You know I hain't a racer in drag too, and what I do involves roads bumpier, more crowned, and in general trickier than any asphalt I've ever seen in North America (Irish, English, French!!! and some Italian asphalt can be really narrow, rough, and loose).
And the car that thru time has been able to STILL go with nearly anything down these type of roads has a simple live axle with 23+" locating links upper and lower.


There's a key difference here: you rally guys are normally expecting a slide or are sliding. On asphalt, that's not the desireable way to go around corners. On asphalt, spinning up the drive wheels burns up energy you need for drive coming off the apex. The sooner you can controlably get on the gas, the faster you will most likely be going at the end of a corresponding straight / chute. Drive is EVERYTHING and if your spinning or sliding because a) over exuberance or b) you're skating sideways because of lack of compliance or the back end is hopping over the bumps, then that mook that squared the entrance behind your and is now coming underneath at the exit IS GOING TO BEAT YOU TO THE NEXT CORNER!

This is the viewpoint I come from and will continue to hold.


And a good plan is one that I know what the results will be THIS good, vs "I really have no idea at all if this will work any better than stock poo poo"


And of course you're right in that we have no idea until we try it. I personally am willing to try. I just need to decide if I'm willing to spend. ;-)

[BDKR]

A little bird told me that there are these things called "wheels" that let you spec the rear track width too.

A little bird is telling me right now that your posts have past into the realm of noise.

[Wing_Nut]

I do plenty enough drugs to know that Poik knows what he is talking about..

I'll take his opinion anyday.

[volvorsport]

well , my point was in essence .

building the IRS all well and good , but only if you can do it lighter than the live axle , and then when you do go to a race track , get your ass handed to you by a 142 .

[BDKR]

building the IRS all well and good , but only if you can do it lighter than the live axle , and then when you do go to a race track , get your ass handed to you by a 142.


Yeah, but I'm not building a race car so you're not going to see tons of effort being put into weight reduction. I'm building a GT (Grand Tourer), as in a comfortable go fast car. At least with the sports car clubs in this state, I can get out there to stretch the cars legs a little and have some fun.

And also, as stated to John earlier, some of it would be for the "Holy Crap!" factor. I think it would be cool as hell! Period! I'm not ashmed of that.

But yeah, the 142 would own me allright. ;-)

[volvorsport]

well , thats brill , start the ball rolling , get some dimensions , centres of your axle first to know what you want , post em up .

[Spac]

Agreed. I always thought from looking at the things that real 510s were fairly stout, and that stoutness is helped by the shell being relatively short.

Are you taking about the Datsun 510? If so, they're rubbish in this regard: vastly inferior to any Volvo you care to name.
The Dattos are prone to having the entire boot section crack off, cracking at the bottom of the A-pillars, doors that are hard to open and close, and tearing the centres out of the castor rod mounts.
This isn't just rally cars either - they're now at an age where even road cars are having problems in these areas.

A friend had one with a Mazda 13B in it. If you accerated hard in third gear, you could see daylight between the door frames and the body...

[Mueller]

Are you taking about the Datsun 510? If so, they're rubbish in this regard: vastly inferior to any Volvo you care to name.
The Dattos are prone to having the entire boot section crack off, cracking at the bottom of the A-pillars, doors that are hard to open and close, and tearing the centres out of the castor rod mounts.
This isn't just rally cars either - they're now at an age where even road cars are having problems in these areas.

A friend had one with a Mazda 13B in it. If you accerated hard in third gear, you could see daylight between the door frames and the body...


my 1st running car was a 510 that i transplanted a SSS 1.6L motor into....body panels would warp on a hot day ;) ...helluva fun car !!!!

[John V, outside agitator]

my 1st running car was a 510 that i transplanted a SSS 1.6L motor into....body panels would warp on a hot day ;) ...helluva fun car !!!!

Yeah. Fun car, best friend now has a nice FJ20 we built for it but as for "panels" warping, strenght of the car is mainly in the basic shell.
I have friends who pounded them hundreds of miles per month on NW logging roads, the doors open and close, the wheels were still pointing straight, the cars hit MORE stuff more frequently, and with more force than any street or asphalt car and even after years, the car was straight.


(The stiffness of any piece of metal is ghoverned by a coupla factors, thickness and length. I've welded on 240s bodyshells and I've welded on 510 bodyshells, didn't see any substantial differences----both were fairly lightweight by my old SAAB standards---and thats driven by what guage steel will stamp and make multiple compound curves without thinning out in the curves,; Volvos being 10" wheelbase longer means forces acting on the shell exert more lever--on the other hand it means there is more area to disperse loads)

[Mueller]

Yeah. Fun car, best friend now has a nice FJ20 we built for it but as for "panels" warping, strenght of the car is mainly in the basic shell.
I have friends who pounded them hundreds of miles per month on NW logging roads, the doors open and close, the wheels were still pointing straight, the cars hit MORE stuff more frequently, and with more force than any street or asphalt car and even after years, the car was straight.


(The stiffness of any piece of metal is ghoverned by a coupla factors, thickness and length. I've welded on 240s bodyshells and I've welded on 510 bodyshells, didn't see any substantial differences----both were fairly lightweight by my old SAAB standards---and thats driven by what guage steel will stamp and make multiple compound curves without thinning out in the curves,; Volvos being 10" wheelbase longer means forces acting on the shell exert more lever--on the other hand it means there is more area to disperse loads)

being 16 at the time, I didn't pay attention to the chassis stiffness nor have any clue to those type things, it's been many, many years since then :)

[BDKR]

being 16 at the time, I didn't pay attention to the chassis stiffness nor have any clue to those type things, it's been many, many years since then :)

:rofl: :rofl: Yeah, I was the same way. The car was a blast and we had great fun with it tho. I was too busy trying to make it less tail-happy.

[dave milliron]

I had been thinking of a an IRS swap into my 262c for a while. The Lincoln Mk VIII/Mustang Cobra IRS is very interesting to me. I have not tracked the Mustang since it's too new for me. Here are some details of interest especially if you are a Junkyard shopper.

Diffs.: Ford 8.8" available in both open and LSD
Bolt pattern: 5 on 108 (4.25") same as the 240s
Springs on the T'bird and airbags on the Lincoln Mk VIII
Construction: Lincoln: Aluminum Diff case and lower control arms,
T'Bird: cast iron Diff case and stamped steel (I think) control arms
Drive shaft: Lincoln = Aluminum, T'Bird = Steel


Here is a list of donor cars, including the T'birds cousin the Cougar.

1989-1997 Thunderbird Supercoupe (All Posi-traction)
1992-1997 Thunderbird V-8 models with rear disc brakes(some posi-traction)
1992-1997 Lincoln Mark VIII (All aluminum carrier, most non-posi-traction)
1989-1992 Mercury Cougar XR-7, supercharged V-6 (All posi-traction)
1993-1997 Mercury Cougar V-8 with rear disc brakes(some posi-traction), after 94 all Cougars were called XR-7’s


Now to the potential problem. I have not measured the width. What is the Hub-to-Hub width for the 240 rear and the Ford
IRS??

//Dave
-----------------------------------------
262 Bertone SRIP (Street Rod In Pregress)

[Captain Bondo]

Cool info Dave.

I intend to do this to the 140. The supercoupes have a rear hub-to-hub width of 61.125", which is a tiny bit wide but not a deal breaker IMO. Ideally you are fitting wide tires and planning on pulling/modding the rear fenders anyways.

A 240 rear end is ~59" wide, btw. The 8.8 solid axle in my 240 is 60.5" wide. An extra 5/16" per side would have been doable. You can also correct a lot of this via wheel backspacing changes of course.

I'm interested to see if anybody actually does this before I do it on the 140, which won't be for a year or two.

From what I have seen on tbricks, guys who can fabricate this kind of stuff themselves are about as rare as the guys who can afford to have someone else fab it for them. :-D

[fidel]

I kinda wanted to have the guy that did you flares do mine if I take that route. we could do it again but it would be pricey. if i can get my hands on and english wheel i can make i can make inner and outer fenders you could just weld in.

[BDKR]

if i can get my hands on and english wheel i can make i can make inner and outer fenders you could just weld in.


If you do, let me know what the cost is. I'm certainly interested no matter what route I take on the rear end.

[bullitt210]

You guys really have me thinking here. Granted I need to get my car running as it is completely stripped of all but doors and suspension right now, so I have enough on my plate for the time being.....
I had a '78 B210GX once, and I fitted a 4.3 Chevy V6/700R4 into it. The car was killer fast and silly torque-y, but I couldn't keep the rear end planted...PERIOD.
I gathered a Jag rear that I was going to put in it but decided it was way to clunky and too shim happy. Not to mention it was waaay too wide for that Datsun and narrowing wasn't easy or cheap either. I sold it before I changed the rear end so that is the past.
I am sure there are some great options out there and I would be happy to keep the remains of my donor 242 and try some options later down the road. I think a 240 with an IRS would be the s***.
Surely there is a donor out there that would be easy to mod for fitment in a brick and if there is anything I can do to find it, I will, and pass it on.
Good luck future road rippers!