home register FAQ memberlist calendar

Go Back   Turbobricks Forums > Mechanical > performance & modifications

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-26-2017, 04:23 PM   #1
Marvelous3
Who engineered this?
 
Marvelous3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Atlanta
Default 240 rear suspension

I have poly up front with Kyoto coil overs, bens strut mounts and koni yellow. The rear has bens mounts, and koni yellow.

This car will eventually have a lsx in it so I want to go ahead and do the rear suspension to do with it. Should I do bens hybrid torque arms or the straight adjustable arms? I was going to get new trailing arms and box them. Spherical trailing arm bushings. And poly the rest.

Thoughts? This wont be a race car. Just a fun around car that Ill take to the 1/4 mile races every now and then.
__________________

1990 240dl Kaplhenke Coilover Daily
1991 245+16 Valve Turbo Microsquirt
Need Hyundai or Genesis parts? PM me for Genuine Hyundai or Genesis parts
Marvelous3 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2017, 08:24 PM   #2
MoCounselor
Board Member
 
MoCounselor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Midwest, USA
Default

Curious about the same question, so I'm subbing to see everyone's input!
MoCounselor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2017, 08:37 PM   #3
PeaceEngineered
Sarcastic Optimist
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Evanston, IL
Default

Unless reinforced at the body, I thought poly was a no no on the front bushing of the lower control arm- even more so with Ben's mounts. With all that good articulation at the axle, the next bind will be at that body to arm connection. Now if you can get a compliant poly mount, that would be best. I know some of the aftermarket rubber have been flagged as not so good either. I have not checked mine after I installed the new lower arms that came with bushings, but will be addressing my rear suspension again soon. Look forward to want comes out of this thread.
__________________
1989 245 'Angry Moose' 5.0 GT-40 with T5 transmission.
2009 S80 Interim Road Trip Car

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack View Post


I don’t know how to respond.
PeaceEngineered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2017, 09:17 PM   #4
photoman327
Board Member
 
photoman327's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: North Alabama
Default

Will be following this also.
photoman327 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2017, 06:19 PM   #5
satanburns1
Bison Engine Built
 
satanburns1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: BRICK NJ
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeaceEngineered View Post
Unless reinforced at the body, I thought poly was a no no on the front bushing of the lower control arm- even more so with Ben's mounts. With all that good articulation at the axle, the next bind will be at that body to arm connection. Now if you can get a compliant poly mount, that would be best. I know some of the aftermarket rubber have been flagged as not so good either. I have not checked mine after I installed the new lower arms that came with bushings, but will be addressing my rear suspension again soon. Look forward to want comes out of this thread.
where should i brace?? I just did poly everywhere ( except the rear lower axle cuz im getting bens bearings)... Its a 76 242 that i auto cross so it sees abuse. Id rather brace it now....
satanburns1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2017, 07:07 PM   #6
BDKR
Section 9
 
BDKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Horizons Cave
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvelous3 View Post
Thoughts? This wont be a race car. Just a fun around car that Ill take to the 1/4 mile races every now and then.
The hybrid torque arms!

The rubber at the body connection will be more compliant than poly and will absorb more energy as well.

If articulation is it (and you're willing to find your compliance elsewhere) and you don't mind more energy transferred into the body, get the standard adjustable torque rods.
__________________
Quote:
For all you Dijkstra fanboys:

Knuth also cites a letter sent to him by Dijkstra, in which the latter adds some nuance to this earlier statements: "Please don't fall into the trap of believing that I am terribly dogmatical about [the go to statement]. I have the uncomfortable feeling that others are making a religion out of it, as if the conceptual problems of programming could be solved by a single trick, by a simple form of coding discipline!"
BDKR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2017, 07:32 PM   #7
classicswede
Volvo upgrades
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North Wales
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeaceEngineered View Post
Unless reinforced at the body, I thought poly was a no no on the front bushing of the lower control arm
I have never seen an issue with the body caused by poly mounts. We have very rough roads here and if anything breaks its the arm itself
classicswede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2017, 09:57 PM   #8
quillc
yv1a.com
 
quillc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kitsap, Wa
Default

I ran the iPD arms for about 100k till the front bushing stretched (became oblong). I never really liked them very much frankly. They had a tendency to cause the suspension to bind as they didn't have any twist in them. Caused enough body flex on the front mount to damage the mount in the front on the passenger side. This was after I removed the poly TAB bushings on the axle and replaced them with Ben's spherical units. Prior to replacing the TABs, that bushing was the most limiting factor in axle bind. That's why the torque arm front mount bent after I swapped the TABs.

I bought a set of Ben's hybrid arms as a replacement. No more binding. I've got about 30k on the hybrid arms now. I have however worn out a set of front trailing arm bushings as those are now the most limiting factor. Based upon the clunking coming from the rear suspension, I've worn out another set of trailing arm front bushings in the last couple weeks.

Next step will be to replace the trailing arms with Ben's units to eliminate that bushing or build my own with a spherical up front. I have enough cores laying around it shouldn't be too damn difficult.

In your case, I would recommend you just go to where I'm going to end up. Get the hybrid arms and either buy Ben's trailing arm with a spherical up front, or build your own boxed trailing arm with a spherical up front.
__________________
Chris
www.yv1a.com
quillc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2017, 11:08 PM   #9
PeaceEngineered
Sarcastic Optimist
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Evanston, IL
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by classicswede View Post
I have never seen an issue with the body caused by poly mounts. We have very rough roads here and if anything breaks its the arm itself
I would say that is not good. The bushing should fail before a major suspension component gets broken. I really don't have a good answer on where to add additional bracing either. I would say though that Ben created the hybrid upper arm for a reason. NVH reduction and allows articulation too. The same can be mimicked on the lower arms. If 'whatever bushing material' doesn't allow movement, the suspension will not operate to it's fullest.
PeaceEngineered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2017, 02:33 PM   #10
cosbySweater
Board Member
 
cosbySweater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Monterey/Falun
Default

I have old yoshifab V1 torque rods on my car as well as a heim joint panhard bar. They hold up fine but the nvh is HORRIBLE. I'm getting rid of them asap and going to a stock style panhard bar and going to figure something out with the torque rods
__________________
1979 Volvo 244DL 6.0/4l80e,8.8,Ms3x goldbox ecu and Mircrosquirt tcu, s366 clone.
2005 Honda Civic Hybrid, 5 Speed
1991 Volvo 245, so stock it hurts, and I like it that way
1982 Ford Fairmont Futura, 4.8/th400, 8.8, mircrosquirt, 7665 turbo, Project Cheap Thrills

Quote:
Originally Posted by bricktop420 View Post
Thank you very much everybody... i now feel sufficiently retarded and will go cry in the corner...
cosbySweater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2017, 02:39 PM   #11
Harlard
Pro Sneaker Peddler
 
Harlard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: PDX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cosbySweater View Post
I have old yoshifab V1 torque rods on my car as well as a heim joint panhard bar. They hold up fine but the nvh is HORRIBLE. I'm getting rid of them asap and going to a stock style panhard bar and going to figure something out with the torque rods
https://www.kaplhenke.com/products/2...ble-torque-rod
__________________


Herr Harlard am Erstens

1979 242 DL

Quote:
Originally Posted by t8fanning View Post
My knob has a big chunk of steel on it
Harlard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2017, 05:25 PM   #12
BDKR
Section 9
 
BDKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Horizons Cave
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by quillc View Post
I ran the iPD arms for about 100k till the front bushing stretched (became oblong). I never really liked them very much frankly. They had a tendency to cause the suspension to bind as they didn't have any twist in them. Caused enough body flex on the front mount to damage the mount in the front on the passenger side. This was after I removed the poly TAB bushings on the axle and replaced them with Ben's spherical units. Prior to replacing the TABs, that bushing was the most limiting factor in axle bind. That's why the torque arm front mount bent after I swapped the TABs.

I bought a set of Ben's hybrid arms as a replacement. No more binding. I've got about 30k on the hybrid arms now. I have however worn out a set of front trailing arm bushings as those are now the most limiting factor. Based upon the clunking coming from the rear suspension, I've worn out another set of trailing arm front bushings in the last couple weeks.

Next step will be to replace the trailing arms with Ben's units to eliminate that bushing or build my own with a spherical up front. I have enough cores laying around it shouldn't be too damn difficult.

In your case, I would recommend you just go to where I'm going to end up. Get the hybrid arms and either buy Ben's trailing arm with a spherical up front, or build your own boxed trailing arm with a spherical up front.
Excellent post!

On this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by quillc View Post
They had a tendency to cause the suspension to bind as they didn't have any twist in them.
The funny thing is that this isn't anything new. The Grp A cars chose not to use poly for this reason.
BDKR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2017, 07:51 PM   #13
Marvelous3
Who engineered this?
 
Marvelous3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Atlanta
Default

So the big difference between the hybrid arms and the straight adjustable ones is some additional vibration out of the adjustable ones? And the hybrid arms are more expensive?
Marvelous3 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2017, 11:31 PM   #14
quillc
yv1a.com
 
quillc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kitsap, Wa
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvelous3 View Post
So the big difference between the hybrid arms and the straight adjustable ones is some additional vibration out of the adjustable ones? And the hybrid arms are more expensive?
Additional NVH isolation as compared to straight Heim joints at either end. I would say having used both poly and hybrid, they have less NVH than the straight poly adjustable ones iPD sells.

Don't bind as the suspension flexes. As I stated in my post below, the poly adjustable ones actually bent the front passenger mounting ear. Don't have any issues with rear flex with the hybrid ones installed.
quillc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2017, 11:37 PM   #15
PeaceEngineered
Sarcastic Optimist
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Evanston, IL
Default

^^ Quicker than me. Haha
The upper hybrids are adjustable too, buy they only use the spherical bushing at the axle with a compliant bushing at the body to reduce the NVH. I have IPD upper arms, and do not care for them at all. Sure they are adjustable, but they will not "tighten" at the adjustment because of the flex that occurs because the poly bushings are too stiff. Basically, the threaded portion of the arm becomes a pivot. Every time on or off gas is a clunk due to the tolerance of the threads. Ben's mounts are on my wish list.
PeaceEngineered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2017, 11:20 AM   #16
blkaplan
50 shades of beige
 
blkaplan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Default

From my experience and testing for a DD situation where you want to minimize any vibrations transmitted to the body from the rear diff / driveline / wheels / etc. Its always good to have a rubber barrier between the body and the axle. Thats why I prefer to have a rubber bushing in the front of the trailing arms and the torque rods. I dont like how sloppy the rear feels with the factory axle bushings and full factory torque rods so putting a spherical in the axle and sphericals in half of the torque rod makes the rear react more quickly while keeping in the necessary compliance for it to reduce NVH.

One of the benefits that I noticed when going to the hybrid rods was it makes the car smoother in traffic if you get lazy with the clutch pedal. A full spherical torque rod transmits all inputs instantly, which makes smooth clutch modulation very important.
__________________
www.BEIGEPOWER.com
Kaplhenke Racing Facebook
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkKratoz View Post
The only safe bet is Ben.©
blkaplan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2017, 11:22 AM   #17
blkaplan
50 shades of beige
 
blkaplan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Default

Also, to note with the rubber torque rod bushings in the hybrid arms... eventually that rubber will fail just like all moving parts on a suspension but the torque rods are easily removed and that bushing can be easily changed.
blkaplan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2017, 11:40 AM   #18
Marvelous3
Who engineered this?
 
Marvelous3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Atlanta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blkaplan View Post
From my experience and testing for a DD situation where you want to minimize any vibrations transmitted to the body from the rear diff / driveline / wheels / etc. Its always good to have a rubber barrier between the body and the axle. Thats why I prefer to have a rubber bushing in the front of the trailing arms and the torque rods. I dont like how sloppy the rear feels with the factory axle bushings and full factory torque rods so putting a spherical in the axle and sphericals in half of the torque rod makes the rear react more quickly while keeping in the necessary compliance for it to reduce NVH.

One of the benefits that I noticed when going to the hybrid rods was it makes the car smoother in traffic if you get lazy with the clutch pedal. A full spherical torque rod transmits all inputs instantly, which makes smooth clutch modulation very important.
Thanks for this post.

I've got poly motor mounts in it now so the vibration isn't really a big concern for me. I was interest if there was a performance difference or is the hybrids were strictly a comfort option for dudes not wanting race car race car stuff. So I think the full sphericals are the ones ill be getting.

I really really don't want to put rubber bushings anywhere. I don't want to have to pull the suspension apart in two years to replace a rubber bushing and I do like the stiffer ride of poly.
Marvelous3 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2017, 11:46 AM   #19
blkaplan
50 shades of beige
 
blkaplan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Default

Giving the rear a little bit of float gives it more grip from what I experienced.

No matter what you use (poly, rubber, or sphericals) It will need to be changed eventually.

If you are putting a lot of load through the rear, the sphericals will be the strongest option.
blkaplan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2017, 12:41 PM   #20
PeaceEngineered
Sarcastic Optimist
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Evanston, IL
Default

Acceptance of the potential vibration (V in NVH) from poly motor mounts is one thing. The other N and H- noise and vibration are pretty annoying in the rear in my opinion. Harshness for sure as Ben alluded to above. It is tough to modulate the clutch to get a smooth take off. Of course, I am getting old YMMV. Haha
PeaceEngineered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2017, 02:02 PM   #21
BDKR
Section 9
 
BDKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Horizons Cave
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blkaplan View Post
Giving the rear a little bit of float gives it more grip from what I experienced.
I think the 240 is pretty sensitive to over stiffness in the rear (most of us are I suppose ). I've noticed that the lack of compliance and articulation creates a very thin line between grip and power oversteer.
BDKR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2017, 02:29 PM   #22
blkaplan
50 shades of beige
 
blkaplan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BDKR View Post
I think the 240 is pretty sensitive to over stiffness in the rear (most of us are I suppose ). I've noticed that the lack of compliance and articulation creates a very thin line between grip and power oversteer.
I agree.
blkaplan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2017, 04:12 PM   #23
JW240
Your current user title
 
JW240's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The Netherlands, Europe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BDKR View Post
I think the 240 is pretty sensitive to over stiffness in the rear (most of us are I suppose ). I've noticed that the lack of compliance and articulation creates a very thin line between grip and power oversteer.
Yeah. Agreed.

My setup; poly/heim 'hybrid' Tq rods, spherical trailing arm bushings, rubber on the front of the trailing arms.
Just so much better than the old worn rubber tab bushings and non adjustable full poly torque rods. Axle follows the road better, nvh not really any worse than it was, more comfortable on speed bumps, much more grip. Less twitchy. More consistent. Before it would wander a lot going in a straight line.
So all in all, less compliance and more articulation. Seems to work!
__________________
240 | 1991 | 324 KKm | B230F+T | Cossie T3 60/63 | M90 | Toyo R1R/Polaris
Amazon/121 | 1968 | finished 2020+? (for sale)
760 | 1984 | B6284T swap | 2x13T | finished 201?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Redwood Chair View Post
Don't forget about properly seasoning it on HF jackstands for a couple years whilst dreaming about big powah 'goals'.
JW240 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2017, 06:19 AM   #24
K9 240
Board Member
 
K9 240's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Midlands UK
Default

When I was doing my rear suspension I was going for spherical joints on the axle & poly for the chassis connections. Made my own adjustable panhard bar & torque arms & used Ben's spherical tab. Unfortunately, I swapped in a G80 at the same time I put in the torque arms. I put the old torque arms back in trying to sort out the resulting NVH & haven't got around to putting them back.
Something that occurred to me though was would the new (tighter) bushes transmit more NVH from a different source (prop shaft etc) than the old sloppy ones just to confuse the issue?
K9 240 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2017, 09:13 PM   #25
quillc
yv1a.com
 
quillc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kitsap, Wa
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by K9 240 View Post
When I was doing my rear suspension I was going for spherical joints on the axle & poly for the chassis connections. Made my own adjustable panhard bar & torque arms & used Ben's spherical tab. Unfortunately, I swapped in a G80 at the same time I put in the torque arms. I put the old torque arms back in trying to sort out the resulting NVH & haven't got around to putting them back.
Something that occurred to me though was would the new (tighter) bushes transmit more NVH from a different source (prop shaft etc) than the old sloppy ones just to confuse the issue?
Anything that isn't the stock rubber will increase NVH. The poly has a higher durometer and the bushings design isn't designed to flex, hence transmits more. The stock Volvo bushings were designed (both in material and bushing design) for comfort and to transmit as little NVH as possible to the chassis.
quillc is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.