Volvo Community Forum. The Forums of the Volvo Owners Club

Forum Rules Volvo Owners Club About VOC Volvo Gallery Links Volvo History Volvo Press
Go Back   Volvo Owners Club Forum > "Technical Topics" > 200 Series General

Notices

200 Series General Forum for the Volvo 240 and 260 cars

Information
  • VOC Members: There is no login facility using your VOC membership number or the details from page 3 of the club magazine. You need to register in the normal way
  • AOL Customers: Make sure you check the 'Remember me' check box otherwise the AOL system may log you out during the session. This is a known issue with AOL.
  • AOL, Yahoo and Plus.net users. Forum owners such as us are finding that AOL, Yahoo and Plus.net are blocking a lot of email generated from forums. This may mean your registration activation and other emails will not get to you, or they may appear in your spam mailbox

Thread Informations

New (to me) 1980 Volvo 244

Views : 1773740

Replies : 4083

Users Viewing This Thread :  

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Jul 7th, 2020, 22:00   #1411
Laird Scooby
Premier Member
 
Laird Scooby's Avatar
 

Last Online: Today 20:03
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Lakenheath
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Othen View Post
That will be interesting Dave. My money is still on the alloy being heavier - I'm becoming convinced alloys are all smoke and mirrors.

:-)
Something i think Clifford said several post (pages?) back is that although the alloy is lighter (in terms of relative density) they tend to be thicker for the strength. As such, you may well be right.

Time will tell!
__________________
Cheers
Dave

Next Door to Top-Gun with a Honda CR-V & S Type Jag Volvo gone but not forgotten........
Laird Scooby is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Laird Scooby For This Useful Post:
Old Jul 8th, 2020, 07:00   #1412
Othen
Premier Member
 
Othen's Avatar
 

Last Online: Today 20:02
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Corby del Sol
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laird Scooby View Post
Something i think Clifford said several post (pages?) back is that although the alloy is lighter (in terms of relative density) they tend to be thicker for the strength. As such, you may well be right.

Time will tell!
One would expect the possible weights for a steel and aluminium wheel to be quite similar Dave: Young's modulus for steel is about 3 times greater for steel (about 30 vs 10 Mpsi), but it is about 3 times as dense (something like 8 vs 2.5 g/cc) so all things being equal (but they never quite are of course) the two metals should give similar results for something like a wheel.

[My apology for mixing units in the above - the important thing is that the Young's moduli for steel and aluminium, as well as their densities are in the ratio of 3:1 - good engineers should be able to switch units easily, unless they worked on the Mars Climate Orbiter of course].

I suspect (and it is only a feeling, I'm not a mechanical engineer) the steel wheels for road cars will generally be lighter because they are functional and have no adornments (it doesn't matter what they look like - just cover them up with a plastic hub cap), whereas alloys are mostly designed to be seen and admired (hence all those funny shaped but largely superfluous spokes and things). If alloy wheels were just made to a similar, simple design as a steel wheel (a bit like the racing Jaguars in the 1950s) then they would be about the same weight as steel ones of the same rigidity, perhaps a bit lighter as the steel wouldn't need to be as thick as it is practical to make it in places.

Anyway - I hope I remembered the above correctly - I attended a few lectures on materials science as part of my physics degree in about 1980 (there may be a mechanical or structural engineer out there that will correct me if my memory has failed me in this respect).

It will be interesting to see the results of your experiment: my money is still on the plain-Jane steel wheels being lighter than the flash alloys.

Alan

Last edited by Othen; Jul 8th, 2020 at 08:12. Reason: Spelling error.
Othen is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Othen For This Useful Post:
Old Jul 8th, 2020, 19:17   #1413
Othen
Premier Member
 
Othen's Avatar
 

Last Online: Today 20:02
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Corby del Sol
Default One learns something new every day...

I'd always wondered why some PO had gone to the trouble and expense of fitting rear wheel spacers to the Royal Barge. The tyres don't look odd in the wheel arches and the track seems to be the same at the back as the front of the car...

... well, today I got round to doing some research and discovered that the track at the rear is 70mm narrower than at the front on 240s. I can't imagine why Mr Volvo thought that was a good idea, maybe they just had lots of slightly too narrow live axles to use up in the parts bin as I notice it was corrected on the 700 and 900 cars.

I understand rear wheel spacers are quite a common fix (particularly among American Volvo owners), and back in the day Mr Volvo even offered an OEM 20mm spacer kit for the 240s' rear end (still available here and there at €394.70).

If the issue had not been sorted by a previous owner I don't think I'd have fitted a spacer kit (they are a bit pricey at between £120 and £200), but I'm feeling quite smug having discovered the RB has the same track both ends of the car.

:-)

Last edited by Othen; Jul 8th, 2020 at 19:37.
Othen is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Othen For This Useful Post:
Old Jul 8th, 2020, 20:16   #1414
Laird Scooby
Premier Member
 
Laird Scooby's Avatar
 

Last Online: Today 20:03
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Lakenheath
Default

It's not uncommon for the rear track to be different to the front Alan but i wonder if the rear spacers were more to fit the alloy wheels. Being potentially wider rims than the original steels, it may have been necessary but also it could have been the PO that did it just wanted improved handling.

There are benefits to a narrower track at the rear such as improved turn-in on corners and a (slightly) tighter turning circle.

I did once read that the wheelbase on the XJ Jeep Cherokee was 1/2" shorter on one side to take into account the camber on US roads. Never been able to verify it but interesting thought!
__________________
Cheers
Dave

Next Door to Top-Gun with a Honda CR-V & S Type Jag Volvo gone but not forgotten........
Laird Scooby is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Laird Scooby For This Useful Post:
Old Jul 8th, 2020, 20:50   #1415
john.wigley
VOC Member since 1986
 
john.wigley's Avatar
 

Last Online: Today 18:28
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Leicestershire
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laird Scooby View Post
It's not uncommon for the rear track to be different to the front Alan but i wonder if the rear spacers were more to fit the alloy wheels. Being potentially wider rims than the original steels, it may have been necessary but also it could have been the PO that did it just wanted improved handling.

There are benefits to a narrower track at the rear such as improved turn-in on corners and a (slightly) tighter turning circle.

I did once read that the wheelbase on the XJ Jeep Cherokee was 1/2" shorter on one side to take into account the camber on US roads. Never been able to verify it but interesting thought!
Wasn't the Renault 4 the same, 'L.S.'? Something to do with transverse torsion bars?

Regards, John.
__________________
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana .....
john.wigley is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to john.wigley For This Useful Post:
Old Jul 8th, 2020, 20:57   #1416
Othen
Premier Member
 
Othen's Avatar
 

Last Online: Today 20:02
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Corby del Sol
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laird Scooby View Post
It's not uncommon for the rear track to be different to the front Alan but i wonder if the rear spacers were more to fit the alloy wheels. Being potentially wider rims than the original steels, it may have been necessary but also it could have been the PO that did it just wanted improved handling.

There are benefits to a narrower track at the rear such as improved turn-in on corners and a (slightly) tighter turning circle.

I did once read that the wheelbase on the XJ Jeep Cherokee was 1/2" shorter on one side to take into account the camber on US roads. Never been able to verify it but interesting thought!
That is interesting Dave. There seem to have been lots of 240 owners (all the ones I found were on US and Australian sites) that had fitted spacers to even up the track, it also seems odd that Mr Volvo offered an OEM kit and it only occurred on the 200 cars (100, 700 and 900 were all rectangular).

I don’t know about fitting the Virgo (not Virago as I have been calling them for the past 5 months, Loki corrected me) wheels. They fit fine at the front, and look as if they would without the spacers at the back - I’m led to believe these were usually for the GLT model (that seems to be bourn out by ads I’ve seen for GLT cars of the era), so it is a little hard to imagine they wouldn’t have fitted the standard hubs. You are probably right - a PO probably just wanted to improve the handling (hence the Virgo wheels, adjustable Koni shockers and beefy anti-roll bars).

All that doesn’t matter all that much, I’ve looked at some photos of other 240s and have noticed they do look a bit odd with a narrower track at the back, so I’m pleased a PO sorted out this little issue for me. Someone obviously spent some cash doing this job properly.

I did speak with James, the ever helpful manager of F1 Autocenter, (who fitted the tyres for me and are fascinated by the RB every time they see it). He said they had noticed the spacers and had assumed I’d fitted them, his MoT tester had been impressed that the work had been done to make things right.

Anyway Dave, I’m pleased to see there was a good justification behind fitting the spacers, and they do make the RB look much better.

Alan

Last edited by Othen; Jul 8th, 2020 at 21:20.
Othen is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Othen For This Useful Post:
Old Jul 8th, 2020, 21:13   #1417
Othen
Premier Member
 
Othen's Avatar
 

Last Online: Today 20:02
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Corby del Sol
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by john.wigley View Post
Wasn't the Renault 4 the same, 'L.S.'? Something to do with transverse torsion bars?

Regards, John.
I think you are right John. Someone gave me a Renault 4 37 years ago (he was being posted to Germany and had bought a new car, and just tossed me the keys knowing I’d was broke having just bought my first house). Actually is wasn’t that bad a car and was much better than a pushbike (the alternative- I’d sold my MG for the house deposit).

I remember the rear torsion bars ran the whole width of the car, so they had to be staggered, one in front of the other. I think the wheelbase was the same both sides, but one of the swinging arms was a few inches shorter than the other).

It didn’t seem to affect the handling - it rolled around all over the place anyway,

:-)

Alan
Othen is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Othen For This Useful Post:
Old Jul 8th, 2020, 21:43   #1418
Laird Scooby
Premier Member
 
Laird Scooby's Avatar
 

Last Online: Today 20:03
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Lakenheath
Default

I'd forgotten about the Renault 4, a cross between an overgrown Lego brick and hippo plop-plops on wheels!

The Renault 5 wasn't much different except it was more Lego than hippo in shape and had a better marketing campaign. The early ones still had the push-pull gearstick mounted in the dash.
__________________
Cheers
Dave

Next Door to Top-Gun with a Honda CR-V & S Type Jag Volvo gone but not forgotten........
Laird Scooby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8th, 2020, 21:51   #1419
Othen
Premier Member
 
Othen's Avatar
 

Last Online: Today 20:02
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Corby del Sol
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laird Scooby View Post
I'd forgotten about the Renault 4, a cross between an overgrown Lego brick and hippo plop-plops on wheels!

The Renault 5 wasn't much different except it was more Lego than hippo in shape and had a better marketing campaign. The early ones still had the push-pull gearstick mounted in the dash.
I’d forgotten about that, the Renault 4 had an umbrella instead of a gear lever that disappeared into the dash and re-emerged as a bow that bent over the engine (the gearbox was at the front).

It was a typically dreadful French design that somehow worked okay (against all odds) and it drove sort of okay. I think the engine was something like 850cc, and so probably made about 25 HP, 65 MPH was about the top speed.

Life was simpler in those days.

Alan
Othen is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Othen For This Useful Post:
Old Jul 8th, 2020, 23:03   #1420
john.wigley
VOC Member since 1986
 
john.wigley's Avatar
 

Last Online: Today 18:28
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Leicestershire
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Othen View Post
I think you are right John. Someone gave me a Renault 4 37 years ago (he was being posted to Germany and had bought a new car, and just tossed me the keys knowing I’d was broke having just bought my first house). Actually is wasn’t that bad a car and was much better than a pushbike (the alternative- I’d sold my MG for the house deposit).

I remember the rear torsion bars ran the whole width of the car, so they had to be staggered, one in front of the other. I think the wheelbase was the same both sides, but one of the swinging arms was a few inches shorter than the other).

It didn’t seem to affect the handling - it rolled around all over the place anyway,

:-)

Alan

Strangely and coincidentally, I had one too, Alan. Mine was an early one, '63, I think in the late '60s. I totally agree with your assessment. My mates nicknamed it the 'Jellymobile' on account of the qualities to which you allude! Didn't stop them coming to me when they wanted something moving, though - we once had a complete dismantled Lambretta 150 in the back with room to spare!

Regards, John.
__________________
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana .....
john.wigley is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to john.wigley For This Useful Post:
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 95 (0 members and 95 guests)
 
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 Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 21:28.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.