960 rear shocks

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by c1800

“ I noticed one side at the rear was low a couple of inches ”

Shocks don’t control ride height, springs do. Check for broken/excessively sagged spring on the low side. That said, your Old shocks look Past their prime, so replacing those is a good idea, but won’t fix the ride height.

Very good point there!

Would probably be worth renewing the rear springs if it's a keeper, they do sag and become weak with age.

Would be worth your while searching online just using the part number as well, it's surprising how much you're likely to find out!

[krismorgan]

I never gave springs a thought,i also thought these later irs rear ends did not have springs.

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by krismorgan

I never gave springs a thought,i also thought these later irs rear ends did not have springs.

Item 10 is the leaf spring - strange arrangement as one leaf spring is transversely mounted to serve both sides.

Whoever thought that one up was either on drugs or needs to be!

[taiwan740]

A 1995 960 Multi link IRS that DOESN'T have nivomats?

Doesn't sound right to me but ok.

[krismorgan]

It never had them,i bought it off a mate who had it for 4 yrs before me.i always assumed it was a transition model as i had a 94 before this.Plus that looks a mission to change.

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by taiwan740

A 1995 960 Multi link IRS that DOESN'T have nivomats?

Doesn't sound right to me but ok.

I could be wrong but i think the later cars went back to proper suspension that worked.

Originally Posted by krismorgan

It never had them,i bought it off a mate who had it for 4 yrs before me.i always assumed it was a transition model as i had a 94 before this.Plus that looks a mission to change.

http://www.myvolvolibrary.info/Tech_...DataPocket.pdf

Check out pg6 onwards of that pdf and check your chassis code to see what suspension it should have had.

[griston64]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

I could be wrong but i think the later cars went back to proper suspension that worked.





http://www.myvolvolibrary.info/Tech_...DataPocket.pdf

Check out pg6 onwards of that pdf and check your chassis code to see what suspension it should have had.

Think it was the earlier pre 95 that had coil springs Dave

[classicswede]

They have sent you dampers for a 940/mk1 960 estate
Mk1 saloon IRS has coil springs
Mk2 both saloon and estate IRS use the composite leaf spring

To confirm that you do not have a Nivo rear spring check the vin plate. RHS of the plate 5th row down a non NIVO will have two numbers a letter then 35 followed by another letter

I have direct replacement rear dampers for the non Nivo cars https://www.classicswede.co.uk/Adjus..._20628527.aspx

and if your car should have Nivos then I have coilovers to replace them with

[loki_the_glt]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

Item 10 is the leaf spring - strange arrangement as one leaf spring is transversely mounted to serve both sides.

Whoever thought that one up was either on drugs or needs to be!

Transverse leaf springs on IRS aren't new - most post-1962 Corvettes had them and at least one version used the same set up at the front as well. Fiat used the same arrangement on the Strada/Ritmo (designed by computer, built by robots...) as it offered a low and essentially uninterrupted boot floor, while Thames Ditton's finest also had transverse leafs (leaves?) front and rear.

[classicswede]

My dads 1948 f@#d pop uses a transverse leaf sping