240 track?

[cochapman]

Chating with someone who "knows" about Volvos the other day, and he said that one of the reasons for the poor handling of the 200 series was because the rear track is narrower than the front. The implication being that one way to improve the handling is to fit wheel spacers at the rear.

Now over the last couple of months I've done a LOT of web research into improving the handling of my 240, in fact I'm typing this with dirty fingers from being half way through the twin anti roll bar mod. But no where in what I've seen did anybody mention increasing the rear track.

So, is this something everybody else has missed, or is it too difficult, or is it just not true?!!?

[davebslater(uk)]

well , its all to do with balance , and since more weight is up front - then a narrower track at the rear would balance the car nicely with regard to spring stiffness , because the spring base ie the distance from the centreline is narrower , hence the springs cannot resist roll the same as a wider track vehicle , but if you widen the rear spring base , you would promote more oversteer , and since they do understeer as std then it could be a good mod .

Of course it all depends on where you are going with your mods .

i personally would make some new anti roll bars that are adjustable to suit my preferences .

[Ben O Brien]

Hi,
I have this mod done to my 242 and it makes a hell of a difference, looks better too!!

It goes well with a lowered and hardened suspension, it doesnt necessarily oversteer but if you push it too far the car will "Kick" and youll end up facing the way you came!! more fun really,its what i wanted.

I have a few mods done to my 240's and plan on more, if i can be of any help:
benjaminobrien2001@hotmail.com

Hi Dave

Nice to meet you at the weekend. Despite your phenominal Volvo knowledge, I beg to differ on this (I think!).

Bear with me... in normal driving the whole axle stays parallel to the road with a live axle. The roll stiffness is provided by the strength & position of the springs and the anti-roll bar. Neither of these change with spacers.

So with a live axle I think the NORMAL roll stiffness is a function of factors other than track UNLESS you get to extreme forces where an inside wheel could lift off the ground. And in such circumstances a narrow track would give the mass of the body more leverage to lift the inside wheel, hence less rear grip, hence more sudden oversteer (old term: "roll-oversteer", because of wheel lift).

An example to illustrate the point. The original late '50s Jaguar 2.4 (subsequently referred to as the "Mk 1") had a very narrow live axle due to fully enclosed rear wheels. I believe this car suffered sudden roll-oversteer at the limit, not understeer, with the narrow track. This was addressed in the Mk2 which had a wider axle and gave less oversteer. Another example was the old Commer van (narrow axle, high centre of mass if loaded, roll oversteer). I don't think they ever bothered to fix this one!

So on my logic I don't think spacers in isolation would make much difference to roll stiffness or handling, but if there was a difference it would be more rear grip and less oversteer (= more understeer) in extreme situations.

But you're the engineer and I stand to be corrected!

(And anyway a 240 handles like a Lotus compared with my last Volvo... you want understeer? ... try a 164 with 50% more engine weight up front!)

Cheers

John