User Login    
 + Register
  • Main navigation
Login
Username:

Password:


Lost Password?

Register now!
Fast Search
Slow Search
Google Ad



Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users





#31 Re: IRS rear end using Volvo De Dion rear
D Posted on: 2013/1/30 12:18
Just posting for my own reference for De Dion Volvo 360 rear end setup
as a diary as I approach my conversion to my thouee
If you have any questions or opinions pls PM me rather than posting here
as Id love to be just see the necessary info when needed.

Quote:
After speaking to Lou Mondello about the experiences of various club members on tarmac rallies, I decided to try out something new on my roadster. First, the springs. Springs keep the bottom of your car from scraping along the road, and they also control body roll, both laterally and front to rear. Looking for some serious cornering ability, we fitted 15mm, 780lb springs to the front – about 50% stiffer than standard. These have worked well, with less diving under breaks and great turn in, but it’s the rear end that is the key to this car’s improvement. The rear springs have been replaced with single, tapered leafs from a Volvo 360. Single leafs have been used in rally cars for a long time, and DSRC member Horton Poulter’s ’67 Bluebird SSS was greatly improved with them. Weighing about half of a standard rear leaf, they locate the rear axle better than a traditional leaf (no slipping between springs). The Volvo springs, however, are stiffer than the standard Datsun springs – so if you’re going to do this, you do need to upgrade the fronts to balance the car. Step two for my car was shock absorbers. Like many here, I already had Koni shock absorbers in my roadster. However, the factory valving that Koni set for the Datsun roadsters seems to be much stiffer in the rears than in the fronts - which sets up that oversteer problem, and doesn’t control the heavier front end very well. So the valving was swapped, front to rear, essentially. So, the results. It’s hard, of course, to compare fairly between a sagged out suspension and new race setup, but fortunately I was able to drive a couple of other Datsun roadsters around the same time as we finished the changes on mine. The differences are instantly obvious. The new setup, very hard on the front and more compliant at the rear, makes the car much more willing to change direction. Quick left/right snatches (as through a chicane) are much faster, with less body roll and instant turn in. The rear end only comes out when provoked, and when it does, it does it with a lovely progressive feel. In short, the rear end is much more compliant, giving good traction even on bumpier roads. What surprised me, though, is how much nicer the ride has become from what it ever was. Bumps and uneven roads are handled with aplomb and railway crossings aren’t the terror that they used to be. All in all, an excellent result. Subjectively, at least. For more objective results, Alan Field’s car has since had similar changes made, and it seems to have had good results on the track. There's been a fair amount of input from many people and sources (Alistair, the handling guru in Queensland, Lou Mondello, a number of rally teams, and some good books, including Carol Smith's "Tune to Win"). I’d like to thank them all for the way that my car has turned out, and turns in!


volvo 360 glt rear track 1405mm minus
datsun 1000 rear track 1190mm = 215mm

http://www.volvoclub.org.uk/prof_300.shtml
Wheelbase 2400 mm (94.5 in)
Track front 1380 mm (54.3 in)
Track rear 1405 mm (55.3 in)


#30 Re: IRS rear end using Volvo De Dion rear
elemental_funk Posted on: 2011/10/30 1:02
Nice links there.
Volvo springs sounds pretty good but it does mention there were very few imported.
OBX is a winner too with some modifications.


#29 Re: IRS rear end using Volvo De Dion rear
D Posted on: 2011/10/29 2:59
http://www.311s.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=10068

single leaf 360 from volvo is supposedly a winner!!


#28 Re: IRS rear end using Volvo De Dion rear
D Posted on: 2011/10/26 11:21


#27 Re: IRS rear end using Volvo De Dion rear
D Posted on: 2011/9/6 4:05
here is another option for those looking at irs
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ws/eBayISAP ... PageName=mem_guide:1&rd=1

suzuki vitara arms could be used

Attach file:



jpg  Sidekick Frame - Rear.jpg (88.89 KB)
737_4e658e1acd4c5.jpg 1024X768 px

jpg  sidekick.jpg (97.74 KB)
737_4e658e23f1f15.jpg 1024X768 px


#26 Re: IRS rear end using Volvo De Dion rear
D Posted on: 2011/8/29 9:13
By the way the DD setup is for the kb10 or tudor not vb10.
Floating hubs are expensive unfortunately and live axle LSD
are getting expensive and most are heavy bar the ALFA ZF,
If I break the ALFA I`ll be up Ship creek so best sell em!.
The Alfa ZFs (which will fund this project)

I actually expect it to be equal or lil heavier than H190.
It would be unique for a datsun & LSD centres like that
for Mazda/subey are more common & cheaper than live axle.

After driving an 81 Alfa GTV6 I was sold on it, its so predictable
with controlled sliding an absolute breeze.

So far Ive gone back to the Mazda miata obx centre is
supposedly a good Helical unit so for 280usd its cheap.

Attach file:



jpg  hlsd.jpg (23.46 KB)
737_4e5b4bf7256e4.jpg 210X220 px


#25 Re: IRS rear end using Volvo De Dion rear
sikyne Posted on: 2011/8/29 7:56
Only if the car has a traction problem. otherwise an open diff will be better.
If one is required, it would be a lot easier to fit one to the live axel than go through all this.

Im not saying dont do it, but for all the work and questionable total gain, personally i`d rather work on other areas of the car.

I would be interested in seeing it finished all the same.


#24 Re: IRS rear end using Volvo De Dion rear
Posted on: 2011/8/29 5:21
Isn't the LSD a benefit too?


#23 Re: IRS rear end using Volvo De Dion rear
sikyne Posted on: 2011/8/29 4:46
Im sorry to say it but, a change from the standard live axel to this type of rear end would just add weight and complexity for little reward.

Camber and toe adjustments can be made on a standard diff housing. And if more than 1deg of neg camber is required, a fully floating axel can be employed with only a little increase in weight.

The extra weight of things like the CV`s, floor reinforcing and brackets to hold the diff in place aswell as the De Dion tube would nulify any percieved benifits.

I doubt there would be much improvement in unsprung weight,
and im very confident that total weight would be a lot higher than the standard diff. Even using an alloy housing. This extra weight would surely be a backwards step in total performace, even if there is a slight improvement in unsprung weight.

The only advantage i can see, is the prevention of spring wind up under heavy acceleration.


#22 Re: IRS rear end using Volvo De Dion rear
elemental_funk Posted on: 2011/8/29 2:07
How do you connect it to the chassis?



(1) 2 3 4 »



You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]