Seriously?

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

Lowering the car drops the centre of gravity as i'm sure you know already Alan. Also as pointed out above, the lower springs tend to be stiffer reducing body roll and improving weight transfer onto the tyres.

The compromise is a harsher ride but even Volvo lowered their rally/race cars so there must be some advantages, whether we percieve them or not.

Well I understand about lowering the centre of mass of course Dave, but my point was not that one; it was that the 240 is a tall and heavy lump, if one wanted a motor car to go round corners quickly there would be any number of far better models to do that (without needing lowering).

:-)

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Othen

Well I understand about lowering the centre of mass of course Dave, but my point was not that one; it was that the 240 is a tall and heavy lump, if one wanted a motor car to go round corners quickly there would be any number of far better models to do that (without needing lowering).

:-)

True, a direct competitor of the time, the Mk1 Cavalier would do that very well and stick to the road too. Another competitor, the Mk4/5 Cortina, would follow the Cavalier closely unless it was wet, in which case it would create its own route through the scenery.
Both cars considerably lighter and lower than the 240 but oddly the 240 would follow the Cavalier more closely just with more body roll so would have seasick passengers..............

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

True, a direct competitor of the time, the Mk1 Cavalier would do that very well and stick to the road too. Another competitor, the Mk4/5 Cortina, would follow the Cavalier closely unless it was wet, in which case it would create its own route through the scenery.
Both cars considerably lighter and lower than the 240 but oddly the 240 would follow the Cavalier more closely just with more body roll so would have seasick passengers..............

I see your point Dave, but I wasn’t particularly thinking of contemporary motor cars (although a 1980s Golf comes to mind as being much better at accelerating sideways) - I was thinking that if one’s aim is just to corner quickly then any old hot hatch or saloon from the past 20 years would be lower and lighter (and therefore corner faster). Indeed my Skoda superb estate would easily turn inside a 240. That was my point, nothing more: that one could spend a fortune on modifying the suspension, wheels and tyres on a 240, which will make it corner better than standard motor cars, but the physics (weight and height) will still make it slower at sideways acceleration that lots of others.

I know Dave, I’m a bit conservative, but I struggle to see the point of spending lots on lowering 240s and in doing so end up compromising the design in many other ways. I’m with the correspondent above that thought the 240 looks fine already with its standard ride height.

Perhaps I need to get out more :-)

Alan

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Othen

I see your point Dave, but I wasn’t particularly thinking of contemporary motor cars (although a 1980s Golf comes to mind as being much better at accelerating sideways) - I was thinking that if one’s aim is just to corner quickly then any old hot hatch or saloon from the past 20 years would be lower and lighter (and therefore corner faster). Indeed my Skoda superb estate would easily turn inside a 240. That was my point, nothing more: that one could spend a fortune on modifying the suspension, wheels and tyres on a 240, which will make it corner better than standard motor cars, but the physics (weight and height) will still make it slower at sideways acceleration that lots of others.

I know Dave, I’m a bit conservative, but I struggle to see the point of spending lots on lowering 240s and in doing so end up compromising the design in many other ways. I’m with the correspondent above that thought the 240 looks fine already with its standard ride height.

Perhaps I need to get out more :-)

Alan

If i've understood you correctly Alan, you're saying if you want to go round corners rapidly it's cheaper, easier and probably safer to just buy a more modern car and use that?

I definitely agree with that but i think there is a section of the community with the mindset that they want to do it in a 240 or an Amazon or whatever.

I think there are so many aspects to this that we're all slightly at crossed purposes with each other but all correct in our own views because it is such a subjective thing.

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

If i've understood you correctly Alan, you're saying if you want to go round corners rapidly it's cheaper, easier and probably safer to just buy a more modern car and use that?

I definitely agree with that but i think there is a section of the community with the mindset that they want to do it in a 240 or an Amazon or whatever.

I think there are so many aspects to this that we're all slightly at crossed purposes with each other but all correct in our own views because it is such a subjective thing.

... it was another interesting discussion though... :-).

Alan

[foggyjames]

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on suspension design, and I think it is a fair point that the overall compromise (cornering ability vs ride comfort in particular) might not be a good one, but you can get a 240 to go round corners very well indeed (and a 7/900 with its wider track, better still).

A 240 is actually a pretty light car by modern standards - a Superb, for example, would be very considerably heavier. My 740 has a similar kerb weight to a modern Golf! The two main issues are the 240's narrow track (as correctly observed above ), and the live axle, the latter of which will always need a softer spring rate than an independent rear suspension to achieve the same ride comfort (owing to the much higher unsprung weight with the live axle), resulting in poorer body control. It's notable that the rear end of a 2/7/900 modified for better cornering ability is usually pretty crashy.

In other words, you can make a 240 go round corners very well indeed (certainly compared with a similarly-sized modern car), but the ride comfort will be disproportionately affected.

Having said all of that, there is a happy middle ground, given that the trend in modern car design (especially the German approach) is for very firm suspension. You could make a 2/7/900 feel considerably more 'modern' with a modest stiffening, which would greatly improve body control without ruining the ride. The trick is not to go too far; something which is very easily done. I agree that majoring on anti-roll bars over spring rates is a good approach (at least for a road car).

cheers

James

[foggyjames]

Originally Posted by BicycleBoy

We have a new winner:
https://www.collectionbyvermant.be/n...-turbo-group-a
£108k for a replica. Damn droolworthy replica mind.

OOF! That is gorgeous. Highly accurate, too, to my amateur eye.

cheers

James

[Othen]

Originally Posted by foggyjames

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on suspension design, and I think it is a fair point that the overall compromise (cornering ability vs ride comfort in particular) might not be a good one, but you can get a 240 to go round corners very well indeed (and a 7/900 with its wider track, better still).

A 240 is actually a pretty light car by modern standards - a Superb, for example, would be very considerably heavier. My 740 has a similar kerb weight to a modern Golf! The two main issues are the 240's narrow track (as correctly observed above ), and the live axle, the latter of which will always need a softer spring rate than an independent rear suspension to achieve the same ride comfort (owing to the much higher unsprung weight with the live axle), resulting in poorer body control. It's notable that the rear end of a 2/7/900 modified for better cornering ability is usually pretty crashy.

In other words, you can make a 240 go round corners very well indeed (certainly compared with a similarly-sized modern car), but the ride comfort will be disproportionately affected.

Having said all of that, there is a happy middle ground, given that the trend in modern car design (especially the German approach) is for very firm suspension. You could make a 2/7/900 feel considerably more 'modern' with a modest stiffening, which would greatly improve body control without ruining the ride. The trick is not to go too far; something which is very easily done. I agree that majoring on anti-roll bars over spring rates is a good approach (at least for a road car).

cheers

James

Good points James,

You are certainly right that motor cars have become much heavier over the past 4 decades, the current VW Golf weighs in at 1264kg (almost exactly the same as the RB) whereas the Mk 1 (the RB's contemporary) was 790kg. I suppose that is down to what the market wants - more of everything (particularly the ability to withstand crashes).

The 244 does respond a bit to improving the suspension subtly, I've noticed on the RB the adjustable Koni shock absorbers control the motor car better when at their highest setting, but at the end of the day it has too many design limitations (tall and narrow, heavy compared to contemporaries, small wheels and tyres and a live rear axle) to accelerate sideways quickly.

I'm still agreeing with the correspondent above (apologies, I've forgotten whom) that thought the 240 was pretty good the way Mr Volvo made it. Lowering the springs seems (to me) to be mostly for the aesthetics - and I don't think suits the 240 at all.

As I wrote to Dave - I'm a bit conservative, but then I think most 200 series owners are; I think that is probably what attracts us to our motor cars in the first place. Perhaps I need to get out more :-).

Good discussion - but now it is Bobwalkin time.

Alan

PS. I had to check - the correspondent above to whom I have referred several times was Angie (I'm getting old and my memory isn't what it was):

They were designed with aesthetics in mind, by messing around with the proportions the essence of the car is lost. I think the 240s are beautifully proportioned, someone once described them as 'kinetic sculpture'. Also the practicality of a good ground clearance is lost by lowering, often one hears lowered cars scraping across speed bumps, what's the point?!

... I'm still tending to agree :-).

[BicycleBoy]

Another nicely presented GLT saloon with new paint and upholstry:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/134162715563

Just don't look at the asking price...

[Moomoo]

Originally Posted by BicycleBoy

Another nicely presented GLT saloon with new paint and upholstry:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/134162715563

Just don't look at the asking price...

£3k for a good one , then spend £7k on it ! MMMMMM!🧐

Good history though!👍