Multilink vs. 1031 in a 780

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Per Mathisen - 22 Dec 2005 13:15 GMT

Anybody knows how the multilink rear suspension in a -88 780, handels a V8
compared to the 1031 axle?

I have a -86 240 with a SBC V8 now, and haven't had any problems with the
1031.
I'm now considering a V8 conversion in a 780, and wonder wheter to stay away
from the multilink or purchase a -87 or older 780

BTW, is there any possibility to change from multilink to solid rear axle in
760/780 -88? Is it a bolt-on?

Per Mathisen
Norway

Reply to this Message

Mike F - 22 Dec 2005 13:24 GMT

> Anybody knows how the multilink rear suspension in a -88 780, handels a V8
> compared to the 1031 axle?
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Per Mathisen
> Norway

The guts of the differentials are the same, so as long as the case is as
strong as on the solid axle, then the whole unit should be as durable.
Since power and torque outputs where on their way up when this was
designed, I'd bet that it is as strong or slightly stronger.

Signature

Mike F.
Thornhill (near Toronto), Ont.

Replace tt with t (twice!) and remove parentheses to email me directly.
(But I check the newsgroup more often than this email address.)

Reply to this Message

Peter K L Milnes - 23 Dec 2005 01:20 GMT

Seriously Per, I wouldn't bother as the Multilink is far better than the old
live axle set-up. In fact I am considering fitting Multilink mark 2 to my
940 wagon, possibly including the post '95 front set-up as well. This would
make my wheel choice different as the offset is the same as for 850 cars.
The fitment of poly bushes is different, certainly for the front. It would
be no good me fitting Multilink mark 1 as the fittings are quite a lot
different to the live axle set-up presently on my wagon.

All the best, Peter.

700/900/90 Register Keeper,
Volvo Owners Club (UK).

> Anybody knows how the multilink rear suspension in a -88 780, handels a V8
> compared to the 1031 axle?
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Per Mathisen
> Norway

Reply to this Message

James Sweet - 23 Dec 2005 05:16 GMT

> Seriously Per, I wouldn't bother as the Multilink is far better than the old
> live axle set-up. In fact I am considering fitting Multilink mark 2 to my
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> be no good me fitting Multilink mark 1 as the fittings are quite a lot
> different to the live axle set-up presently on my wagon.

What would you do about the offset in the front if you changed the rear?

I've pondered the idea of 760 IRS on a 240, probably not easily feasible
but it would be interesting.

Reply to this Message

Peter K L Milnes - 24 Dec 2005 00:12 GMT

James, the offset is as for 850 on 960s post '95 front and rear as the whole
suspension geometry has been changed. There is no need to worry if you
change the rear on an older car (like your proposed 240 with 760 IRS) as
long as you don't swap front wheels to back and vice versa.

As far as your proposed modification is concerned unfortunately 760 is wider
than 240 in all aspects including tracking front and rear. The rear is
adjustable for tracking but cannot cope with lessening the width of the
suspension as the geometry will be way out. I agree it would be interesting
if it were possible, but you would get more mileage from altering a 740 to
760 IRS as it should fit okay on post '88 versions.

All the best, Peter.

700/900/90 Register Keeper,
Volvo Owners Club (UK).

>> Seriously Per, I wouldn't bother as the Multilink is far better than the
>> old live axle set-up. In fact I am considering fitting Multilink mark 2
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> I've pondered the idea of 760 IRS on a 240, probably not easily feasible
> but it would be interesting.

Reply to this Message