[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Torsional rigidity figures of 100 / 200 series bodyshells?
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970605004207.11587A-100000@apollo>, in
mail.Chris_CC's,Graydon D. Stuckey wrote:
> Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 00:44:40 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Graydon D. Stuckey" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: Chris Wilson <email@example.com>
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Torsional rigidity figures of 100 / 200 series bodyshells?
> On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Does anyone on the list have access to torsional rigidity figures for
> > the circa 83 to 90 100 and 200 series bodyshells?
> No figures, but I do know that the car flexes _ALOT_ when I jack it up
> and put it on jackstands. I'm not impressed at all. Seems as flimsy as
> a '70s Vette! They made it handle pretty well despite the flex however,
> so I guess I'll put up with it for now. A front strut brace will help
> a little, BTDT. OTOH, its good for crashworthyness, if that matters to
OK Thanks Graydon.
Subjectively I thought this,too.But a pal claims he has seen figures
making this series particularly good.I recall one of the most rigid of all
production bodyshells being the old British Leyland "land crab" 1800 / 2200
series.Rather a waste given the rest of the running gear on those machines
I know a lot of manufacturers are reticent about revealing torsion
figures,probably because so many are atrocious.Mentioning Vettes,I had a
colleague who actually _liked_ these things,and swore blind a half inch
diameter anti roll bar on the back end transformed it...I don't think you
would even notice a half inch bar on a Vette,given the elasticity in the
chassis and the bushings :-)