Multilink rear suspension for a W123?
Multilink rear suspension for a W123?
In any case, I'm interested in the 124 rear end, it looks to be highly adaptable and even the most common versions should come with a good disc brake system. God help me, it's getting me 'highly modded American car' disease kicking up again. Easily swappable IRS with discs, readily available at the junkyard? Has the wheels turning.
CID Vicious
09-30-2009, 02:09 AM #1I was looking at a W124 related thread earlier and that looks like it might be adaptable for our cars. Multilink rear suspensions rock. Semi trailing arms were usually only used for a single generation of cars as a transition from solid axles (or swing axles in the case of MB) to a multilink rear setup. I don't know, I haven't heard of anyone reporting big power in a W123, but my old Celica Supra would squat in the rear, lighting up both tires - or, more accurately, the inside inch and a half or so. That was with a whole 150 hp or so. Maybe 165 lb ft. Having only driven a 240D I have no idea what the rear suspension does under decent power mid corner, or from a stop.
In any case, I'm interested in the 124 rear end, it looks to be highly adaptable and even the most common versions should come with a good disc brake system. God help me, it's getting me 'highly modded American car' disease kicking up again. Easily swappable IRS with discs, readily available at the junkyard? Has the wheels turning.
(09-30-2009, 02:09 AM)CID Vicious I haven't heard of anyone reporting big power in a W123, but my old Celica Supra would squat in the rear, lighting up both tires - or, more accurately, the inside inch and a half or so.
ForcedInduction
09-30-2009, 02:45 AM
#2
(09-30-2009, 02:09 AM)CID Vicious I haven't heard of anyone reporting big power in a W123, but my old Celica Supra would squat in the rear, lighting up both tires - or, more accurately, the inside inch and a half or so.
I seriously doubt a the 124 multilink would fit without way more work than it was worth.
1987 300D Sturmmachine
1991 300D Nearly Perfect
1985 300D Weekend/Camping/Dog car
1974 L508D Motoroam Monarch "NightMare"
OBK #42
I could go outside and take a pic of my tires if it would make you happy.
I seriously doubt a the 124 multilink would fit without way more work than it was worth.
1987 300D Sturmmachine
1991 300D Nearly Perfect
1985 300D Weekend/Camping/Dog car
1974 L508D Motoroam Monarch "NightMare"
OBK #42
The 124 subframe looks compact and self contained, the question would be whether there's room enough to fit under the 123 chassis.
I'm interested in the 124 subframe regardless, it would be a great addition to an old muscle car or bucket rod.
CID Vicious
10-04-2009, 08:13 PM #4So is that an "I concur" on the rear squatting issue, or is it a 'it's not really an issue' response? I do see some negative camber gain and squat in the photo. Mostly I'm thinking about it because the V8 question still looms in my mind. Especially once I realized that if I bought the correct Toyota truck, a W series five speed would be part of the package. 240D drivetrain goes in the truck, 22R gets put aside or sold, and the trans goes behind a small block.
The 124 subframe looks compact and self contained, the question would be whether there's room enough to fit under the 123 chassis.
I'm interested in the 124 subframe regardless, it would be a great addition to an old muscle car or bucket rod.
ForcedInduction
10-04-2009, 10:06 PM
#5
Stiffer, or progressive, springs would make a huge difference in rear end squat. It isn't much of an issue to me except that it narrows the tire contact patch.
Although, I don't know for sure that a stiffer set of springs wouldn't make it manageable, if not entirely cure it. If someone wants to chime in here about that, it would help me and pretty much all of us out. I'd like to think there's a silver bullet out there that might make the idea of an 'easy' 250 hp OM617a feasible, and if so, then quite a few of y'all might be wondering the same thing that I am now.
If I didn't live in Kalifornia, I'd probably just find a W124 with a bad motor for cheap and V8 that. It would be quite a bit easier from a pure performance standpoint, but then again, I could do the same thing to a second gen RX7 and it would be a bolt in affair with a better return on the performance side. The 123 appeals because of what I'm considering with 'Project Blasphemy' - stealth, and the complete lack of a need to have the car inspected. I might be able to find a 124 that someone pulled the diesel from for another project, which would accomplish some of the same ends, but the vibe is different on those cars, as is the electronics setup. The 123 to me is a good bridge between old and new - good chassis and decent suspension but still simple and easy to work on, before the manufacturers decided they'd rather make the cars harder for the regular guy to work on (more money for the dealerships, and you sell more new cars if there are fewer old ones running around), ie built in obsolescence.
CID Vicious
10-04-2009, 11:38 PM #6Maybe when I get down to the junkyard I'll take a tape measure and see how compatible the two designs are. No offense to your efforts - you seem to have one of the more worked 123s this side of Finland - but at the development level that the OM617 is at, even a stock Goodwrench 350 will likely blow it out of the water as far as power output. I'm thinking that the squat is going to make the car hard to get to hook, and likely to lose traction (possibly in a real bad way) putting power down mid corner. No 123 I can think of even approached the 200hp mark from the factory, much less 3 or 4. So I can't say that I think the engineers had this covered, and as I pointed out before, almost all platforms that used an STA type rear suspension did so for one generation only. Some, like the RX7, didn't even bother with the STAs, moving from a five link solid axle to multilink directly. I'd have to say there's a reason for that.
Although, I don't know for sure that a stiffer set of springs wouldn't make it manageable, if not entirely cure it. If someone wants to chime in here about that, it would help me and pretty much all of us out. I'd like to think there's a silver bullet out there that might make the idea of an 'easy' 250 hp OM617a feasible, and if so, then quite a few of y'all might be wondering the same thing that I am now.
If I didn't live in Kalifornia, I'd probably just find a W124 with a bad motor for cheap and V8 that. It would be quite a bit easier from a pure performance standpoint, but then again, I could do the same thing to a second gen RX7 and it would be a bolt in affair with a better return on the performance side. The 123 appeals because of what I'm considering with 'Project Blasphemy' - stealth, and the complete lack of a need to have the car inspected. I might be able to find a 124 that someone pulled the diesel from for another project, which would accomplish some of the same ends, but the vibe is different on those cars, as is the electronics setup. The 123 to me is a good bridge between old and new - good chassis and decent suspension but still simple and easy to work on, before the manufacturers decided they'd rather make the cars harder for the regular guy to work on (more money for the dealerships, and you sell more new cars if there are fewer old ones running around), ie built in obsolescence.
1 Guest(s)
1 Guest(s)