Group A 23 Rear Arb

[pug_ham 240 3 Cars]

After reading through this topic, I'nm seriously tempted to get a thicker rear ARB. I'd love to go the SBC phase 1& 2 route but for now....

 

I've had a look at rallyusedparts (thanks Al) & might give the guy a call soon to see how much he wants for a 23 or 24mmmm rear ARB. If it's to much I'll get one direct from SBC sometime instead.

 

I thought that if you made the back end to stiff the car would suffer in the wet but as said, who really goes for it as hard in wet conditions anyway.

 

Graham.

Edited September 21, 2003 by pugtorque

[GtiMad 1]

but as said, who really goes for it as hard in wet conditions anyway.

 

[blackscooby 0]

I don't mind answering them.....but don't want to hijack someone elses thread.

 

So if can be sorted????

No really please carry on... my work is done here

 

so my turn to listen !

[C_W 3 1 Cars]

FYI.

 

Skip Brown left my std rear bushes in as they were new (rebuilt the beam a few months before), std bushes are stiff enough for the road, main thing about the group N beam bushes is that they dont split like the OE ones will, stiffness is an extra bonus, but not needed on a road car.

 

My car handles so well balanced in the wet, infact its more predictable in the wet with the phase 2 than without.

 

I think that one problem is people put stiffer dampers on the rear then a stiff roll bar, when stiffer torsion arms are also needed.

It depends which bushes we're talking about. I assume it's the rear ones as the front semi-solid ones are Group A(??).

 

The rear bushes don't actually do THAT much (as in the aren't that heavily loaded), they just steady the beam slightly. I ran around with 2 split rear bushes for I'm not sure how long, I bought a new set of standard bushes and noticed the car turned in slightly better, but it was nothing exceptional. It was sort of the same difference with group n mounts over standard bushes.

 

I think Lotus were known to make cars with soft springs and strong dampers.

[saveloy 8]

The rear beam uses 2 cylindrical bushes. There are also 2 square bushes used between the beam assembly & boot floor. The Gp N items are these square bushes. The cylindrical ones are simply new standard bushes. Changing these to Gp A spec means fitting solid types. For road use,these are too much. Even in

Gp N guise,the beam will exhibit side to side movement. This is fine,as a road compromise. Going to solid mounts will also remove any steering effect from the rear.

Peugeot Sport have never offered an uprated(semi-rigid) cylindrical mount to supplement the harder rear square bushes,which I find strange.

[Guest smckeown]

the stiffest torsion bars i could get from SBC today were 21mm, and the stiffest ARB was 23mm

 

Sean

[C_W 3 1 Cars]

The rear beam uses 2 cylindrical bushes. There are also 2 square bushes used between the beam assembly & boot floor. The Gp N items are these square bushes. The cylindrical ones are simply new standard bushes. Changing these to Gp A spec means fitting solid types. For road use,these are too much. Even in

Gp N guise,the beam will exhibit side to side movement. This is fine,as a road compromise. Going to solid mounts will also remove any steering effect from the rear.

Peugeot Sport have never offered an uprated(semi-rigid) cylindrical mount to supplement the harder rear square bushes,which I find strange.

Is that not because it's not required because of the geometry of the locating points it isn't that stressed as it's pretty much in-line with the beam tube. Rather than say quite far away which would need them to be stronger???

 

The other thing is that it isn't quite as easy to change the front mounts!!!

[fiji bob 0]

FYI.

 

Skip Brown left my std rear bushes in as they were new (rebuilt the beam a few months before), std bushes are stiff enough for the road, main thing about the group N beam bushes is that they dont split like the OE ones will, stiffness is an extra bonus, but not needed on a road car.

 

My car handles so well balanced in the wet, infact its more predictable in the wet with the phase 2 than without.

 

I think that one problem is people put stiffer dampers on the rear then a stiff roll bar, when stiffer torsion arms are also needed.

doesnt the extra negative camber on the phase 2 kit counteract the stiffer roll/torsion bars giving better stability?

[saveloy 8]

CW,I don't know. A friend of mine who is a mechanical engineer thought it quite unusual too. Alot of hois work revolves around NVH & his colleagues found this set up questionable. But,as I have said,I haven't a problem with it. It all seems to work rather well.