Rear Wheels Sitting Too Far Back...

[Guest Gra76]

Both rear wheels on my 205 Mi16 are sitting about an inch and a half too far back, they're catching on the rear bumper slightly going over bumpy ground.

 

I remember seeing something on 'Wheeler Dealers' on Sky about this and it's supposed to be quite easy to put right, but I can't remember what they did to straighten the suspension back up again..... can anyone tell me how to do this please!

 

Thanks!

 

Graham

[Dino 3]

Forget what Wheeler Dealers said - they mentioned this 'problem' at the start of the show and then proceeded to do jack s*it about it!

 

On my 205 the o/s rear wheel sits further back than the n/s one does - at first I thought there was something wrong with the beam so I tried another which was exactly the same. Ive also checked out other Pugs and some of them also have this problem.

[Kitsune 0]

Could this be problems with the actual floorpan and the hole positioning being out between n/s and o/s?

 

How much is it out compared with the opposite wheel? As it could just be a case of resizing some of the beam mount holes to give you more adjustment.

[Wurzel 16]

If the beam was not on the car properly, I'm sure you'd notice it handling wise. The rear end would be trying to steer itself all over the place and the tyres would probably scrub.

 

The mounting holes, from what I can see, offer no adjustment at all and probably for good reason. I've no idea how you are supposed to re-align the rear end as it's all fixed and as standard, rides on flexible joints.

 

The difference is wheel to arch measurements is a common one as Dino says. I remember threads about this from some time back. There was one not so long ago actually. If the car drives as it should, the tyres do not scrub unduly and everything sounds good, I'd be inclined to leave the beam alone.

 

My initial thoughts were rear end crunch or similar causing the valance mounts to be out, but people have confirmed that all is well there also, so I guess it's just down to how it's all fitted at the factory.

[McPikie 0]

Either that Wurzel or most of our 205's have been backwards through a farmers wall in the past

[Guest Gra76]

Either that Wurzel or most of our 205's have been backwards through a farmers wall in the past 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I hope not!

 

Both back wheels are the same distance away from the rear bumper, they both sit about 1cm away from scrubbing when parked up on level ground. The car had been lowered 40mm on Spax springs if that makes any difference at all? Sounds like it's something I might have to put up with permanantly unless I can find some way of adjusting the position.....

[McPikie 0]

The car had been lowered 40mm on Spax springs if that makes any difference at all?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Doubt the front set up would cause the rears to rub.

 

You tried moving the bumper back a little, or shaving some off??

[nick 3]

What size tyres have you got on?

 

Nick

[Guest Gra76]

I've not tried to shave the bumper as it's sitting in the right place and follows the line of the arch perfectly, so I wanted to avoid that if I could.

 

The tyres are standard profile tyres on standard 1.9 GTi alloys (but I can't remember the particular size off the top of my head!! DOH!)

[Rob_the_Sparky 9]

Lowering it will make them closer to the rear bumper, the pivot point is infront and higher than the wheel center so lowering it will move the wheels backwards slightly.

[Hilgie 16 2 Cars]

One of the wheels is always more to the rear as the other one. This is caused by the construction of the torionbar setup.

 

Have a look at the 206, 306 and Renault 5 as well. All have one of the wheels sitting back a litter further than the other one. Nothing to worry about.

[rossimura 0]

Both mine are like this, I tried alsorts to get it right on my first car, doesn't seem to affect handling.

But it does hamper the fitting of big drug dealer wheels.

 

Lowering the back changes the geometry a bit which makes it worse..

 

If anyone has a real fix for this let me know cos its still annoying

[jim205GTI 3]

If i remember that program rightly the mechanic reckoned the car had been lowered at the rear so what he did was raise it again by pulling the bars out on either side and putting them in another slot..... dunno if it worked though

[Wurzel 16]

One of the wheels is always more to the rear as the other one. This is caused by the construction of the torionbar setup.

 

Have a look at the 206, 306 and Renault 5 as well. All have one of the wheels sitting back a litter further than the other one. Nothing to worry about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Is that really the reason??

 

I would have thought the rear wheel geometry would have been exactly the same. Leverage on the torsion bars is different for the left and right bars which is the reason (I assume) the bars are 'handed' ie have one stripe or two. One would be very slightly stiffer than the other but marginally so, only Pug know

 

Having one wheel further back than the other would surely cause some weird handling traits?

[niklas 1]

I'm not sure the asymmetrical setup of the torsion bars would affect this unless the trailing arms are not symmetrical.

If it did, then the wheels should be sitting at different height as well.

 

Clarification; As I see it, if the trailing arms are at equal length, the wheels are sitting at the exact same height and the beam axle is sitting 100% aligned with the body, then the distance between front-back will be the same as well.

 

I would guess that either the trailing arms are not symmetrical or the beam axle is not perfectly aligned with the body.

[TEKNOPUG 3]

Is it definitely the wheels that are a different distance apart and not differences in the rear 3/4 panel/wheel arches?

[Garry 1]

Found this thread whilst searching.....

 

I now have this problem since having my cage fitted. The O/S rear wheel hits the back of the arch / lower rear valance when I hit a bump at speed. I can only assume this wasn't a problem before due to chassis flex and now the chassis won't give, so the wheel has to travel further.

I run speedlines with 195/50 Toyos and a 1.9 beam that is lowered about 30mm the beam was refurbed about 3 years ago (see below).

 

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a389/gar...Pics/Sideon.jpg

 

I am concerned as I am going to be fitting a refurbed 309 beam with 25mm ARB tomorrow and I can see the problem worsening ten fold.

Is there a solution that someone has found since this thread? Running bigger bump stops? Cutting the valance back?

 

Thanks

 

Garry

[Guest smokinslim]

Lowering it will make them closer to the rear bumper, the pivot point is infront and higher than the wheel center so lowering it will move the wheels backwards slightly.

I'll second that, the lower u go the more likely it is that you'll have to do a bit of trimming

[Dino 3]

Incidently my O/S rear wheel seemed worse when my car was at standard ride that it does now.

 

Das now works at a tyre fitters with a super duper alignment facility and he reckons he can sort out this issue. I don't know how if there is no way to adjust the beam on its mounting points

Edited April 17, 2006 by Dino

[saveloy 8]

If both wheels are an equal distance from the rear bumper,then it does seem as if it is a ride height issue. Perhaps the torsion bars are tired and the combination of that and a very low rear are working to cause the issue you have.

I would also check that the beam itself is in good order. It isn't uncommon for the wheels to move back a centimetre or so,due to collapsed bearings. Jack up the rear and give each wheel a good tug. Side to side aswell as pulling each backwards to check for any movement.

Lets rule out the obvious.

[Dream Weaver 2]

My O/S wheel was always an inch closer to the rear trim than my N/S wheel, until i fitted a new beam and trailing arms recently.

 

Both wheels now sit perfectly in the arches, so it was the O/S trailing arm that was bent IMO.

[Guest Cartooner]

One of the wheels is always more to the rear as the other one. This is caused by the construction of the torionbar setup.

 

Have a look at the 206, 306 and Renault 5 as well. All have one of the wheels sitting back a litter further than the other one. Nothing to worry about.

 

I don't believe this. The axle itself is located (semi)solidly under the car. The pivoting point of both trailing arms left and right is the axle and the stabilisor bar is exactly dead centre. The torsion arms are located outside the centre. One for and one aft. This is why they are rated differently. The front torsion bar(right wheel) is furthest from the leverage point(wheel centre) and therefor has to be slightly stronger( longer arm=more torsion).

 

If the bearings are 100% and both sides are even in hight, and the car is straight, then this could be as trivial as a rear bumper/valance combo not being bolted on correctly.( Parking damage) I have the same problem and my axle is 100% refurbished, but the rear bumper has been kissed on the left side. Both wheels should have equal clearance on the frontside though. ( When setup correctly)

 

Find it hard to believe that a traling arm was bent here! This is a pretty solid piece! Did the car get run over by a tank or what? Must have been a tired torsion bar or shock or a misadjustment in height I think.

Edited April 18, 2006 by Cartooner

[jonah 1]

I don't believe this. The axle itself is located (semi)solidly under the car. The pivoting point of both trailing arms left and right is the axle and the stabilisor bar is exactly dead centre. The torsion arms are located outside the centre. One for and one aft. This is why they are rated differently. The front torsion bar(right wheel) is furthest from the leverage point(wheel centre) and therefor has to be slightly stronger( longer arm=more torsion).

 

It's not the distance from wheel centre to torsion bar that's important, it's the ratio of lengths between the pivot point (trailing arm shaft) and wheel centre / torsion bar. e.g. if the distance between stub axle and trailing arm shaft is 12" on both sides; then the RH torsion bar could be 2" in front of the arm shaft and the LH torsion bar could be 2" behind the arm shaft. The distance from wheel centre to torsion bar is 10" on one side and 14" on the other, but the ratio of movement is exactly 6:1 on both sides.

 

Also, more importantly, equal lengths from wheel centre to pivot point gives equal change of angle of each trailing arm for a given amount of height change, so each torsion bar is twisted through the same angle. So, I can't imagine why it would have been designed with one torsion bar stiffer than the other or one wheel further back than the other (unless there's something I haven't thought of).

 

I know the L and R bars are marked differently, but that could be for other reasons than different stiffnesses...

 

Find it hard to believe that a traling arm was bent here! This is a pretty solid piece! Did the car get run over by a tank or what? Must have been a tired torsion bar or shock or a misadjustment in height I think.

I agree with that. A bent trailing arm could change camber or toe on a rear wheel, but to move it backwards it would have to get longer! Which seems unlikely in the extreme...

 

Also, lowering the car shouldn't cause the wheels to rub. Yes it will move the wheels backwards at rest as explained above, but no more than they do when going over a bump with standard ride height. Since the wheels shouldn't rub on standard suspension when going over bumps, they shouldn't rub on lowered suspension either!

 

One other thing, the rear beam front mounts are different between 1.6 and 1.9GTI, which puts the wheels about 1/2" further back (I think) on the 1.9.

[Guest Cartooner]

It's not the distance from wheel centre to torsion bar that's important, it's the ratio of lengths between the pivot point (trailing arm shaft) and wheel centre / torsion bar. e.g. if the distance between stub axle and trailing arm shaft is 12" on both sides; then the RH torsion bar could be 2" in front of the arm shaft and the LH torsion bar could be 2" behind the arm shaft. The distance from wheel centre to torsion bar is 10" on one side and 14" on the other, but the ratio of movement is exactly 6:1 on both sides.

 

Hadn't looked at it that way. On second thought, You're absolutely right. Thumbs up!

[Dream Weaver 2]

It would be quite easy to bend a trailing arm by sliding the backend into a curb or similar - that would push the wheel in towards the car and could slightly bend the trailing arm - this is what I believe happened to mine as there is a dent on the lower rear quarter and the rear valance was cracked.

 

All fixed now with a new beam