205 Or 309 Track Front And Rear Track Widths.

[jonD6B 0]

Deffo and let me know your thoughts afterwards.

 

The problem with the "passive rear steer" that Peugeot use......is that when you turn into a corner......the initial response is for the front to run wide. You then lift the throttle and the rear end straightens up.......hence "lift off oversteer".

For todays cars......this is not good. The modern cars with superior rear suspensions tend to turn in far sharper.......and less need for the lift off rear end movement.

The rear end of the standard 205GTI is about 2-2 1/2 inches narrower than the front. By fitting the 309 axle the rear end is far wider......BUT is still narrower than the front......by 1/2" - 1". So you may want to measure the front/rear track and fit some spacers to make the rear track as wide as the front. Again this will create sharper and more stable turn in.

 

The 206/307 rear track width is far closer to that of the front track......in fact the 307 rear track is slightly wider than the front track.......as manafacturers now know the benefits of handling and stability this offers.

 

 

After reading an archived topic on 309 rear beams on a 205 I am still unclear why it is necessary to widen the front track given the above statement. Also how much is gained realistically between uprating the 205 beam and fitting the 309 beam aside from turn in. Is it also necessary if widening the front track to replace the 205 ARB with the 309 one? Cheers. Jon.

[smckeown 1]

most people use the 309 rear beam to benefit from a stiffer ARB and TBs. It's the same as going stiffer springs etc, ie better handling.

 

Most people also go wider front and back mostly for cosmetic reasons i believe.

 

I have heard the wider front helps turn in but i dont have conclusive evidence of it

[mfield 20]

I think it's more a case of gaining more camber on the front rather than just widening it.

 

The gains might not be so apperent between the two beams if you uprated the tb's and arb on the 205 beam to the same stiffness as the 309 one, which costs alot compaired to the 309 beam.

 

The front arb on the 205 and 309 are the same except for thickness iirc.

[M@tt 77]

It's not necessary to widen the front after fitting as 309 beam imo.

 

TBH fitting a 309 beam to a 205 doesn't strictly uprate it that much but the extra width & thickness of the beam / torsion bars & arb makes a small increase in rear stiffness over the standard stuff, imo less than fitting the next uprated set of torsion bars (20mm), its the width that makes things far closer but the standard 205 rear beam allows you to fit wider rims which can make a much greater benefit than the extra track width.

 

Fitting uprated parts (or just an ARB) to the 205 beam will give the same change in turn in imo & the 309 arms are a cheap way to give a small amount of negative camber that balances out tyre wear.

The front arb on the 205 and 309 are the same except for thickness iirc.

Making them different.

 

Early 309 front ARB's are the same width as the 205 but the later ones are 21mm & thicker . Fitting them cancels out anything you've done to the rear to an extent & invokes understeer. Try a search through Wurzels posts, he has tried his car with both iirc.

 

Fitting the 309 bits to the front widen the track by about 10mm afaik returning things nearer to what they were from the factory for the front / rear width bias.

 

Not m@tt.

[Ahl 4]

As said the extra negative camber on the front (which the 309 doesnt have - its only fitting the overlong wishbones on the 205) makes a large, very noticeable difference to corner grip.

[Wurzel 16]

Got to agree with the above mostly. For me, changing to the 309 rear beam had nothing to do with the extra track width but wholely to do with the thicker torsion bars and mainly the thicker anti roll bar as standard. My 205 beam was in need of a rebuild so I went for the 309 beam automatically.

 

Instantly noticed the sharper turn in (standard front at this stage).

 

Stuck a 309 front arb on and everything returned to original if anything with a little more understeer. Bar came of the same day.

 

Changed the front to a 309 set up and again, instantly noticed the slower speed sharp corner turn in (roundabout). The nose of the car stuck to the line I intended.

 

Since then, I've had a couple of different dimension torsion bars and anti roll bar on the rear. I'm currently running 23mm Torsions and a 24mm ARB. The front has much stiffer springs on now but with the 205 arb. For me, this is a good set up. I have to emphasize though, handling is a personal thing. Some like a different balance to others. I've managed to get rid of the majority of lift off oversteer (using Grp A rear mounts) which is what I was after. Most like this loo trait and can use it to good effect, I couldn't.

 

To me, the ride is acceptable, to others it will be unacceptable.

 

For budget suspension upgrades, the 309 beam is a very good way to go. If you can afford a rear anti roll bar by itself and fit it to a 205 beam, this will suffice also. There is a lot of consideration though before choosing a thicker bar. Too thick and it will ruin the rear suspension characteristics over rough ground. The rear needs to be uprated in accordance with the front as well to maintain the balance.

 

I will soon be fiddling around with the camber on the front of the car (eccentric top mounts) to see what effects that has. Someday when funds allow, I'll get some negative camber rear arms (or at least the kit) and see what that does. I'll also be fitting the 309 front arb as well but I suspect this will be ott for a short wheel base light car like the 205. No harm in experimenting though.

 

I suggest a major search of 309 rear beam threads on this forum and then you might be able to make an informed decision. It will take a while though as I reckon there are several hundred threads on the 309 beam.

 

Happy reading

Edited January 29, 2006 by Wurzel

[jonD6B 0]

O.k. I found a few threads on the 309 rear beam and shall keep searching as I'm getting no conclusive advice because as you said and I agree, each persons style of driving varies. What would be the consiquence of widening the front track further using 309 shafts and bottom arms and retaining the rear set up with an uprated ARB and mounts?

[smckeown 1]

ask jon murghie as thats the setup he has

[jonD6B 0]

ask jon murghie as thats the setup he has

 

 

Cheers.

 

Jon, is this the set up you're running and if so how is it working for you? I should perhaps mention that this is being set up purely for track use and although it will be driven to the track, road noise, comfort and general road behaviour is definetly second place to on track performance. Cheers.

[C_W 3 1 Cars]

O.k. I found a few threads on the 309 rear beam and shall keep searching as I'm getting no conclusive advice because as you said and I agree, each persons style of driving varies. What would be the consiquence of widening the front track further using 309 shafts and bottom arms and retaining the rear set up with an uprated ARB and mounts?

 

I run a similar setup to that but don't think mine is setup "right" at the moment as its a bit wayward. I get a lot of tramlining and the steering is very light unless its loaded up in a corner.

 

As said above, with the 309 arms you're not widening the track like wheel spacers would but you're just moving the base of the hubs outwards a little which results in negative camber since the strut tops stay in their original position.

[jonD6B 0]

I run a similar setup to that but don't think mine is setup "right" at the moment as its a bit wayward. I get a lot of tramlining and the steering is very light unless its loaded up in a corner.

 

As said above, with the 309 arms you're not widening the track like wheel spacers would but you're just moving the base of the hubs outwards a little which results in negative camber since the strut tops stay in their original position.

 

 

What sort of camber readings are ideal for track use on the front and rear? How do you create negative camber on the rear wheels or is it not necessary? Is it pos. or neg. camber that is refered to when checking the rear beam bearings for obvious signs of wear?

[Anthony 1,000]

Is it pos. or neg. camber that is refered to when checking the rear beam bearings for obvious signs of wear?

Negative camber - ie the top of the wheel leans in further than the bottom.

[jonD6B 0]

Negative camber - ie the top of the wheel leans in further than the bottom.

 

 

What camber reading should you have on a standard 1.9 beam if the car is stripped out and the beam in good condition? (If it makes any difference that it's stripped out).

Edited January 30, 2006 by jonD6B

[C_W 3 1 Cars]

The rideheight/weight doesn't affect the camber on the rear beam as its a trailing arm. Not sure of how much they have but they have a "little bit" of negative camber and toe-in as standard. I think if the camber is too much from beam wear then there will usually be play in the arm.

[jonD6B 0]

C_W> What is your complete set up suspension wise then because I know you track the car. How does your set up compare with other peoples you have driven. ( I am aware that this question is political dynamite so don't be too detailed with your answer) LOL. It is a simple comparison to whether I need to spend a huge chunk of my budget on suspension set up for only minor gains really. I'm all for trial and error but unfortunately my budget isn't so I'm going to need to take trusted advise off people on this forum that clearly have a huge understanding and compassion for 205's.

[C_W 3 1 Cars]

My setup is Jamex front springs (fitted in 1996, not sure if you can still get these, but having tried other springs, Ventura and Eibach they seem about the same) with Koni adjustable shocks all round. The rear anti roll bar is thicker but is a DIY effort of around 23mm I think; this made a noticeable difference on the road in terms of turn-in but now don't notice it as I got used to it.

 

Along with of coure the 309 wishbones. I think the main benefit of this is better tyre wear on tracks as I wouldn't say it made it much quicker (for me).

[jackherer 543]

I run a similar setup to that but don't think mine is setup "right" at the moment as its a bit wayward. I get a lot of tramlining and the steering is very light unless its loaded up in a corner.

 

sounds familiar, all 205s I've put 309 wishbones onto feel like that. I'm also begininning to think that 309 wishbones either wear inner wishbone bushes faster OR they simply transfer more of the symptoms of bush failure to the driver so worn bushes are spotted sooner. I've put 309 wishbones on a few of my mates 205s and they are pleased with the results but I really dont like the way the car feels and Im keeping 205 parts on my car.

Edited January 30, 2006 by jackherer

[jonD6B 0]

Is there any gain in grip on cornering with the 309 front set up though with it having more neg. camber?

[niklas 1]

Is there any gain in grip on cornering with the 309 front set up though with it having more neg. camber?

 

If you're looking only on the camber, then there will be more grip in the corners and less on the straight.

[smckeown 1]

Is there any gain in grip on cornering with the 309 front set up though with it having more neg. camber?

 

On the track absolutely. Also not having neg camber on track will kill the outsides of your tyres big time

[jonD6B 0]

Cheers for all of your input. I think what I'm going to go for is a 309 rear beam with group A mounts, 309 wishbones and driveshafts, group N top mount rubbers with a Bilstein Sprintline kit and a standard 205 ARB.

I've come to this conclusion as I'm having a 1.9/Mi16 hybrid box made up so I figured whilst I'm changing the box I'll do the shafts and arms. The 309 beam is a cost effective upgrade by opinion and the solid mounts speak for themselves.

However, I'm still open for suggestions and opinions on the above plan. I need to get a conclusive decision fairly soon though as I've hardly touched the car and I want it on a track in April at the latest for testing.

[C_W 3 1 Cars]

Personally I'd go for the Bilstein kit and group N top mounts first, and add the other bits later so you can see what difference there is for yourself.

[SPGTi 2]

Has anyone actually worked out the difference between 205 torsion bars and 309 torsion bars ? What I mean is a shorter bar doesn't need to be as thick as a longer bar to have the same resistance to twisting. Could it be that the extra length of the 309 items negates the extra thickness when compared to 205 items ?

 

jonD6B,

 

I would do as Chris says and change components in stages, this you will be able to feel any changes and know what you like best for the handling.

 

Steve

[pug_ham 240 3 Cars]

Has anyone actually worked out the difference between 205 torsion bars and 309 torsion bars ? What I mean is a shorter bar doesn't need to be as thick as a longer bar to have the same resistance to twisting. Could it be that the extra length of the 309 items negates the extra thickness when compared to 205 items ?

I think Wurzel might've tried to do this before but can't remember if he posted any results.

 

This is exactly what my thoughts are on the beam swap issue though, the 309 bars are a slight upgrade on the standard 205 parts purely because of the extra width & a tiny difference in thickness due to that to give a similar rate.

 

Even though currently I run a 309 beam on my GTi & have uprated bars for it waiting to fit, If I had the same sizes in bars for a 205 beam it would be stiffer than on a 309 because they are shorter. I think the extra diametre is at most worth 0.5mm difference over a 205 bar.

 

A 205 with 20mm bars would imo handle better than a 205 with a 309 beam.

 

Graham.

[veloce200 3]

The 309 beam enhances turn because of its stiffer arb and bars not the wider track. If you put a 309 beam with 19mm torsion bars and 19mm arb it would actually understeer more. Wider track front reduces weight transfer but the stiffer bars in the beam increase it more. stiffness increase of arbs - rough guide for torsion bars too..

on this link you can see the increase in %tage stiffness of different arbs. You can also use to work out torsion bars. 19mm torsion is roughly 100lb/in. So 23mm torsion bar is about 215lb/in

 

CW what offset are your wheels? If less than 19ET this could explain the tramlining?

Edited January 31, 2006 by veloce200