Alastairh 47 Posted February 11, 2008 Hello. My Sorrento. I am returning the car back to standard as i am selling up I previously had a tweaked 309 beam installed which i've now sold, and bought a new 205 beam from a friend on this forum. A couple years back the beam was lowered and rebuilt by lad by 35mm. So last weekend i highered the beam back up (shock distance roughly 233mm), and the beam came apart easily enough and looked really mint. Happy days! I then bolted everything back on, lowered the car to the ground and attempt the first drive with revised running gear and rebuilt engine but didn't quite go to plan. The rear wheels were rubbing on the inner arches. I thought thats odd. So i jacked the car up and tried a different make of tyres, and no change (possible difference in side walls). So i pulled my other standard 1900 Red 205 up and measured from the bottom of the inner wheel arch to the outside of the brake disc on both cars and they were the same (roughly 150mm). Yet theres a thingers gap between the wheel and the wheel arch on the red one, but not my Sorrento. All tests were done with 1900 Speedlines. The beam doesn't look cambered or anything like that. Answers on a post card Cheers, Al Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
welshpug 1,626 Posted February 11, 2008 195 or 185's? what I have seen is that the inner arch has been beaten back, but not the lip where the panel meets the boot floor if you see what I mean, I don't know if that's enough? all I can imagine it'd be is that the stub axles or shafts are bent, but you would see and measure that?! one thing I know it can be, the thickness of the disc/wheel mounting face can vary, maybe enough for a 195 to rub? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
welshpug 1,626 Posted February 11, 2008 another thought too, has this beam had new wheel bearings ever? there is meant to be a spacer behiond the bearing, but once again your measurement of 150mm means that this in theory isnt possible. I'm stumped too! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alastairh 47 Posted February 11, 2008 195. I know lots of people that run 195's on 1900 beams though... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaveW 6 Posted February 11, 2008 Twisted shell mate Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baz 421 Posted February 11, 2008 (edited) yeh, i agree with Dave, i hear the guy that owned that shell before you was a real animal... In other words, no idea, spill... Edited February 11, 2008 by BazGTMi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pug_ham 242 3 Cars Posted February 11, 2008 So last weekend i highered the beam back up (shock distance roughly 233mm), and the beam came apart easily enough and looked really mint. Typo? 233mm is massively low so it'd be sat on the shell with absolutely no rear suspension!! Guessing you meant 323mm. Has this beam been driven on this shell before or on any car since rebuild for that matter? Sounds to me like you need to take the rear wheel bearings off & check someone hasn't tried to make a 1.6 beam into a 1.9 beam without swapping the stub axles by leaving the spacers off that Welshpug mentions. Graham. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Garry 1 Posted February 12, 2008 This is my old beam, which was put out of service as I got a 309 one instead. I didn't have any problems with it fitting or rubbing on mine since I had the ''LAD 2000'' upgrade. Maybe its the chassis? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Batfink 201 Posted February 12, 2008 How about measuring the distance between the inner arches on the car and comparing it to another as maybe there was some large build tolerances in the bodywork? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Emmy Seize 8 Posted February 12, 2008 Glad to read that I am not the only one with this sort of observations. One of my 1.9s has a similar thing. The beam is all original, not kanckered, not cambered or whatever, some 195s tend to rub on the body and with 185s the gap between shell and tyre is still considerably smaller than on my other cars. As I prefer standard tyre-size, I not bothered by this, but it would be nice to know the reason for it anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
James_R 3 Posted February 12, 2008 must be a friday afternoon shell Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alastairh 47 Posted February 12, 2008 Typo? 233mm is massively low so it'd be sat on the shell with absolutely no rear suspension!! Guessing you meant 323mm. Has this beam been driven on this shell before or on any car since rebuild for that matter? Sounds to me like you need to take the rear wheel bearings off & check someone hasn't tried to make a 1.6 beam into a 1.9 beam without swapping the stub axles by leaving the spacers off that Welshpug mentions. Graham. Sorry, i was on the San miguel last night. Garry did have the beam on his car previously. How about measuring the distance between the inner arches on the car and comparing it to another as maybe there was some large build tolerances in the bodywork? I've got the car up on axel stands at the mo as im refurbing its rims, so i will get the tape measure out tonight. fit spacers. I've done that to just get it driving, but would rather fix it. Cheers for your help lads. Al Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
James_R 3 Posted February 12, 2008 It did run fine on the beam it had before you got it which had the SB wonky wheel set up on it, so if it didn't rub wiuth that odd it does with this, ave you measured between the inside of the discs across the whole beam compared to the other 1900?? see if it's any narrower there? Oh and th archs have got dinked out at all from various stuff in the boot, I've had to tape mine back in before after wedging copious amounts of wheels in the boot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Super Josh 4 Posted February 12, 2008 It did run fine on the beam it had before you got it which had the SB wonky wheel set up on it, so if it didn't rub wiuth that odd it does with this, You have to remember that the SBC negative camber kit adds quite a bit of width to the beam, not far off a 309 beam width. So that would explain why the problem hasn't been seen before. Josh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dino 3 Posted February 12, 2008 Both the standard beams I had on this shell didnt rub even though one of them was seized! Have you tried another 1.9 beam Al? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eafertynyne 1 Posted February 12, 2008 OK... first time I've offered any kind of advice on here and at the risk of making a tw*t of myself... here goes.. Could the inside of the wheels have been machined down a bit to either stop the fouling on your arches with the 309 beam or have they been fitted on a FWD Ford? Just my immediate thought because this is what I had to do when I put 19's on a BMW a few years back. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
niklas 1 Posted February 13, 2008 Have you fitted the front mounts correctly? They are offset in both left-right and front-back directions! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
