1.6 Vs 1.9 Vs 309 Beams

[shalmaneser 26]

I was just wondering, everyone seems to bang on about getting a 309 rear beam to widen the track. The rear suspension geometry of the 205 is about as sensible as it gets. Surely if you want a wider rear track you can just bang on a couple 10mm of spacers and enjoy the same 309 handling with your 1.9 beam?!

 

It's not like it's going to effect the geometry as it would if you did the same to the front, the wheel path is a simple arc.

 

or are there more differences - like spring/ARB rates?

 

Just wondering really, not in the market for a 1.9 beam yet anyway.

[jackherer 543]

The torsion bars and ARB are fatter so its a cheap way to upgrade those, the extra width is a disadvantage if anything.

[Guest 205bandit]

Why would the extra width be a disadvantage?

[James_R 3]

Promotes understeer by making the back more stable than the front

[hodgy 0]

in all honesty tho most ppl that put the 309 rear beam on put the 309 front on so then it makes having the wider beam better as the front handles better so there for makes the whole car better

[James_R 3]

I would disagree with that statement, 309 front is all good I agree there, but regardless of what's at the front the wider beam on the rear dulls the hanlding of the 205 somewhat. Having driven full 309 set up, 205 front 309 rear, 309 front 22mmTB/24ARB rear 309 beam, 309 front 24mmTB/27ARB 205 rear, std 1600 with 24mm ARB in the rear etc.. and the 205 beam makes for a better handling car generally. Although for ultra fast sweepers they'll be more stabilty in the 309 set up, how many times are 205 out on mega fast sweeping corners??

[screwloose 6]

Wider track doesn't necessarily = better handling.

[Baz 421]

It depends how you want the car to behave.

[screwloose 6]

I wasn't specifically referring to 205s. Although you are quite right Baz.

 

I personally prefer the more twitchy/playable std beam width over the more stable 309 setup. I like to bring the rear into play - for want of a better phrase.

[Alastairh 47]

I personally prefer the more twitchy/playable std beam width over the more stable 309 setup. I like to bring the rear into play - for want of a better phrase.

 

Doesn't mean you can't make a 309 beam twitchy and opposite locky. Completely depenands what you want out of the car.

[28CRAIG 2]

A overlooked part of a cars set up is the tyres i find my 205 with standard shocks 309 front set up and 1.6 rear beam with 23mm arb has so much grip and gives so much feedback it is the most fun 205 i have ever driven. But it is getting 23mm tb's and 306 gti front shocks.

[Garry 1]

Doesn't mean you can't make a 309 beam twitchy and opposite locky. Completely depenands what you want out of the car.

 

Just means you have to be going faster

 

I like my 309 beam.

[James_R 3]

Best solution I've come up with is 205 beam with a healthy dose of -ve rear camber (and solid mounts), maintains good high speed stability for the northloop, but retains the sharp turn in (which can be tuned with the rear ARB)

 

I prefer my 205 beam width personally.

 

 

I'll agree with criag, my std 1600 with 6 dampers and a 22mm ARB is awesome fun, but not close to a lightweight stiff sus, diff'd up 205. But for the ££ can't complain.

[welshpug 1,622]

note that 306 gti6/sport/5 door dampers are the same part number as 1.9 gti dampers.

[James_R 3]

Just 10 years younger

 

How can they be the same part no when the ARB tab is different WP??

[welshpug 1,622]

not sure what the ARB has to do with the damper!

[James_R 3]

fronts connect to the ARB I believe

 

The rebound rate felt signifiacntly different on swapping them too

[welshpug 1,622]

thought this was about the rears seeing as the topic was about rear beams

 

I agree the fronts are different and rightly so, most of the extra 300 kilos of the 306 is on the nose.

Edited August 11, 2008 by welshpug

[Guest emlyn11]

So are 1.9 and 1.6 rear beams the same? bar the brakes obviously

 

Emlyn

[Baz 421]

So are 1.9 and 1.6 rear beams the same? bar the brakes obviously

 

Emlyn

 

Yes.

[allanallen 528 2 Cars]

is there no width difference between a 1900 (with the discs fitted) and 1600 beam? I dont mean the tube itself, I mean the actual track width of the car?

[welshpug 1,622]

exactly the same IIRC (only sit wider than base model beams because the gti drums are 40mm deep instead of 30mm)

 

the front of a 1.6 sits wider with 1900 alloys due to the offset of the hub+disc.

[allanallen 528 2 Cars]

exactly the same IIRC (only sit wider than base model beams because the gti drums are 40mm deep instead of 30mm)

 

the front of a 1.6 sits wider with 1900 alloys due to the offset of the hub+disc.

 

just checkin as i'm currently running a 1600 beam but want to be able to swap to a 1900 without moving the position of the wheels in the arches (as there is non )

[Baz 421]

A 1.6 is the same width at the front with 1.6 wheels as it is with 1.9 wheels. (different offsets)

 

And iirc 1.6 beams and 1.9 beams do have a difference in width aswel. Dimensions are in the handbook.

[Kobayashi 35 2 Cars]

exactly the same IIRC (only sit wider than base model beams because the gti drums are 40mm deep instead of 30mm)

 

the front of a 1.6 sits wider with 1900 alloys due to the offset of the hub+disc.

 

I personally prefer the more twitchy/playable std beam width over the more stable 309 setup. I like to bring the rear into play - for want of a better phrase.

 

my Gentry, which should be identical with the 1.9 Rallye concerning beams and brakes, has a very wide front track (so that SL299's will stay JUST within the outlines of the plastic wheel arches), and a very narrow rear track. but i am not sure if this is just because of the drum brakes, or the beams themselves.

 

this combination makes understeering virtually impossible, but can produce heavy lift-off-oversteer. it's also VERY "tail-happy" when braking in corners.

Edited August 13, 2008 by Kobayashi