Is Standard Ride Height 330mm?

[supersub14 1]

I removed the rear beam of my 1.9 gti there tonight and measured the centre to centre on the shock bolts. Got a reading of 320mm.

 

As far as im aware the beam is completly standard. It has peugeot shocks still in it.

 

Has it already been lowered or will this decrese be down to old age? Ive been told the standard distance from centre to centre of a non lowered 205 is 330mm but im not sure if thats correct...

 

John

[Anthony 1,003]

Standard GTi is around 322-325mm, so 320mm is in the right ballpark - if you've not yet removed the shocks, you might find this is stopping the arms extending properly and removing them will give you those extra few mm.

[supersub14 1]

cheers,

 

so to get a drop of say 40mm i should set the centre to centre distance to approx 305mm?

 

I know it sounds a lot but i bought 40mm PI springs (part no. 65-166) for the front without reading to much into it, so gonna try them out to see how it looks/drives. Think i might have an issue with that size of drop on standard front shocks but we'll see what happens.

[Anthony 1,003]

Try around 310mm for a 40mm drop. That'll roughly bring the top of the tyre to be level with the bottom of the arch.

[supersub14 1]

ok thanks anthony

[jord294 92]

i had -35mm on the front of my 205, and set the rear to around 315mm (309 beam), but it sat perfect

 

[Tom Fenton 1,542]

I'd agree, 305 you will find is very low, 312mm gives good results with -40 springs I have found, but once you have freed off the bars and greased them well it is a quick and easy job in future to reset the ride height if you decide it is too low/high.

[Rom 0]

Hmm

 

Where did i get 300 mm into my head ? Thats got to be really low.

I built my 309 beam today, and set it to 300mm. Even taking into account the fact its a 309 beam thats still going to be low i think ?

[supersub14 1]

Hmm

 

Where did i get 300 mm into my head ? Thats got to be really low.

I built my 309 beam today, and set it to 300mm. Even taking into account the fact its a 309 beam thats still going to be low i think ?

 

yeah but i bet it looks class

[Tom Fenton 1,542]

I bet its near the bumpstops and will handle wank...!

[supersub14 1]

that too... lol

[Rom 0]

Yeah, god knows why i had 300mm in my head :s

 

Ill reset them in the morning, jords looks fine on 315mm. Not fitted it yet, so no idea how it would look.

 

What is the ratio again ? 1mm on the shock length is 2mm ride height ?

[supersub14 1]

What is the ratio again ? 1mm on the shock length is 2mm ride height ?

 

yeah, thats what the general consensus seems to be from reading old posts

[Anthony 1,003]

I built my 309 beam today, and set it to 300mm. Even taking into account the fact its a 309 beam thats still going to be low i think ?

300mm between centers on a 309 GTi beam is about 45mm lower or so, and really is as low as you'd want to go IMO.

 

For a sensible road-going lowered 309 GTi beam, I'd stick with around 305-308mm, which is about 30-35mm lower than standard.

 

Ratio varies slightly depending on how much you lower the car, but very roughly work on a 1mm shock center = 3mm ride height theory.

[Rom 0]

Cheers Anthony

 

I went for 310mm in the end Yet to be fitted though.

And judging by Plattys pics, something gonna have to give...the 309 beam or the Sl's, and at the amount ive spent on both, niether looks good

[de Noir 0]

300mm on 309 beam is too low imho. I set mine with 20mm TBs on 300...

 

 

...looks class, but that's without interior, exhaust, spare wheel, bumpers and fuel. And without engine.

 

As I'm keeping OE front springs, I'm going to reset at 305-310mm, but first I have to discover whether I have switched TBs left for right, as I keep getting strange ride heights from proven center-to-center distance numbers.

[Super Josh 4]

But first I have to discover whether I have switched TBs left for right, as I keep getting strange ride heights from proven center-to-center distance numbers.

 

I had that Mario. TBs on the wrong side, both sides set to the same centre distance and then put it back on the ground and one side sits higher than the other.

 

Can anyone remember which TB should be on which side, for the 1 and 2 stripes?

 

 

Josh

[taylorspug 7]

I had the same thing, it was/is wear in the trailing arm for me, so the arm would droop lower and have more slack to take up when it was sat on the ground, leading to huge height differences.

 

As far as i know, its 1 stripe for drivers side arm, 2 stripes for the passenger.

[de Noir 0]

... TBs on the wrong side, both sides set to the same centre distance and then put it back on the ground and one side sits higher than the other.

 

Josh

 

 

 

Errm, not here.. When back on the ground both sides are the same height almost in milimeter, but the whole assembly is giving 'wrong' appearance on proven centre distances.

I did milion searches everywhere, have at least 20 different photos showing ride height, and my setup always appears wrong. A kind of too high, accompanied with notably short and hard rear suspension travel.

 

I suspect I have swapped TB sides, as I forgot to make some markings in metal, before sandblasting and powder coating.

 

I guess no other way around than try changing TB sides while maintaing the same centre distance and see which setup sits lower, that should be the right one.

 

 

(sorry for hijacking the topic )

[fangio 1]

Sorry if this sounds boring/technical but having just readjusted my beam yesterday ( to take account of the extra load of camping gear for the EuroTrip) I found that on std length rear dampers the travel from bump to rebound is 75mm. So to have the damper piston sitting at the centre of it's travel and therefore equal amounts of bump and rebound - the bolt centre distance at static deflection(i.e. four wheels on the ground with half a tank of fuel and spare wheel and whatever you normally carry on board) should be 277mm.

That's half way btwn 315mm (fully extended) and 240mm (fully compressed).

 

The obvious problem when lowering is that you are reducing the amount of otherwise available bump travel and be on the 'bump stops' a lot of the time; if you're going to lower the ride height, get appropriately shortened dampers to suit.

 

We've mostly all been there and yes it does look good, but the ride is greatly compromised unless done properly. My car now looks like std, which I always thought looked too high but, the ride quality overall is worth it in my opinion.

Edited April 8, 2009 by fangio

[Super Josh 4]

I had the same thing, it was/is wear in the trailing arm for me, so the arm would droop lower and have more slack to take up when it was sat on the ground, leading to huge height differences.

 

As far as i know, its 1 stripe for drivers side arm, 2 stripes for the passenger.

 

That's intersting Dan, so it's time to strip down the beam and it could be time for its second rebuild

 

Oh well, I need to put in some larger TBs and solid mounts anyway. So good time for an overhaul.

 

 

Josh

[supersub14 1]

(sorry for hijacking the topic )

 

so you should be! only joking lol. Its interesting reading

 

 

The obvious problem when lowering is that you are reducing the amount of otherwise available bump travel and be on the 'bump stops' a lot of the time; if you're going to lower the ride height, get appropriately shortened dampers to suit.

 

We've mostly all been there and yes it does look good, but the ride is greatly compromised unless done properly. My car now looks like std, which I always thought looked too high but, the ride quality overall is worth it in my opinion.

 

yeah id agree. Ive lowered a lot of the different cars ive had, and as i live in the countryside i cant drive harder than 40 on most roads as their too bumpy. Plus after a few months it shakes the car to bits!!

 

But, theirs summit about the look of a lowered car that you just cant beat

[taylorspug 7]

That's intersting Dan, so it's time to strip down the beam and it could be time for its second rebuild

 

Oh well, I need to put in some larger TBs and solid mounts anyway. So good time for an overhaul.

 

 

Josh

 

Just so its clear, i mean mine has wear in the splined end in the trailing arm, not the trailing arm shaft. So would just require a new trailing arm casting.

[Henry Yorke 269 3 Cars]

And judging by Plattys pics, something gonna have to give...the 309 beam or the Sl's, and at the amount ive spent on both, niether looks good

Beam will go. There is no way you can run SL434's on a 309 beam without major arch mods IMHO. SL434's are ET8 so stick out much further than normal.

 

My CTI has SL434's on with a rebuilt 205 beam and the plastic edge of the arch has been ground away on 195/50/15 tyres.

 

Quite a few run these on 195/45/15's as well but I doubt this will help significantly in the gran scheme of things.

 

Not what you want to hear, but better to know before tyre hits arch then bends rear quarter. HTH.

[Rom 0]

Hmm.. Its going to be bad enough to hit the actual metal arch ?

I thought it was going to be a case of sticking out past the plastic arch. Thats what Plattys pics show, them sticking out like 10 mm or something.

 

Why do i never find this stuff out before