Wider Front 205

[brolly 0]

hi ppl i know that to make the 205 wider from the rear, a 309 rear beam should be used and the trainling arms out of a zx.

 

 

does anyone kow how i can make it wider from the front too??

 

thanks

Edited July 21, 2009 by jackherer

[richsmells 2]

309 arms and shafts. Do search as loads of members on here run them and there's plenty of information about them.

Edited July 21, 2009 by richsmells

[EdCherry 34 1 Cars]

309 Wishbones.

[Baz 421]

1.6 hubs/drivshafts etc.

 

That way the car will actually be physically wider track. Using 309 wishbones is still no wider, and only lengthens the wishbone, not the actual mating face of the wheel to hub, and none of those options change the top mount position.

[gti-si 0]

Although it doesn't actually make them wider, it certainly looks like it, and it gives some nice negative camber too, so I'd definitely go for the 309 arms and shafts.

 

Out of interest, anyone know why they used a wider track on the 1.6's but not the 1.9's?

[Rippthrough 98]

1.6 hubs/drivshafts etc.

 

That way the car will actually be physically wider track. Using 309 wishbones is still no wider, and only lengthens the wishbone

 

It's still wider...

[EdCherry 34 1 Cars]

By using the 309 wishbones you are moving the contact patch of the tyre, therefore you are actually making it wider.

[maxi 36 1 Cars]

By using the 309 wishbones you are moving the contact patch of the tyre, therefore you are actually making it wider.

 

 

Thats what I thought too. Surely logic would say the lower part of the rim/tyre would be further out, thus making the contact area a wider track?

 

1600 setup is like that to make the 1600 wheels fill the arches I suppose.....

 

Maxi

[Baz 421]

It's still wider...

 

Ok so it might be about the same, but when used with 1.9 offset rims the 1.6 width is pretty wide, and certainly lose that when you change to 309 stuff...

[Baz 421]

By using the 309 wishbones you are moving the contact patch of the tyre, therefore you are actually making it wider.

 

Also lessening the actual contact patch of the tyre though.

 

It might totally be in my head, but since doing the change-over again recently from 1.6 to 309 front running gear, in my opinion it's ideal for higher speed cornering etc as the contact patch flattens, but not ideal for the wet/tighter cornering due to having even less contact patch with the black stuff.

[taylorspug 7]

I can see what Baz is trying to say. Even though the track does get marginally wider, its more a geometry change rather than a track width difference. To get a proper track width change you would have to move the hub mounting face out, like the difference between a 1900 and 1600 front hub.

 

Also maybe the OP is trying to allude to widening off the front to match the extra width at the rear? If so thats alot more work than just bolting parts on unfortunately, unless you just run huge spacers or different ET wheels.

[Daviewonder 533 3 Cars]

why not go for 1.6 hubs and 309 arms with 1.9 wheels then you get one mean looking pug!

[oonip 4]

Hmm other than looking alot meaner your probably not doing the handling any good at all. Increasing static camber changes all suspension geometry, which is great if you can adjust everything to suit.

 

Is the biggest reason for the 309 rear beam a wider track? forgive my ignorance!

[taylorspug 7]

why not go for 1.6 hubs and 309 arms with 1.9 wheels then you get one mean looking pug!

 

Its mostly due to the lack of brake options when using the 1.6 hubs.

 

Hmm other than looking alot meaner your probably not doing the handling any good at all. Increasing static camber changes all suspension geometry, which is great if you can adjust everything to suit.

 

Is the biggest reason for the 309 rear beam a wider track? forgive my ignorance!

 

The wider track isnt really a plus point, as it tends to dull the turn in somewhat. The main reason is the thicker torsion bars and ARB. And you can get cheap thicker torsion bars from Pug for £100ish brand new, which is an overlooked plus point, mainly because only a few people have done it. They come from a Partner van.

 

205s especially with 16v engines generally drive and handle alot better with a little extra static camber. Mine is running just over 2 degrees static, and a fair deal of castor to maintain the camber as the outside wheel turns. The difference between mine and a standard car is literally night and day, makes me realise every time how much a standard 205 actually understeers.

[oonip 4]

hmm i guess it depends on application, increasing track Does improve stability in cornering and reduces straight line stability, albeit probably quite minimal with the increase of track were talking about.

 

Interesting stuff about the 309 rear beam, the anti roll bar bit makes alot of sense

 

Has adding the extra castor affected the wieght of your steering much? Also on first impression it seems like a strange thing to do as more castor is usually related to straight line stability due the self centering forces acting on the wheels. How did you obtain adjust your static camber?

[taylorspug 7]

Static camber on mine was found using 309 wishbones and eccentric top mounts.

 

The caster didnt weight the steering up too much on its own, now the car has a plate diff in it too it can get a bit on the heavy side at times, im in two minds over putting PAS on it now. The caster will increase the steering self centering effect yes, but it also induces more negative camber on the outside wheel as the hub rotates when turning, and consequently pushes the inside wheel into positive camber. The small trade off with the steering self centering is more than worth it in my opinion.

 

The bigger ARB in the rear makes all the difference, mine has a 24mm one, which is 4mm bigger than the standard 309 item. Its easily the biggest handling change the car has had.

[oonip 4]

Yeah i'm remembering lectures from last year now (with the help from my course notes!)..., castor is there to eliviate the jacking forces induced by KPI and increases camber in cornering on the outside wheel, reducing camber on the inside. The KPI increase (longer lower wish bone) induces camber gain in bump, so it makes sense that you have increased castor to maintain driver feel and reduce the extra jacking forces as well getting more camber gain from steering input.

 

Cool. Im going to look into the rear 309 beam with bigger ARB if the improvement is that big, even though i want it to look standard theres no harm in improving handling ey!

 

Cheers mate, and sorry for the thread hi jack!

[DRTDVL 4 1 Cars]

1.6 hubs/drivshafts etc.

 

That way the car will actually be physically wider track. Using 309 wishbones is still no wider, and only lengthens the wishbone, not the actual mating face of the wheel to hub, and none of those options change the top mount position.

 

main differance between the 1.6 and the 306 / 1.9gti hubs:

 

1) The ball joint location: the 1.6 hub has the ball joint located 20mm roughly closer to the engine than the 1.9/306 hubs.

 

2) Brake mounting face (you know where the wheel bolts screw into): the 1.6 hub's mounting face is roughly 20mm further out away from the engine compare to the 1.9/306 hubs, when combined with the ball joint location they mount the inner wheel face in the same location.

 

3) Driveshaft Dia.: The 1.6 hub has a smaller dia driveshaft hole compared to the 1.9/306 hubs.

 

Now differances between the 1.9 gti and the 306 (S16 - ABS) hubs.

 

The mounting locations for the ball joints and the calipers are identical.

 

The biggest differance between the two hubs is the increased size of the bearing for the driveshaft, this allows for a larger bearing to be used compaired to the 1.9gti. The 306 S16 hubs i've used also had the abs sensor holes in them also. I've used it to mount the wheel speed probe...

 

I went through this when i was converting the hubs from 1.6 to 1.9 spec to run the 307 front brakes...

 

Can get pics if needed of the 1.9 vs 1.6 as the 306 ones are on the car...

Edited September 24, 2009 by DRTDVL

[welshpug 1,645]

1) The ball joint location: the 1.6 hub has the ball joint located 20mm roughly closer to the engine than the 1.9/306 hubs.

 

2) Brake mounting face (you know where the wheel bolts screw into): the 1.6 hub's mounting face is roughly 20mm further out away from the engine compare to the 1.9/306 hubs, when combined with the ball joint location they mount the inner wheel face in the same location.

 

that's not quite correct,

 

1, the balljoint is in EXACTLY the same place between the two different hub carriers used on a 205.

 

2, there are 3 different drive flanges/hubs used, the drive flange/hub is further out on a 1.6 compared to the base model which uses the same bearing, CV spline pattern and carrier,

 

The 1.9 which uses a larger bearing and matching carrier, with the same balljoint position, and the same disc offset as the base models.

 

the front track between a 1.6 and 1.9 ON STANDARD WHEELS (i.e 14 and 15" respectively) does not differ greatly due to the deeper 25mm offset of the 1.6 wheel, compared to the 1.9's 19mm.

 

however fit the 1.9 wheels on a 1.6 and you will have a wider track between wheel footprints.

[welshpug 1,645]

also, as has been mentioned by a few on here, Maxi or Taylorspug IIRC, that the 306 hubs, though they use the same drive flange and balljoint position as a 1.9 or base model 205, will give less negative camber when fitted to a 205.

 

this is because the 306 dampers are closer together at the top comparatively to the 205's dampers, or to give the correct term, the steering axis inclination IIRC.

Edited September 24, 2009 by welshpug

[thirdtimelucky 3]

also, as has been mentioned by a few on here, Maxi or Taylorspug IIRC, that the 306 hubs, though they use the same drive flange and balljoint position as a 1.9 or base model 205, will give less negative camber when fitted to a 205.

 

this is because the 306 dampers are closer together at the top comparatively to the 205's dampers, or to give the correct term, the steering axis inclination IIRC.

 

So if I fit 306 hubs from a 2.0 16v xsi and 309 lower arms ill have a wider track without loads of negative camber?

[DRTDVL 4 1 Cars]

that's not quite correct,

 

1, the balljoint is in EXACTLY the same place between the two different hub carriers used on a 205.

 

2, there are 3 different drive flanges/hubs used, the drive flange/hub is further out on a 1.6 compared to the base model which uses the same bearing, CV spline pattern and carrier,

 

The 1.9 which uses a larger bearing and matching carrier, with the same balljoint position, and the same disc offset as the base models.

 

the front track between a 1.6 and 1.9 ON STANDARD WHEELS (i.e 14 and 15" respectively) does not differ greatly due to the deeper 25mm offset of the 1.6 wheel, compared to the 1.9's 19mm.

 

however fit the 1.9 wheels on a 1.6 and you will have a wider track between wheel footprints.

 

Thats really interesting, i'm trying to figure out how it worked out so wrong when we where mocking things up then??? It's possible i was having a very stupid day...

 

Anyone got a pic of a 1.6 and 1.9 driveshaft side by side?

 

Welshpug i'm not saying your wrong - i figure i am now... We where working on the impression that the 1.6 and 1.9 gti had the same front track based on the fact that when we went to fit the 307 brakes to the 1.6 hubs the was a neg off on the hub, although the wheel looked to be in the exact same position once we swapped hubs to the 306 hub and the caliper mounting face shift away from the engine. We assumed incorrectly that as the capiler mounting face shifted away from the engine and the distance between the hub casting and the inside of the disc mounting part looked to decrease it compensate for each other.

 

I took a bunch of pics tonight anyways not to try and prove you wrong but to let others see what the actual differances are 1.6 is the gold hub (as per what i was lead to believe)

 

So if the 1.9'ss got the same offset as non-gti model does that mean the gt/xs/gr can run the 307/306 brakes?

[DRTDVL 4 1 Cars]

also, as has been mentioned by a few on here, Maxi or Taylorspug IIRC, that the 306 hubs, though they use the same drive flange and balljoint position as a 1.9 or base model 205, will give less negative camber when fitted to a 205.

 

this is because the 306 dampers are closer together at the top comparatively to the 205's dampers, or to give the correct term, the steering axis inclination IIRC.

 

I think you mean further apart, anyways thats kool...

 

looking at the pics tonight, does the 1.6 give more neg camber? as per the photo above, if you look a the angle of the hub mounting location for the strut and the angle it's on?

 

I do have to say it's damm hard finding anything out on here when you can't search for 3 letter words... so 306 and hub =

 

You searched for: 306 hub

Unfortunately your search didn't return any results.

Try broadening the search parameters by searching by different keywords or altering the format of your search.

Remember to use the wildcard '*' to increase the number of matches. Apple* will match 'apple' and 'apples'.

 

or when you look for something like - zx trailing arms

 

Sorry, an error occurred. If you are unsure on how to use a feature, or don't know why you got this error message, try looking through the help files for more information.

The error returned was:

One or all of your search keywords were below 3 characters or you searched for words which are not allowed, such as 'html', 'img', etc, please go back and increase the length of these search keywords or choose different keywords

[welshpug 1,645]

use a google search if you want to use a short search term

 

the 306 top mounts are closer together than a 205 compared to the bottom balljoint povots, but the camber is the same (or very close)

 

 

the track differences is all in the drive flange itself on the 205's like I said.

 

 

So if the 1.9'ss got the same offset as non-gti model does that mean the gt/xs/gr can run the 307/306 brakes?

 

yes indeed, and they use the same cv joint spline as the 1.6, so fit the base model hubs to a 1.6 and you can have big brakes and keep the small shafts.

 

 

the steering axis inclination did vary between early and late cars, but only by half a degree or so, similarly with camber, 1.6 ran 0, 1.9 up to 88 ran 0.30, after than was 0 degrees.

[jackherer 543]

Use Google to search this site.

 

type:

 

306 hub site:205gtidrivers.com

 

Results 1 - 10 of about 125 from 205gtidrivers.com for 306 hub