Bad Words About 309 Beams

[shalmaneser 26]

I'm running 309 TBs with a 24mm ARB, standard 309 front springs and 205 ARB with 309 wishbones and I couldn't be happier with the result. Excellent turn in and fairly predictable at the back, just enough movement to be fun. Ride quality is pretty darn good too.

 

I am running the XU10 J4RS boat anchor up front though, the 309 springs would likely to too high for a alloy block.

[Alan_M 66 1 Cars]

as baz says.

 

don't have the ride height set too low

 

Thing is mine is not low at all. If anything a touch higher than the front, but I still get rubbing! I can't trim the stops anymore or I'll wreck my arches, and suffer from limited travel too. Nah, I'm going back to a 205 beam and keep the 309 beam tube for a rainy day, as Anthony would say.

[jord294 92]

i personally never had any issues with rubbing when using a 309 gti beam

 

beam was lowered no more than -30mm

[Anthony 1,003]

309 beams will rub the inside of the plastic arches when lowered on 195/50R15 tyres, but normally once the arches have "modified" themselves it's normally OK and there's no further issues. However, add the fractionally wider track of the later 306 era arms with ABS, perhaps some squarer profile tyres and the usual dubious French tolerances, and I can easily see one rubbing worse.

 

In Alan's case, even on "normal" tyres and regular 309 arms I remember the rubbing being so bad on its maiden European run back in 2005 that I took the beam apart one night in a French hotel car park to raise it up and stop it

[johnnyboy666 195 1 Cars]

would running 195 45 15 on the back not help avoid rubbing? wouldn't be visably noticeable unless you already knew. and that'll give you something like 10mm to play with

[Baz 421]

Not to mention s*it handling and more road noise.

 

But yeah, it'll look bo-shank.

[johnnyboy666 195 1 Cars]

road noise can be sorted with £10 of sound deadening sheets if necessary.

 

I realise lower profile tyres will have less flex, but they're only 20mm less diameter, hardly a massive difference.

of course the driver would probably be able to feel the difference, but I doubt its going to cause any issue that are worse than the tyres rubbing?

 

having said that, I like to learn and there's no better way to do that, than to be wrong

 

and just as an aside, I used to run 195 45 15s on my roland garros, as it was a base model shell and had no tyres catching/rubbing. road noise i agree with, but if its just a pair for the back and keep the front the same then I doubt they'll notice much road noise unless its stripped out

[C_W 3 1 Cars]

I used to run mine on 195/45/15s - I preferred the look and the drive wasn't really any different to me.

 

I recall cutting my bumpstops a little to improve ride quality, when they're only just off hitting the ride quality is pretty bad as every bump resulted in a more pronounced thud as it hit the stop; if you chop them down a bit then they don't generally hit = better ride.

[welshpug 1,658]

I've driven on 45's and hated it, crashing over joints and potholes, and giving snap oversteer, also not much warning to understeer.

 

Changed to 50's on exactly the same tyre and it was quite different to drive, with no changes at all to the car otherwise, a bog standard 1.6 gti.

 

Was so playful and much comfier, could drift it where previously it wanted to kill you

[johnnyboy666 195 1 Cars]

each to their own I suppose

[welshpug 1,658]

so you'd rather go off through a hedge backwards eh?

[Anthony 1,003]

There must have other factors in play in your example Mei, as 45 to 50 profile isn't going to make a snappy car into a placid one with all else being equal. Could the 45 profile tyres have gone off/hard due to age for example, as that would certainly make it snappy and unpredicable.

 

I've regularly gone between 50 and 55 profile on my 306, and seen nothing like what you're describing - ride quality is slighty better on the 55's and turn in was slightly better on the 50's, but the balance, handling and grip was all very similar.

[johnnyboy666 195 1 Cars]

not exactly! my view is that the ~3.5% change in tyre diameter has not been quite as dramaticaly different in handling in my experience. But it has in yours, so maybe theres other factors which makes it more pronounced in different setups. As mentioned mine was on a base model beam

 

edit: beaten to it!

Edited July 10, 2012 by johnnyboy666

[Baz 421]

I agree with Mei tbh, i have both sets of wheels with 50's and 45's. The latter are basically for aesthetic reasons, but the 50's handle much better, way more progressive when adhesion runs out and alot more comfy on an already stiff car.

 

I went to the ring on 45's a few years ago, i haven't since, it was bloody lethal in the wet in the worst place possible. It does make a big difference, of course there's always a few depending factors!

[Batfink 201]

a change in contact point shape? Slightly different widths and tyre wall strength will change the shape.

[johnnyboy666 195 1 Cars]

I dont disagree that a larger profile will be more compliant, (I run 13's) I merely suggested it to solve the issue of contact with bodywork/arches etc

 

disclaimer: any opinions expressed by myself are exactly that

 

 

 

 

[Baz 421]

Oh yes it may well solve that issue, but IMO it isn't an issue and if it was to the point where you'd be governed to run 45's, i'd seek an easier solution before that.

[pugmarshall 4 1 Cars]

so you'd rather go off through a hedge backwards eh?

 

You might think this is bulls*it, but...

 

I'm running a completely standard Junior, with skinny arb's and the small/single bottom arms with 306 coilovers.

 

 

 

 

I really DID go through a hedge backwards.

[Baz 421]

Why would anyone think that's bulls*it? It's exactly the character trait of driving a 205 too fast and lifting off mid-corner...

[chipstick 382 1 Cars]

Finally collected the 309 beam. Looks like it was dredged from the bottom of a river at some point

 

Was fitted to the 309 suspended over another vehicle, but moved with a wiggle so fingers crossed the tube is OK and it's rebuildable. Will see what greets me on the strip down.

[welshpug 1,658]

if it was a base model chances are the tube is perfectly usable, may even have a decent shaft or two.

 

Why would anyone think that's bulls*it? It's exactly the character trait of driving a 205 too fast and lifting off mid-corner...

 

especially when the front is much too stiff

[chipstick 382 1 Cars]

if it was a base model chances are the tube is perfectly usable, may even have a decent shaft or two.

 

Not a base model one, it's a 309 GTi Beam.

 

I am leaning towards popping VTS arms on, of which I have low milage ones from a very clean beam. Although I am having second thoughts about that now due to the hubs. Will see how bad the shafts are on the few beams I have here.

[welshpug 1,658]

ah, minefield, likely to be nadgered if it hasn't been rebuilt, good luck!

[Tom Fenton 1,542]

Be warned that running 309 tube with VTS arms does leave the back end VERY wide, my car is like this plus 4mm each side, the tyres are right out wearing away the plastic arches.

 

If you do decide to do it I would advise using 205 1.9 stub axles/wheel bearings/brake discs to lose a little bit of track width compared to the 306/Xsara offset.

[Tom Fenton 1,542]

Pics here of mine http://forum.205gtidrivers.com/index.php?showtopic=87784&st=260