Finally Figured Out Why My Car Only Goes Left - 2

[Mac Crash 78 1 Cars]

Following on from Jackherer's original topic - http://forum.205gtidrivers.com/index.php?showtopic=80362&hl=%2Bbent+%2Baxle&do=findComment&comment=730740 - with the same title, only it's so old we can't post there now...

 

I think my 205 has a similar issue, in this case I suspect the stub axle is bent as the N/S/R wheel has very noticeable toe in while the O/S/R looks parallel - car was bought like this and hasn't been done by myself, I knew something wasn't quite right in the handling as it was nervous and easily deflected over bumps/road undulations but I put it off for later as I was concentrating on fixing other aspects of the car.... I think the front wheel alignment has been adjusted to compensate by previous owner and/or along with the changes I have made the car is now a complete shed to drive.

 

I've fitted two new Q&H track rod ends, much better than the ones which were on the car and centralised the rack, two new A048R(S) on the front, balanced. Despite many roadside adjustments to the wheel alignment and careful measuring the car would just pull heavily to the left... and bumps on the road surface would have the car trying to change direction in a very nervous manner, the 205 should be sublime in this respect, so I knew something was wrong, even with front alignment incorrect there is no way a 205 would handle like this. So I'm walking around the car scratching my head and thinking when I see the obvious N/S/R wheel is definitely toed in, it's steering from the rear, why I haven't noticed before I don't know, although it is showing a bit of negative camber on the rear now as well.

The beam was apparently refurbished 3 years ago but then we've all heard that before, eh? Have tried to take a photo showing the toed in wheel like Jackherer did... it's much more apparent when viewed with the eye.

 

 

With no rear brake issues, is it still most likely to be the rear stub axle that is bent? and what's the best way of determining if it's bent or not? Also, what's the best way or most functional way of telling if the beam needs overhauled? it seems to be working fine, no harshness or hard knocking, soaks up bumps well, it's not seized etc and the ride height is fine, equal on both sides.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Mac Crash

[jackherer 543]

I can't believe that was seven years ago!

 

If there is noticeably different toe and you have never had the beam rebuilt yourself I'd just get it done and put a known matched pair of arms on at the same time. If it has been rebuilt recently then all you'll need is some new seals so it wont be as expensive as a full rebuild. Think of it as preventative maintenance if nothing else, everyone should be stripping their beams, changing the seals and regreasing them before they need a rebuild anyway!

[Clapton_Is_God 21 1 Cars]

When my stub axle was bent I was able to see it by jacking it up and spinning the wheel. I held a straight edge at fixed point that touched the wheel and when turned the oval rotation was obvious.

[Clapton_Is_God 21 1 Cars]

Sorry, thinking back I'm pretty sure it was the brake disc I checked it against not the wheel.

[boldy205 75]

Knock the stub out and rotate it 180deg, this will reverse the camber/toe value if the stub is bent. If the values dont change then its something else, either trailing arm, beam tube, body etc.

[Mac Crash 78 1 Cars]

Stub appears to be fine after replacing a wheel bearing for the MOT... alignment check carried out today.

 

 

I can feel the harshness on the road at the rear of the car now, haven't attempted any 205 beam work before but perfect opportunity now, all going well then solid mounts and new dampers also to be added to the rebuild.

 

Question: Can defective bearings in the beam really cause so much toe in, I was aware of the camber issues but not toe? and which trailing arms do people use or recommend over the 205 ones?

[Anthony 1,002]

Knackered beam bearings cause excessive negative camber.

 

I don't see a way they could cause excess toe, especially whilst camber remains sensible.

 

Are you sure the stub axle is straight? They tend to look straight to the naked eye but are bent when checked against a straight edge after being removed from the car. Different arms give different geometry, but that looks like too big a difference side to side to just be that, and I'd hazard a guess something is bent somewhere.

 

Either way, I'm not surprised it's driving oddly with one side being 3 degrees out!

[Tom Fenton 1,541]

I don't think you'll detect a bend in the stub until you've got it out of the trailing arm. It doesn't need to be very bent at all to give 3 deg toe, but that is enough to make the car a pig to drive.

 

Once you have got it out its easy to see if its bent by rolling it along a hard surface. If it rolls perfectly concentric and true then its OK, however if it "lobs" at all as you roll it then its bent. Of course if you have a lathe its easy to chuck it up and check it with the DTI but the roll along the bench test will normally be adequate.

 

Also, I would have thought it would be scrubbing that rear tyre quite badly with that toe?

[Mac Crash 78 1 Cars]

Yeap, fairly sure the stub is okay, I had it as you say along the top of the kitchen worktop, no lob or deviation detected, looked to be very true, and unlikely that I refitted it in the same splines from which it was removed, which would have changed something if it was bent. If safely ruling the stub out, what would you check next? I've no idea how I would check to see if the radius/trailing arm is true? thanks.

[Tom Fenton 1,541]

Substitution with another one is the only sure way to check really, unless you can set one up in vee blocks and accurately measure, but by the time you have done that, you may as well just swap it and see....

[pug_ham 244 3 Cars]

Just a random thought, has the beam got the same front mounts both sides & not a mixed set of base / 1.6 GTI on the offside & a 1.9GTI on the other?

 

Unfortunately the only way to find out is to drop the beam.

 

Fairly unlikely as it would make fitting the beam a pita but something worth considering.

 

g

[dcc 855]

I am not sure that is the issue, as wouldn't that skew both wheels Graham?

 

I suggest it is as anthony has said, the stub axle or beam tube bearings, though I doubt the bearings as 3degree is a lot for that.

[welshpug 1,656]

You underestimate how worn a beam can get...

[Mac Crash 78 1 Cars]

I actually really want to do the beam anyway... and either find a pair of known good arms or a known n/s replacement... are 1.6 arms the same? also which other arms can be used? thanks for the help.

[welshpug 1,656]

any arms can be used with the stub axles swapped when required.

[Anthony 1,002]

You can use any 205/306/309/ZX/Xsara arms on a 205 beam.

 

However, you really need to fit them as a matching pair as the geometry differs quite considerably between them and mis-matched arms can give similar issues that you're seeing at the moment.

 

I know that there are several different castings of 1.6 trailing arms but I'm not sure what, if any, geometry changes there are. Certainly if it was me I'd swap them over as a pair, especially as you're rebuilding the beam and thus the old arms need to be removed anyway.

[Tom Fenton 1,541]

In your case and as the car will need to go back on the geo machine, I would just change the "rogue" one, and then see what the figures are afterwards. If you have even figures side to side then job is complete.

[Toddy 7]

Your rear toe is about 20mm nsr and 1 mm osr.

 

Unless you have a zx arm with zero toe on the osr you have issues each side.

 

The various trailing arms give different toe in amounts roughly between 0 - 5mm each side.

 

I would check the beam bearings first.

[pug_ham 244 3 Cars]

I am not sure that is the issue, as wouldn't that skew both wheels Graham?

Possibly but that would depend how worn the front mount bushes are, as unlikely as it is I thought I'd throw it out there because it wouldn't be impossible imo.

 

g

[allanallen 528 2 Cars]

The trailing arm could also be bent, it happens. As toddy (ay up buddy! Where you been hiding?) says no rear arm would give you that toe, it's a ridiculous amount!

If the stub axle was bent enough to give you that geo it would be noticeable by eye IMO.

 

The pins aren't 'splined' either, it's more of a knurling to hold them in position.

[j_turnell 136 3 Cars]

I'd swap over the complete trailing arm and stub axle if i were you and go from there.

[Mac Crash 78 1 Cars]

The trailing arm could also be bent, it happens. As toddy (ay up buddy! Where you been hiding?) says no rear arm would give you that toe, it's a ridiculous amount!

If the stub axle was bent enough to give you that geo it would be noticeable by eye IMO.

 

The pins aren't 'splined' either, it's more of a knurling to hold them in position.

 

Yeap, must take some force to bend a stub, it rolls along the worktop perfectly, I haven't bashed the car and can't remember it being like this when I bought it, the N/S/R quarter was unpainted and in primer though, seller an independent Peugeot garage in Wisbech said previous owners had tried to address lacquer peel and the paint had reacted... the front track possibly could have been adjusted to compensate for steering left? it definitely wasn't like this when I bought it.

 

anyone any experience of these people? http://www.axledirect.com/peugeot_205/

 

They are listing axles for disk braked 205's which can only be the 1.9, price seems fine to me. While I'm keen to do the beam myself and learn more about it as do it, I'm trying to gauge if the advantages outweigh the extra costs. A reconditioned beam by an engineering company would in theory provide a known quantity, with matched arms ready to take my existing hubs and disks etc. At the same time I can specify to leave the forward bushes bare so I can fit with nylon/poly mounts.

 

Does that outweigh the possible scenario of having a scrap crosstube requiring new shafts and bearings which I understand is quite likely and a replacement radius arm etc? That's what I need to decide, total beam virgin, just not sure.

 

Quick question: can I remove the radius arm first without removing the beam?

Edited February 15, 2015 by Mac Crash