Suspension And Modified Subframe Questions

[rex 1]

Hi everyone,

 

Been a while since I last posted here and had a bit of trouble re-registering here with the new security settings - just me being a computer retard though, so nothing new here

 

Here it is - I've fitted a fully re-conditioned 309 GTi-16 rear subframe (quite some time ago now) along with the front antil roll bar (much thicker) to my 205 1.9 GTi. The suspension is a basic Koni adjustable system - It's yellow with red springs (with lower SPAX springs -55mm as opposed to - 35mm) and the rear height set in accordance - or very slightly higher to add a bit of froce on the front.

 

However, high speed handling on anything other than a smooth race track is simply dangerous as it seems to "bounce" - yet the suspension is set almost to it's stiffest. On the poor quality country roads where I live it even starts to feel wierd from around 60 mph. Especialy after a slide or h/b turn the front end seems to almost jump up and down (that's exagerated) when I put the power back on.

 

As the subframes I have added are surely much stiffer, is it simply a case of the shock absorber simply not having time to react? Or is the Koni set-up I spent 600 euros on quite simply (as I suspect but don't really want to admit) a load of rubbish?

 

I've been getting the car back together after a full strip down in 2002, but the last few weeks are the first time it's been really on the road to start pin-pointing all the problems. I have a feeling the rear shockers, despite being new in '02 and having done no more than 2000km since are for the bin since I tried to reset the stiffness yesterday and after having to use a vice to actually compress the shocker (!) I couldn't feel anything when twisting the head to adjust.

 

Thanks for any help and apologies for any lack of technical vocabulary in English!

 

Richard

[gti_al 1]

Soften the shocks... I drove a 205 with koni shocks on medium and it felt like a sack of sh*t, so i would imagine hard would suck even more.

 

And it is probably worth upgrading the torsion bars, and having the front that much stiffer than the rear isn't a good idea.

Edited August 20, 2006 by gti_al

[rex 1]

Hi Al,

 

Thanks for your reply. As I said, the shockers on the back, despite never really having been used are now "un"-adjustable It hardly moves when you push down hard on the back-end with the boot open. I've been recomended group A (rose-jointed) Bilstein's as a replacement but in light of the extra cost, I'd rather wait and sort the front-end first. I'm sure the back-end isn't where the real problem is - it's the front. I suppose I can compress the springs again and try and soften it up a bit more this miserable Sunday aft but I do get the impression the shocker hasn't the time to react....perhaps because of the lower spring not recommended by the manufacturer??

 

Anybody else out there using a similar 309 setup on a 205?

[jackherer 543]

-55mm is FAR too low, it will bounce and bump steer all over the place. Put some -30 or -35mm springs on and raise the back up to match

[niklas 1]

Sounds like it's setup too hard..

What do you mean by it hardly moves when you push down hard on the back-end with the boot open? If the rear of the car hardly moves then you should look into the condition of the rear beam..

[rex 1]

Jack,

 

Thanks for your reply. - 55mm is far too low? Then why the hell are "tuning" specialists prepared to sell us this shi...., ok, ok, my apologies, I'm calm now. There was even up to - 70mm on the parts list I looked at!

 

I've got the original Koni - 35mm springs though I had already raised the rear sub-frame to try and compensate for the front-end problems and any extra power I might have gained from the engine and 'box mod' so at least this will save me some extra work.

 

What would you suggest about also using wheel spacers on the front? From my measures, I've gained 16mm on each side in width with the wider track at the rear - would it be worthwhile adding this to the front too to stop her turning in so quick? Are you also using a 309 rear sub-frame?

 

Regards,

 

Richard

[jackherer 543]

Jack,

 

Thanks for your reply. - 55mm is far too low? Then why the hell are "tuning" specialists prepared to sell us this shi...., ok, ok, my apologies, I'm calm now. There was even up to - 70mm on the parts list I looked at!

 

some people modify their cars for aesthetic reasons with no concern for performance, this is why excessively low springs are available. I've never seen -70mm for the 205 GTI though, thats absolutely ridiculous.

 

What would you suggest about also using wheel spacers on the front? From my measures, I've gained 16mm on each side in width with the wider track at the rear - would it be worthwhile adding this to the front too to stop her turning in so quick? Are you also using a 309 rear sub-frame?

 

you can fit the wishbones and driveshafts from the 309 to get a little extra front track width and also a little negative camber. This is much better than using wheel spacers.

 

I have a 309 GTI 8v rear beam, wishbones and driveshafts on my 205.

[rex 1]

Niklaus,

 

Thanks for your reply. The rear beam is litteraly brand new. I've just had it in bits and changed the centre section beam and one of the bars that hold the bearings and the swinging arm on the RH side due to excessive wear from a collapsed bearing. Despite the total despair with my "new" rear shockers, the problem is definitely much more eccentuated at the front.

 

But like I said, when you push down on the rear (with the boot open) it hardly moves whatsoever - though neither does the front-end for that matter.

 

I'll be interested to see what anyone actually using the same 309 parts has to say, but I could be on my way to changing the springs this afternoon....

 

Jack,

 

"some people modify their cars for aesthetic reasons with no concern for performance, this is why excessively low spings are available. I've never seen -70mm for the 205 GTI though, thats absolutely ridiculous."

 

You wouldn't believe the stuff that pulls up in front of my garage here in France - usually with an atmo diesel

engine.

 

"you can fit the wishbones and driveshafts from the 309 to get a little extra front track width and also a little negative camber. This is much better than using wheel spacers."

 

How much negative camber(ish) and track width does this add? Surely this makes for chronic un-even tyre wear?

 

I presume you warn against wheel spacers because of more wear on the bearings and hubs?

 

"I have a 309 GTI 8v rear beam, wishbones and driveshafts on my 205."

 

I was told the GTi-16 had an extra 40mm total width but after changing the central beam last week, and using a beam I re-cuperated from a very low mileage 309 TD they were exactly the same length. Either the scrapper in Paris who sold me it was full of the proverbial, or they are exactly the same as normal other than the rear calipers which seem to be from a BX or Xantia.

 

Richard

 

Regards,

 

Richard

 

Sorry, I don't know what happened there - two seperate posts to two different people ended up as one...heh, I still prefer nuts and bolts

[niklas 1]

I suggest you remove the shocks in the rear and verify that the rear is easily compressed. I take it you're running the GTI16 rear beam with std GTI16 torsion bars and antiroll bar?

If that's the case there should be no problem compressing the rear by pushing hard with the boot open.

Also verify the rear is not sitting on the bumpstops!

 

In the front, verify that the are suspension travel left in the shocks when sitting that low, so you are not basically having the shock on the bumpstops or out of working range.

[rex 1]

The bump stops look like new (ie they have probably never even thought about touching the swinging arms!) and there is plenty of distance between the two.

 

"I suggest you remove the shocks in the rear and verify that the rear is easily compressed. I take it you're running the GTI16 rear beam with std GTI16 torsion bars and antiroll bar?"

 

I *think* that's what it is - I'm going on what I was sold second-hand (and not in the condition it was claimed to be in either).

 

The torsion bars are a lot thicker than those of the 309 TD however, as is the front a/r bar (22mm if my memory serves me correctly) - I kept the original ones I had and discarded the thinner bars from the TD.

 

As for the front - I think I'm going to take Jack's advise an put the - 35mm back on. I'll be back when that is done!

[jackherer 543]

How much negative camber(ish) and track width does this add? Surely this makes for chronic un-even tyre wear?

 

I dont know the exact figures but its not a huge difference. If anything the tyre wear is more even with 309 wishbones, as the car turns in the wheel will end up pretty much upright (zero camber) whereas with the standard wishbones you end up with positive camber under hard cornering leading to wear of the outer edge of the tyre.

 

I presume you warn against wheel spacers because of more wear on the bearings and hubs?

 

yes more stress on the bearings and also it messes with the suspension geometry.

 

I was told the GTi-16 had an extra 40mm total width but after changing the central beam last week, and using a beam I re-cuperated from a very low mileage 309 TD they were exactly the same length. Either the scrapper in Paris who sold me it was full of the proverbial, or they are exactly the same as normal other than the rear calipers which seem to be from a BX or Xantia.

 

we didn't get the GTI16 here so I can't comment The 8v 309 crossbeam itself is the same width as the non-GTIs in the UK.

 

Sorry, I don't know what happened there - two seperate posts to two different people ended up as one...heh, I still prefer nuts and bolts

 

the forum software automatically concatenates posts made sequentially by the same user in a given time frame. It confused me the first time it happened too, but overall it keeps the forum looking neat and readable

[gti_al 1]

Sorry, my initial post didn't really make sense... I didn't notice that you had a gti16 rear end. So how big are the bars in those anyway?

 

I would definately soften things up though. Koni yellows seem extremely hard, and all the cars i've driven with them have bounced around and generally handled poorly on less than perfect roads.

[rex 1]

Jack -

 

Having obviously been far too impatient again, I replaced the wishbones and d/shafts for new one's earlier in the year so will keep them for the moment. I'll review this when, if ever, I find my 16V donor...

 

"we didn't get the GTI16 here so I can't comment The 8v 309 crossbeam itself is the same width as the non-GTIs in the UK."

 

I'm pretty sure it is the same width on the 16V too - some many people here come out with "expert" information you really have to take it all with a pinch of salt. The rear calipers I can confirm are the same as the rear one's on the XU9 BX I have rotting in the field out the back here, but other than that they seem the same as an 8V. We even got a 309 8V turbo here in France, but I've yet to actually see one.

 

I'll try swapping the springs when I have time to get it on the ramp and I'll be back.

 

 

GTi Al,

 

After a quick skesh roughly with a tape measure the rear a/r bars seem to be about 20mm - this is not an exact measurement.

 

Thanks again for all your comments.

[Sandy 191]

309 arms on the 205 give 1 to 1.2 degrees negative, depending on ride height.

Edited August 21, 2006 by sandy309

[jackherer 543]

some many people here come out with "expert" information you really have to take it all with a pinch of salt.

 

well, the internet is full of "armchair mechanics" too, YOU need to verify everything yourself really

 

The rear calipers I can confirm are the same as the rear one's on the XU9 BX I have rotting in the field out the back here, but other than that they seem the same as an 8V.

 

really small ones with nearly square pads? if so the bolt spacing must be different on the trailling arms? also the BX rears wont have handbrake mechanisms and the seals will be different due to LHM so they will be similar at best.

 

We even got a 309 8V turbo here in France, but I've yet to actually see one.

 

there were some 309s converted by turbo technics, but I dont think there were any petrol turbo 309s made in the Peugeot factory?

[rex 1]

"really small ones with nearly square pads? if so the bolt spacing must be different on the trailling arms? also the BX rears wont have handbrake mechanisms and the seals will be different due to LHM so they will be similar at best."

 

Not sure about the exact differences because I ebay'd them some time ago - the pads appear to be the same as I still have them. I kept the arms and stubs from the 205 so I didn't notice any difference in the bolt spacing. I have installed a hydraulic handbrake on my 205 anyway so I never even thought about the handbrake cables until now I must admit - though I was planning on fitting the discs and calipers that were originally on the front (got 266mm one's now) to the back after modifying the spacing to replace the existing 1.9 rear discs and calipers and doing away with the standard compensators....more questions for a later date!

 

"there were some 309s converted by turbo technics, but I dont think there were any petrol turbo 309s made in the Peugeot factory?"

 

I'm scratching my head now, because I know I was in either the dentists or the doctors months ago and there was one of those antique magazines you only find intact in such places that ran an article about a standard 309 turbo. After a quick search all I can find is an official PTS kit for adding the turbo and an editorial (in French) that states it was on the cards but the un-popularity of the 309 stopped them making it....a shame really:

 

http://membres.lycos.fr/cit43/Autoshorsser...9_GTI_Turbo.htm

 

One wierd and wonderful thing I have seen here in the flesh is a BX 4 TC...but the guy wouldn't sell it.

[rogerrally 0]

Does anyone have a measurement fron the center of the wheel to the middle of arch above on both the front, and the back, to determin wether youve got -30, or -20 springs fitted,

my car is undrivable on bumpy roads, but I guess too low stiff springs still on standard looking dampers, was thinking of fitting Konis, but this thread has put me off that Idea.

Could it be that the original and high set up might not look the best, but may be the most balanced for regular use?

[jackherer 543]

the best way to see if its too low at the front is to look at the angle of the wishbones, the balljoint (outer) end should be lower (or at most the same height) as the bushes (inner) end. 30 or 35mm will put the wishbones pretty much parallel.