Driveshaft Lenghts - 205 309 And 405

[JamesLumley 4]

Hi All,

 

I've searched the forum for the last hour but no luck thus far.

 

I need to know the length in mm/cm of the 205 / 309 / 405 - or any other oe shafts which are longer than the 205 shafts and will fit the std 205 1.9 hubs

 

We are in the process of widening the upper front suspension towers on my new rally car shell and want to explore the std driveshaft options before I start going down the custom route.

 

I need exact measurements from end to end of the shaft if possible.

 

Cheers James

[JamesLumley 4]

I have found the following measurements off the GKN Website, anyone concur with these?

 

205 driveshaft length (mm)

RH - 840

LH - 600

 

309 driveshaft length (mm)

RH - 850

LH - 610

 

405 driveshaft length (mm)

RH - 880

LH - 630

 

Will anything else fit?

[chownr 0]

Hi James

I looked into running GTi 6 shafts which are longer than the 309 ones but not sure how long they are.

 

On a side issue did you get my email today re your Mi engine for sale?

 

Rich

[309PUG 2 1 Cars]

If it helps I'll pass on my experience with longer shafts.

I have fitted my self made R/J adjustable wishbones coupled with eccentric top mounts to my 309 and the following is a rough guide to what could be acieved:-

 

Using 309 shafts min 0 deg upto -2.5 deg

 

Using 405 shafts min -1 deg upto -4.0 deg

 

 

Chris

[welshpug 1,666]

306 and 405 shafts are the same length

[philfingers 5]

Ok here's a Q. I'm surprised it's only 10mm difference between 205 and 309. BUT where is the length, just actual shaft between the inner and out CVs?

Mine has uprated S515 or EN24 (not sure which) shafts in, (tarmac 205 with PTS concentric PTS top mounts and WMMS R/Jd bottom arms). I'm not sure if they std 205 length or long to compensate for the R/Jd arms. Anyone know the length of this part, in a std 205?

Obviously lengths above are the complete built up dims, I guess compressed.. . . . . . .

Edited November 29, 2007 by philfingers

[brumster 135 1 Cars]

10mm is what I've been told before; have limited the -ve camber to 0.5deg on the standard shafts, despite the r/j outers on the lower arms. Am just moving to 309 shafts for the additional 10mm length and hence a bit more safety in terms of running more negative. Having said that, I'm generally quite careful about giving the thing the beans on full lock....

Edited November 29, 2007 by brumster

[JamesLumley 4]

We're planning to move the top mounts out by a further 2.5cm ish each side which will obviously move the lower arms out by some distance more.

 

I was trying to use a stock driveshaft to make sourcing replacements easier but I think we're going to struggle so its probably going to be a custom set.

 

Thanks for all the answers thus far, keep it coming!

Edited November 29, 2007 by JamesLumley

[jackherer 543]

Might be worth looking at citroen bx shafts?

[Craigb 2]

James

 

a little off topic , please excuse me , but

 

do you have any issues snapping shafts with the power and torque you are pushing through them ?

[philfingers 5]

Craig

The guy i bought my car off did, hence the reason for the S515/EN24 shafts (i was told they were EN24 but an invoice says S515) that are in it.

It's an 8v, head and PTS high torque cam. Nothing special, 150hp tops I would think, although I've not driven it yet so don't really know, can't see it being any more tho

 

Phil

[brumster 135 1 Cars]

James

 

a little off topic , please excuse me , but

 

do you have any issues snapping shafts with the power and torque you are pushing through them ?

 

Craig, you read my mind. I know of several people putting far less through what were allegedly uprated shafts and they spent every other event snapping the buggers. It's something that's been worrying me with my plan to move to the 16v. I've now been told the most reliable shafts Andy has ever used has been *original equipment* peugeot items; no fancy Quaiffe jobbies or ones with machined outers, but just straight forward standard shafts (albeit longers ones, if necessary).

 

I too would be interested in the whole driveshaft strength debate.

Edited November 29, 2007 by brumster

[JamesLumley 4]

I will look into the bx shafts....

 

Never had a problem with driveshafts, bought a new new pair of pug items 4yrs ago and haven't touched them since. Toyed with the thought of swapping to quaife or similar but the old saying goes - if it ain't broke...

 

I'm aware of things like full power and lock at the same time so perhaps that's why they are reliable? I keep a spare set in the van and hope they stay there gathering dust!

 

We have made a decision on the spec now so interesting to see what sort of difference it will make...

[brumster 135 1 Cars]

Wow, I'm impressed, but not surprised - you're not the first person to run completely standard shafts. I suspect you'd get worse results running uprated Quaife/custom jobbies; that's the impression I've had. As you say, it also depends upon how much grief you give them - plus what tyres are you using (bald ones by the look of your last Abingdon vid !)? They're wide buggers, I guess they're pretty grippy? What do you run?

 

I'm glad you've said standard shafts. If you can put 270 horses (or, more importantly, whatever the torque of that motor is) through them, I'm sure I'll be fine with my poxy 100-and-something...

[maxirallye 2]

Craig, I have been rallying a 205 since 95, group A 8v, and latterly mi16 powered. I have always run standard 309 shafts, never had issues with breaking the actual shaft, however the CV's can be a problem, depending on the age of the shaft.

 

If the actual shafts are breaking I would suggest that the bottom arms are not set up correctly (ie too short) to allow enough float on the shaft. The shaft would then become under pressure when the suspension is loaded. When adjusting the bottom arms we always remove the spring from the strut and check shaft free play at all angles of suspension travel and steering lock.

 

HTH. Tony.

[JamesLumley 4]

We run 8x15 et0 compomotives with dunlop cr311 supersoft tyres - don't get much better grip than those!

 

Started on Colways, moved to Maxsport and the ran with Matador for the last couple of years - good value for money and bullet proof kevlar sidewalls but the dunlops are tenfold better.... you definately get what you pay for with tyres. That abingdon vid was last year with bald matadors on the back

 

Some 205 lads supposedly manage a whole season on a set of "rally tyres", not quite sure how mind as I seem to get though 6 an event - the top boys in our class are changing to new tyres every stage...chequebook stuff really, who's got the most money generally wins at clubman/natB/natA level.

 

Tony we did a similar process to you when setting up the driveshaft float - perhaps thats the majic solution to using std shafts?

 

It will be interesting to see how our new wide track setup lasts reliability wise once everything gets moved out further. It's roughly 20mm at the top, another 40mm at the bottom each side - working on the basis of using the 30mm longer 405 shafts. Apparently the wrc cosworths are 20mm wider than std at the top and use 30mm longer shafts so we'll wait and see....

[Powers 13]

May I ask why you are widening the track to such an extreme, I have never heard or seen the struts tops relocated on any specification 205.

[Baz 421]

May I ask why you are widening the track to such an extreme, I have never heard or seen the struts tops relocated on any specification 205.

 

Simple answer, More width = better stability. Plus probably more inner space to run wider tyres.

[Craigb 2]

This is all good stuff.

 

It was the cv that went on mine , and since that day , if you see me start off the line , you'd swear it was my granny driving .

 

I think I've just beocme a little paranoid about snapping another (generally in the middle of Nowhere).

 

With my old 106 i never had any issues with giving 4-5k off the start line .

 

Maybe its time for me to stop being a wuss , and just nail it . Still being mindful of the detrimental full lock and power combination though !

[JamesLumley 4]

Look at the success of the 306 maxi - most people will tell you that it was attributed to the very trick diff/gearbox and super wide track. I can't quite stretch to an 80k gearbox so the first step is a wider track.

 

The back of my car is currently wider than the front, which we believe is the contributing factor to the understeer that we suffer, part of the reason for widening is also to try and dial it out.

 

The danger is to go too far and make it over-square, that will make the handling too sensitive. We reckon it's possible to go up to about 30mm wider each side at the top but this will certainly require custom shafts and possibly make it all too sensitive.

 

Part of my interest in staying with a 205 has been the potential to develop it into a competitive car, they struggle against the more modern machinery so need a few tweeks to bring it up to scratch. The widening is not something I have heard much about in the past and hence the decision to see if it makes any difference.

[JamesLumley 4]

Craig, 4.0k revs off the start line - dump the clutch, get a bit of wheel spin going to get some heat into the tyres and off we go....

 

I'm more worried about hairpins when we're going down the box, into first, handbrake, back comes round, touch of oversteer, touch of opposite lock and keep the throttle nailed to pull her straight - that's when the shaft is likely to give out

 

I pray the day it happens, the diff will be strong enough to pull us out of the stage

[Powers 13]

May I ask why you are widening the track to such an extreme, I have never heard or seen the struts tops relocated on any specification 205.

 

 

Simple answer, More width = better stability. Plus probably more inner space to run wider tyres.

 

I wasn’t after a simple answer.

My question was based more on why you would alter the strut top location to increase the track, not on the actual physical benefits, for which you are wrong about the wider tyres. As its the strut location that governs this. Also how wide do you want to go 10"s, lol!

 

Some basic chassis principles:

 

Increasing the track;

Reduces weight transfer and therefore increases the maximum lateral acceleration achievable. It also increases the polar moment and the weight, which are both negatives.

 

Wheelbase to track ratio (indicates the straight line stability as it increases the damping in yaw)

 

Therefore- High wheelbase to track ratio (desirable for fast circuits with long straights) = Good straight-line stability.

Low wheelbase to track ratio = very responsive, ideal for tight corners.

 

 

Look at the success of the 306 maxi - most people will tell you that it was attributed to the very trick diff/gearbox and super wide track. I can't quite stretch to an 80k gearbox so the first step is a wider track.

 

The back of my car is currently wider than the front, which we believe is the contributing factor to the understeer that we suffer, part of the reason for widening is also to try and dial it out.

 

The danger is to go too far and make it over-square, that will make the handling too sensitive. We reckon it's possible to go up to about 30mm wider each side at the top but this will certainly require custom shafts and possibly make it all too sensitive.

 

 

Part of my interest in staying with a 205 has been the potential to develop it into a competitive car, they struggle against the more modern machinery so need a few tweeks to bring it up to scratch. The widening is not something I have heard much about in the past and hence the decision to see if it makes any difference.

 

 

Ok, the 205 maxi and the 306 maxi share exactly the same track.

The 205 Maxi evolution wishbones extend the track from 50-70mm, obviously with tubular rose jointed bottom arms the adjustment is fairly straightforward. The top mount, strut tower ball joint location is completely unmodified and in the same position when compared to any standard 205. Obviously this increase in lower wishbone length gives a significant increase in camber in both bump and roll, as well as KPI. I approximate around -6 degrees of static camber when using a standard 205 upright, for which the strut angle is fixed. The 205 Maxis get around this buy using uprights with a less inclined strut housing, hence lowering the static camber value. An example of an extreme of one of these uprights is shown below.

 

 

The rear track of a 205 maxi is modified to be the same as the 306 by 2 methods;

1) Using a 306 beam!

2) Using aluminium spacers as shown in the picture below.

 

It is due to the fact that the 306 Maxi was designed by Peugeot themselves (unlike the 205 variant) costing millions to develop, that the designers of 205 Maxi parts have copied their highly successful chassis geometry.

 

 

James why is the back of your car wider than the front?

As yes this does cause understeer due to less weight transfer, hence the outer tyre reaches its limit later. If the track is wider at the front than the rear it has the opposite effect and the car will oversteer.

Edited November 30, 2007 by Powers

[maxirallye 2]

Powers, I have the 205 maxi kit on my rally car and this is not the same track as the 306 maxi, it is more in line with a standard 306.

 

Tony

[Powers 13]

Hi Tony, thats great. Mine too at the rear but I designed my front wishbones to the same specification of the 205 Evo Maxi, which coincidently are the same length as the 306 ones!

[JamesLumley 4]

I could well be wrong here having never actually measured either car but visually (yes I have seen both a number of times in the flesh), the 306 maxi looks much wider than the 205 maxi.

 

My aim is to do a "proper" wide-track setup where by the whole strut assembly moves out further - not just the usual longer arms or modified hubs. Arch clearance is not an issue - I will make them fit around wherever the wheel ends up.

8inch tyres are the max we can run in our class so I can't use anything wider. We are also at et0 which is the max I want to go with the wheels.

I can't believe that someone hasn't done this before to a 205, I would think that the f2000/maxi guys in france don't do it as their regs won't allow it. They have some pretty strict guidelines from what I have seen.

 

Straight line stability is something which we have considdered and hence the reason for not going out as far as we could in theory do. (the over-square problem) Our calculations are based on previous experience gained from other cars (mainly fords and the 306 maxi spec) - I don't have any fancy programs to plug data into so it's a bit hit n miss. It might all end up producing a slower car but at least we will have tried something different. It's also being done in such a way that we can revert back to std if needed.