1.9 Rear Beam

[milk_churn 0]

I'm thinking of putting my 205 back to the standard ride height as i'd like it to be completely standard. I'm also concerned that the rear end is too hard and won't handle like it should.

For instance when i rock the car it seems solid on the rear end and the only movement is through the tyres. Does this mean the rear beam may be seized?

 

Are there a series of check i can do to determine whether or not it's seized?

 

After watching the episode of wheeler dealers where Edd China raises the rear end of a 1.9 back to the original height by removing the torsion bars, i'm a little daunted by how hard it looks to do, as i'm just starting out with all this car mechanics stuff. (any experienced GTI diy'er near mansfield? feel free to give me a hand in exchange for some nice cups of yorkshire tea. )

 

Here is a picture of my current ride height which i think is too low...

 

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w119/sh...20042008127.jpg

[welshpug 1,666]

You may just have some overly stiff dampers there, do you know what's fitted?

 

To be honest that looks quite level so I wouldn't move the back alone, I'd personally raise the front at the same time, unless another picture shows the stance better (direct from the side) they seem to handle best with the sills level.

 

How to tell if its seized? open the boot and see if you can bounce the back of the car, also check for any amount of camber on the back wheels by looking at the stance from the rear good beam looks like | | bad beam looks like / \

 

 

Try this article on rear beams; Rear beam rebuild and Ride height adjustment article on www.306gti6.com

[milk_churn 0]

I fully intend to raise the height of both front and back so it sits right.

 

Not sure what the rear shocks are, i've attached a picture of them.

 

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w119/sh...03052008156.jpg

 

Also attached a picture showing that there does appear to be some camber on the rear wheels.

 

looks a lot worse on the photo than it really is though!!

 

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w119/sh...03052008158.jpg

[Tom Fenton 1,547]

Those rear dampers look like the Peugeot originals.

 

From your info that the ride is hard, and from those pictures I'd say that beam is almost certainly scrap, probably even past the point of saving TBH.

[milk_churn 0]

Those rear dampers look like the Peugeot originals.

 

From your info that the ride is hard, and from those pictures I'd say that beam is almost certainly scrap, probably even past the point of saving TBH.

 

 

Probably better to source a new second hand one then and swap em over than p$ssing around trying to get that good again. bummer!! will it fail MOT in that condition?

 

It has been stood for three years so its understandable if its fubar'd!

[Tom Fenton 1,547]

Most second hand ones won't be much better TBH, if you are planning on keeping the car a length of time I'd personally get a donor beam and rebuild that, and then fit a rebuilt beam that you know is good to the car.

 

To find out if it is seized jack the rear of the car up and watch the position of the wheel to the wheelarch. If it is not seized then as you jack the car up the wheel will fall away from the arch. If it is seized, as you jack the car up the wheel will not move relative to the arch.

Edited May 3, 2008 by Tom Fenton

[milk_churn 0]

To find out if it is seized jack the rear of the car up and watch the position of the wheel to the wheelarch. If it is not seized then as you jack the car up the wheel will fall away from the arch. If it is seized, as you jack the car up the wheel will not move relative to the arch.

 

Good idea, do i need to jack the whole rear end with a trolley jack or the under bonnet jack on the jacking points checking either side?

 

Wheres the best place to fully jack the rear up from? i've previously used a trolley jack in the centre of the rear beam then put axle stands under the beam.

[milk_churn 0]

just jacked the rear end up and the wheels dropped about two or three inches, so i guess its not seized, just stiff shockers.

 

Actually when i took the car back off the jack it seemed a bit higher than usual at the back, after a few minutes i stood in the boot and it went down and stayed nearer the lower position. So does this point to the shockers not operating properly?

 

I'm confused

Edited May 3, 2008 by milk_churn

[mickie 3]

i'd say it was still the beam it self and not some old shocks, when they're that old they normally move easyer than when they were new

[Tom Fenton 1,547]

If you bring it to me Monday or Tuesday I'll have a look at it for you.

[Phil H 16]

neI was a rear beam virgin until yesterday when I raised mine a notch. I just printed off the guide from the main site and it was done in an hour both sides. My wife who was in charge of positioning the radius arms said it was easy, so it must be easy !

 

I can't remember how much one spline adjustment moves the ride height by, but mine is 2cm higher one side than the other, so maybe I will be out there again adjusting it.

Edited May 4, 2008 by Phil H

[Rom 0]

205 are prone for beams going. Be it siezed / camber etc. Most cars that havent had a rebuild will be needing one

 

Theres lots of guides and info on how to go about it. Theres also a thread about making up dummy shocks so you can get the ride height the same both sides. Otherwise its very easy to end up with the height differant.

 

As said, shocks get softer with age normally. Open the boot, sit on the panel and bounce. Even with uprated shocks there should be movement.

When lookign from the rear, if the wheels seem to be slanted (camber) in at the top, thats another sign the beam is dead.

[milk_churn 0]

If you bring it to me Monday or Tuesday I'll have a look at it for you.

 

That would have been great thanks, except the car is not currently road legal, no tax, mot or insurance.

 

The insurance is booked to start on 01/07 so i planned to get it road legal by then. As the car isn't on the road though it does give me chance to get it sorted one way or another as i don't need to use it.

 

What causes the wheels to camber when the beam is knackered? is it because the stub shafts are worn or bent beyond repair?

 

It's hard for me to tell whether it is ruined or not, having never had one before.

[Rom 0]

The camber is caused by the bearings collapasing inside the beam tube. Allowing the shafts to sit pissed. These often knackers the shafts unless caught early. The shafts get very badly pitted and scored.

 

Scrap Shaft

 

New Shaft

[milk_churn 0]

The camber is caused by the bearings collapasing inside the beam tube. Allowing the shafts to sit pissed. These often knackers the shafts unless caught early. The shafts get very badly pitted and scored.

 

I see, so by design there should be now camber whatsoever then? Guess i need to get a refurb down me then!

 

I might ask my Dad (who's a fitter) if he wants to borrow my rear beam for a week when he's on nightshift, with a new bearing and refurb kit! I wonder if his company does a 'Take a rear beam to work' day

 

Like it was mentioned earlier, it probably needs it doing as i can't find any receipts in the history saying it's been done.

[johnsimister 10]

I see, so by design there should be now camber whatsoever then? Guess i need to get a refurb down me then!

 

I might ask my Dad (who's a fitter) if he wants to borrow my rear beam for a week when he's on nightshift, with a new bearing and refurb kit! I wonder if his company does a 'Take a rear beam to work' day

 

Like it was mentioned earlier, it probably needs it doing as i can't find any receipts in the history saying it's been done.

 

There's meant to be a small amount of negative camber as standard, but nowhere near as much as your car has. With a trailing arm suspension design the camber angle of the wheel always stays the same relative to the car body, so when the car takes up a roll angle in a corner the camber of the wheel relative to the road alters by the same amount. The best grip comes when the wheel is vertical and the loads are spread evenly across the tyre tread, so the factory's choice of negative camber is a compromise which gives good grip with the car cornering briskly and leaning a bit.

[milk_churn 0]

There's meant to be a small amount of negative camber as standard, but nowhere near as much as your car has. With a trailing arm suspension design the camber angle of the wheel always stays the same relative to the car body, so when the car takes up a roll angle in a corner the camber of the wheel relative to the road alters by the same amount. The best grip comes when the wheel is vertical and the loads are spread evenly across the tyre tread, so the factory's choice of negative camber is a compromise which gives good grip with the car cornering briskly and leaning a bit.

 

Thanks for all your help guys, i'm learning a lot here..

I've read through all the threads regarding fitting a 309 rear beam and it seems fairly straightforward, reason i mention is i may chance upon a cheapish but very good condition one.

There are some mentions however of having to cut the wheel arch plastic away slightly inside to allow for the extra width. Is this necessary if i plan to run the car on the standard height or just if its been lowered? has anyone done this conversion for a road car? and it it worth it? all comes down to pennies in the end if you can get a good deal... i may be wrong so please tell me if i am.

[Rom 0]

Firstly, you need to know the beam you would be putting on isnt going to need a rebuild any time soon. Other wise its false economy.

 

There is a shed load of threads about 309 beams. The gist i get it it will widen the rear track, which i think can make the car less prone to oversteer (who would want that!) A lot of the purists say it alters the handling too much. You would also gain uprated (compared to what you have now) Torsion bars and roll bar. Even with the added length, the increase in stiffness is quite a bit still from what i read on here.

 

I did think about a 309 beam for mine,but ended up rebuilding the 205 one. I think they look nicer, the wheel fills out the arch better, rather than tucking inside as standard. Id like ot drive one before i done it myself. As sourcing and building a beam isnt cheap. Id hate to put it on and not liked the handling.

I knew how mine handled, so stuck with it. Handling is miles better now its rebuilt.

Unless you need to alter your handling, need less roll or something similar,id stick with the 205.

 

Of course, this is just MY opinion

[milk_churn 0]

Well considering i've never actually driven my GTI yet, apart from up and down the street to test the new brakes worked ok, i don't know whether i like the handling as it is or not

I'm not planning on taking it on a track when its finally ready, just to cruise some country roads on the weekends with my son in the passenger seat, so to be honest i don't think it'll ever be going sideways on purpose!

 

The beam i've seen is pretty mint, i've seen it stripped and assembled.

[milk_churn 0]

just a thought, may even be a silly question but..

 

If the 309 beam is approximately 2" longer than the 205 beam, will this mean the trailing arm will not sit perfectly below the rear suspension bump stop?