Anyone Ever Noticed With A 309 Beam......

[maxi 36 1 Cars]

Queer one this. For a long time I have thought that the rear beams on 205's "appear" to sit slightly dominant to the O/S. I originally noticed it on the sla when I popped a 309 beam on it around 5 years ago. This afternoon I finally got around to setting the ride height on my new 205 with the 309 beam tube and 306 gti6 trailing arms. Anyway, with it now sat on the deck once again I have noticed the N/S wheels appears to be sat about 5mm further under than the O/S. Anyone else ever noticed this before?

 

Obviously the car is straight and hasnt had a dodgy repair. I might see if I can tweek it over ever so slightly on the mounts in the boot.

 

Input guys?

 

Maxi

[Anthony 1,003]

Can't say that I've ever really noticed to be honest, and certainly on my own 205 with a 309 beam it seems to have worn both plastic arches equally, suggesting that the beam is sat centrally.

 

I'd say if anything it'll be down to slightly lax tolerances on the bodyshell - the same reason why some cars need alot more work for exhaust clearance on 16v conversions than others.

[maxi 36 1 Cars]

Just been under the car and had a measure up. The beam is offset by about 5mm, there must be a tiny bit of pay on the mounting holes themselfs or the beam mounts are very slightly offset. It was fine with the last rear axel on it....

 

Maxi

[maxi 36 1 Cars]

Can't say that I've ever really noticed to be honest, and certainly on my own 205 with a 309 beam it seems to have worn both plastic arches equally, suggesting that the beam is sat centrally.

 

I'd say if anything it'll be down to slightly lax tolerances on the bodyshell - the same reason why some cars need alot more work for exhaust clearance on 16v conversions than others.

 

 

I was hoping you would post Ant! Nobody with more experience of beams than you! You havent ever personally seen this before then? If you looked quickly you wouldnt notice it, problem is I know its there...... I must have something slightly squ-iff.

 

Maxi

[Anthony 1,003]

I was hoping you would post Ant! Nobody with more experience of beams than you! You havent ever personally seen this before then? If you looked quickly you wouldnt notice it, problem is I know its there...... I must have something slightly squ-iff.

It's not something that I've noticed on either of my own cars that have run 309 beams (the current one has had two different 309 beams on it too) and it's not something that I've had friends whom I've done 309 beams for comment on. My own cars certainly appear to have had the beam sat centrally, and have worn the inner edge of the plastic arches equally and appear to have equal arch-tyre clearance on both sides - a difference of 5mm would show up quite obviously here IMO.

 

I'm not saying that it's not a problem on some cars, but my suspicion would be that it's not a beam issue per-se, but rather a shell tolerance one and it just shows up more with a 309 beam due to how close the tires sit to the arches. I have seen 205 beams that have appeared to be offset slightly, but when I've investigated closer it's transpired that it's been the inner arches that are out of alignment, and not the beam itself.

 

You've done more than the odd Mi/GTi6 conversion in your time - would you not say that it would be a fair comment to suggest that some exhaust tunnels seem to be rather more generous than others, necessitating less alterations to the manifold/downpipe to get it to fit? I'd guess that the issue you're seeing is something similar to that, with some lax tolerances out of the factory, a little bit of movement on the mounts, and probably some distorsion to the shell over the years all adding up to be a few mm difference from side to side.

[maxi 36 1 Cars]

It's not something that I've noticed on either of my own cars that have run 309 beams (the current one has had two different 309 beams on it too) and it's not something that I've had friends whom I've done 309 beams for comment on. My own cars certainly appear to have had the beam sat centrally, and have worn the inner edge of the plastic arches equally and appear to have equal arch-tyre clearance on both sides - a difference of 5mm would show up quite obviously here IMO.

 

I'm not saying that it's not a problem on some cars, but my suspicion would be that it's not a beam issue per-se, but rather a shell tolerance one and it just shows up more with a 309 beam due to how close the tires sit to the arches. I have seen 205 beams that have appeared to be offset slightly, but when I've investigated closer it's transpired that it's been the inner arches that are out of alignment, and not the beam itself.

 

You've done more than the odd Mi/GTi6 conversion in your time - would you not say that it would be a fair comment to suggest that some exhaust tunnels seem to be rather more generous than others, necessitating less alterations to the manifold/downpipe to get it to fit? I'd guess that the issue you're seeing is something similar to that, with some lax tolerances out of the factory, a little bit of movement on the mounts, and probably some distorsion to the shell over the years all adding up to be a few mm difference from side to side.

 

 

Wise words.... I suppose I just wanted a bit of re-assurance. I will have a slight fiddle tomorrow with it but im not over concerned. One thing I have noticed is that some people say the 306 rear arms, due to them having ABS hubs makes the track too wide and std discs wont fit either. This, IN MY CASE, is complete and utter tosh. They run a hell of a lot of toe in and a monster amount of camber (looks the nuts) but both tyres easily get under the arches with the profiles trimmed back. Granted they have more camber but not enough to cancel out a total of 10mm increase over a non ABS setup. Maybe I got lucky, maybe I stumbled across a myth buster???

 

Maxi

[Alastairh 47]

I've seen this before.

 

Isn't there a difference in LH and RH side mounts or something?

 

Henry Yorke / Welshpug were talking about it a while back...

 

Al

[Baz 421]

Yes, but not generally and i think the general consensus was tht it was down to lax tolerances as Anthony said iirc.

[Anthony 1,003]

Isn't there a difference in LH and RH side mounts or something?

 

Henry Yorke / Welshpug were talking about it a while back...

That's 1.9 beams that have the different front mounts, and it affects the beam front-rear mounting, not side-to-side. When those mounts are wrong, you get the beam sitting too far forwards/backwards, whereas if I've understood what Adam is saying correctly, he's talking about the beam sitting too far too the side on one side.

[Alastairh 47]

You've done more than the odd Mi/GTi6 conversion in your time - would you not say that it would be a fair comment to suggest that some exhaust tunnels seem to be rather more generous than others, necessitating less alterations to the manifold/downpipe to get it to fit? I'd guess that the issue you're seeing is something similar to that, with some lax tolerances out of the factory, a little bit of movement on the mounts, and probably some distorsion to the shell over the years all adding up to be a few mm difference from side to side.

 

Good point.

 

But looking through the search i came across a few threads, one being this one.

 

Al

[maxi 36 1 Cars]

That's 1.9 beams that have the different front mounts, and it affects the beam front-rear mounting, not side-to-side. When those mounts are wrong, you get the beam sitting too far forwards/backwards, whereas if I've understood what Adam is saying correctly, he's talking about the beam sitting too far too the side on one side.

 

 

Yeah you got it right Ant. I had a little chat with Dan about it last night too and he reckons the same. Just a lax tollerance in the shells. I do think I can tweak it slightly but the car drove perfectly before so I dont want to go f***ing it up.

 

Maxi

[Miles 331 1 Cars]

Get it measured up, the only way really as going by the body panels is a huge mistake, It will be out unless your very lucky but as said over and over the joy's of tolances.

[Sam 4]

My 205 beam had this also.

 

Sam

[maxi 36 1 Cars]

Right...... I loosened the mounts slightly with the shell on axle stands and gave it a bit of persuading with a bar I borrowed off an egyptian used to build the pyramids. It now looks a lot more central. It was previously 5mm out now its only by 2mm and the bolts now go through the center of the mounting holes as opposed to tight on one side.

 

Maxi

[pug_ham 244 3 Cars]

I agree, I think its just down to bad build tolerances.

 

I have this on my black GTi, possibly of about 5mm or more but when I got the suspension geometry checked in May he said it was a straight car & I've not touched the beam since & this is with a 205 rear beam fitted.

 

Its since then I noticed the difference between the inside of the wheels & the inner wings at the back. Drivers side has plenty but the passenger side is noticably closer. When I've got the car back here again I'm going to try adjusting it a little but like you say Adam, it drives fine as it is (best ever since getting it set up properly) so I'm not to fussed about making any great changes.

 

Gaham.

[Spiky 37]

i'd get it on a 4 wheel allignment system and check whats at fault

 

whether it's the beam or shell

[pug_ham 244 3 Cars]

i'd get it on a 4 wheel allignment system and check whats at fault

 

whether it's the beam or shell

I got the suspension geometry checked in May he said it was a straight car & I've not touched the beam since & this is with a 205 rear beam fitted.

Its been on a four wheel laser alignment with an operator that knows what he is doing. He said the car was very straight compared to some of the ones he has seen direct from the factory.

 

It drives fine, doesn't crab down the road & hasn't any nasty handling tendancies on or off track so I'll have a look at the beam fitting & if I can adjust it over slightly I will but if not I'm not overly concerned for the reasons above.

 

Graham.

[Paul_13 212 1 Cars]

The 309 beam on my 205 always sits closer towards the drivers side like you say, couple of people said they had the same prob.

[Spiky 37]

Its been on a four wheel laser alignment with an operator that knows what he is doing. He said the car was very straight compared to some of the ones he has seen direct from the factory.

 

It drives fine, doesn't crab down the road & hasn't any nasty handling tendancies on or off track so I'll have a look at the beam fitting & if I can adjust it over slightly I will but if not I'm not overly concerned for the reasons above.

 

Graham.

 

 

missed that line

 

weird then, will have a look at mine

[maxi 36 1 Cars]

Ive just checked, all my 205's are the same. Every one the beam sits slightly to one side.

 

Maxi

[oli-pug 6 2 Cars]

My 309 beams like this too, the four studs are central in their holes but the NS wheel does seem to sit further out of the arch.

[Henry Yorke 269 3 Cars]

Are you actually measuring from metal arch to metal arch or plastic arch to plastic arch? Are you running original Peugeot beam mounts or solid / aftermarket rubber ones?

 

My CTI has worn the plastic arch more on the passengers side more than the drivers, with a rebuilt standard 1.9 beam, with SL 434's on which widen the track to effectively 309 width.

 

I have a theory around that sometimes it is the plastic arch, the arch fixings or maybe even the fixing holes that can vary as well. Some arch tops fit slightly tighter against the body than others.

 

Tyre manufacturer can make quite a difference too as the sidewalls vary in how much they stick out, so sometimes it is more pronounced than others.

 

My (now resolved) issue was running 1.6 front mounts instead of 1.9's. In my investigations beforehand, I did find you could adjust the angle of the beam with the elongated hole on the drivers side rear mount, however I doubt this would significantly effect the beam offset query you have Adam.

[oli-pug 6 2 Cars]

The Ns wheel does definitely sit further out, I checked my wheel alignment the other day with the gauges at work and I found the wheel was approx 6mm off centre.

 

It's most noticeable when looking at the rear of the car. You can the see the tyre protrudes from the valance quite a lot more.

[maxi 36 1 Cars]

The Ns wheel does definitely sit further out, I checked my wheel alignment the other day with the gauges at work and I found the wheel was approx 6mm off centre.

 

It's most noticeable when looking at the rear of the car. You can the see the tyre protrudes from the valance quite a lot more.

 

 

This is the opposite to all of mine and Dan's (taylorspug) 205's, ours sit biased to the O/S (drivers side).

 

Maxi

[pug_ham 244 3 Cars]

Henry, I've got full solid group A BBM mounts but I only noticed this after I'd swapped back to the 205 beam which I had oe front & group N Peugeotsport rear mounts.

 

This is the opposite to all of mine and Dan's (taylorspug) 205's, ours sit biased to the O/S (drivers side).

 

Maxi

Same as mine, more space on the drivers side but tight on the passenger side. OK on standard rims but especially tight with my 6.5j15 track wheels fitted.

 

Graham.