Suspension geometry setup - Suspension Forum - Peugeot 306 GTi-6 & Rallye Owners Club

displaying posts 1 to 25 of 38

Pages (2): [1] 2

Author

Subject: Suspension geometry setup

eddiebeano

Senior User

Location: Edinburgh

Registered: 31 Dec 2008

Posts: 715

Status: Offline

Post #1

Hi guys, a quick question about geometry setup. The spec will be as follows..

-D2 coilovers with adjustable camber top mounts
-Rich W roller bearing wishbone bushes
-Upper and lower Strut Braces

-21mm torsion bars, currently at standard ride height.
-solid rear beam mounts
-205 bilstein tarmac Dampers
-hopefully hybrid arb soon too..

-55 profile hankook ventus primes, soon to be changed for something a little stiffer/stickier.

I was intending on taking the car to Progrip in falkirk as they seem to have a good rep, but what settings would folk recommend, in terms of ride height (f+r), camber settings, toe settings etc. Currently stripped out so riding high Hmm

. The car is a daily but will be used at knockhill too.

________________________________________

team: Stealth Ninja

Posted 20th Mar 2012 at 13:16

Profile

welshpug!

Capt Pedantic

Location: Bigend, Wales.

Registered: 27 Mar 2007

Posts: 25,839

Status: Offline

Post #2

20mm rear drop 10mm rake to front on sill jacking point heights.

camber setting depends on tyres, but 1.5 is a good place to start, toe is very much personal preference but parallel is a good place to start.

________________________________________

need a part number? get on here - http://public.servicebox.peugeot.com

Bring on the Trumpets.

Posted 20th Mar 2012 at 13:27

Profile

eddiebeano

Senior User

Location: Edinburgh

Registered: 31 Dec 2008

Posts: 715

Status: Offline

Post #3

welshpug! wrote:

So, 30mm on the front? Why do you specify it by sill jacking points? The car currently looks like a tractor with nothing in it.

I'd like the wheels to fill the arches, hence I'll be keeping 55 profiles whatever I go for.

After reading this.. http://www.ozebiz.com.au/racetech/theory/align.html it would seem a touch of toe out would be appropriate, and a small amount of negative camber? i don't want it to eat through tyres anyway.

Ed

________________________________________

team: Stealth Ninja

Posted 20th Mar 2012 at 13:47

Profile

welshpug!

Capt Pedantic

Location: Bigend, Wales.

Registered: 27 Mar 2007

Posts: 25,839

Status: Offline

Post #4

specified at sill jacking points as the front+rear arches have a different profile.

________________________________________

need a part number? get on here - http://public.servicebox.peugeot.com

Bring on the Trumpets.

Posted 20th Mar 2012 at 14:50

Profile

eddiebeano

Senior User

Location: Edinburgh

Registered: 31 Dec 2008

Posts: 715

Status: Offline

Post #5

welshpug! wrote:

specified at sill jacking points as the front+rear arches have a different profile.

you learn a new thing every day Thumbs up

I'm taking your advice on board, but can't help thinking it's still going to look too high with just a 20mm drop on the rear Dunno

________________________________________

team: Stealth Ninja

Posted 20th Mar 2012 at 15:45

Profile

welshpug!

Capt Pedantic

Location: Bigend, Wales.

Registered: 27 Mar 2007

Posts: 25,839

Status: Offline

Post #6

depends, do you want it to handle or not ? LOL

________________________________________

need a part number? get on here - http://public.servicebox.peugeot.com

Bring on the Trumpets.

Posted 20th Mar 2012 at 16:32

Profile

eddiebeano

Senior User

Location: Edinburgh

Registered: 31 Dec 2008

Posts: 715

Status: Offline

Post #7

of course, it's why I bought the car, but looks are important too. Why are most of the track cars in projects section lowered significantly more than 20 mm then? I'm thinking of Owains, Russian Guy's, and numerous others. Basically I'd rather have a track slag and suffer the consequences of using it as a daily. For example, this is the stance I would be after..

How much do you reckon that is lowered?

________________________________________

team: Stealth Ninja

Posted 20th Mar 2012 at 16:43

Profile

welshpug!

Capt Pedantic

Location: Bigend, Wales.

Registered: 27 Mar 2007

Posts: 25,839

Status: Offline

Post #8

too much

________________________________________

need a part number? get on here - http://public.servicebox.peugeot.com

Bring on the Trumpets.

Posted 20th Mar 2012 at 16:57

Profile

eddiebeano

Senior User

Location: Edinburgh

Registered: 31 Dec 2008

Posts: 715

Status: Offline

Post #9

welshpug! wrote:

too much

Looks awsome though Love

I assume if you're basing a spec for track, rather than a daily, lowering more than 25mil is acceptable! The only chance i get to drive B roads is once in a blue moon, which is a shame...

________________________________________

team: Stealth Ninja

Posted 20th Mar 2012 at 17:10

Profile

welshpug!

Capt Pedantic

Location: Bigend, Wales.

Registered: 27 Mar 2007

Posts: 25,839

Status: Offline

Post #10

I had a rallye here a week ago and it was sitting much like that one, wishbones were pointing skywards and the bumpstop on the rear was less than a fingers width away from the trailing arm, it rode bloody awful.

lowering more than 25mm without a lot of chassis work is silly regardless of track or road use.

________________________________________

need a part number? get on here - http://public.servicebox.peugeot.com

Bring on the Trumpets.

Posted 20th Mar 2012 at 17:15

Profile

eddiebeano

Senior User

Location: Edinburgh

Registered: 31 Dec 2008

Posts: 715

Status: Offline

Post #11

Ok I will certainly bear this in mind! Anyone else care to ad their opinion?

________________________________________

team: Stealth Ninja

Posted 20th Mar 2012 at 17:21

Profile

eliotrw

Seasoned Pro

Location: Southwark

Registered: 18 Jul 2010

Posts: 4,864

Status: Offline

Post #12

welshpug! wrote:

But sure the minimum you can lower the front is 3cm? Without coilovers....

________________________________________

Ex- Phase 3 China GTi-6 T-Reg

Posted 20th Mar 2012 at 17:24

Profile

eddiebeano

Senior User

Location: Edinburgh

Registered: 31 Dec 2008

Posts: 715

Status: Offline

Post #13

Reading the project thread for above car, he says he's tried raising and lowering the car but 45mm, as it's sat in the pic, seems to handle the best.

________________________________________

team: Stealth Ninja

Posted 21st Mar 2012 at 10:45

Profile

adam b

Seasoned Pro

Location: The Nam

Registered: 24 Jan 2006

Posts: 12,828

Status: Offline

Post #14

Handling and grip are two different things.

________________________________________

Nothing to see here

Posted 21st Mar 2012 at 10:53

Profile

adam b

Seasoned Pro

Location: The Nam

Registered: 24 Jan 2006

Posts: 12,828

Status: Offline

Post #15

I bet that car above is running 50 profiles anyway.
Anything from 20-30mm on the rear as its already stripped out. You do want some rake forwards on it but too much will make it the rear end nervous on turn-in. What springs on the front?

A lot of the cars in the project section are track cars, but its up to you how much you compromise road compliance for track grip. Handling sweetness can be sorted for both but balance is the most important bit.

________________________________________

Nothing to see here

Posted 21st Mar 2012 at 10:58

Profile

eddiebeano

Senior User

Location: Edinburgh

Registered: 31 Dec 2008

Posts: 715

Status: Offline

Post #16

Stupidly I couldn't tell you what spring rate is on the front.. So if it was lowered 30 on the back and 40 on the front I think that would be a good compromise. Any idea what suspension settings you would specify Adam? In terms of toe and camber.

________________________________________

team: Stealth Ninja

Posted 21st Mar 2012 at 11:38

Profile

adam b

Seasoned Pro

Location: The Nam

Registered: 24 Jan 2006

Posts: 12,828

Status: Offline

Post #17

Not really no. You don't have a great deal of options. I think mine was always slightly toe in but I didn't have camber/castor adjust. Making sure the rear beam is square on is quite important. I think you need a bigger rear arb before anything else.

The volvo runs: camber -1 on the front, -2 on the rear, toe slightly in front, rear changes depending on load. Must fit those rear camber bolts...

________________________________________

Nothing to see here

Posted 21st Mar 2012 at 12:13

Profile

dan86

Senior User

Location: Bideford

Registered: 10 May 2009

Posts: 548

Status: Offline

Post #18

I run mine with 20 minutes toe-in on the front. It makes the turn in nice and sharp. I've tried parallel which was less sharp and had to turn the steering wheel a bit more to get the same response and toe-out was quite numb feeling but was very stable feeling espescially over crests and under hard braking.

Personal preference really. My front tyres always seem to wear flat and evenly with the setting I have.

________________________________________

Posted 21st Mar 2012 at 12:51

Profile

eddiebeano

Senior User

Location: Edinburgh

Registered: 31 Dec 2008

Posts: 715

Status: Offline

Post #19

dan86 wrote:

Would you say the toe out made it unstable and likely to wander in a straight line?

________________________________________

team: Stealth Ninja

Posted 21st Mar 2012 at 13:01

Profile

dan86

Senior User

Location: Bideford

Registered: 10 May 2009

Posts: 548

Status: Offline

Post #20

eddiebeano wrote:

dan86 wrote:

Would you say the toe out made it unstable and likely to wander in a straight line?

No, toe out was more stable. Toe in makes the steering response sharper, but not unstable by any means. It just requires less steering input to get the same result. Toe-in FTW.

________________________________________

Posted 21st Mar 2012 at 18:38

Profile

clen666

Seasoned Pro

Location: Co. Durham

Registered: 12 Feb 2009

Posts: 2,401

Status: Offline

Post #21

dan86 wrote:

No, toe out was more stable. Toe in makes the steering response sharper, but not unstable by any means. It just requires less steering input to get the same result. Toe-in FTW.

I thought the opposite was true Dunno

________________________________________

Team 'unintentional rat look'

Posted 21st Mar 2012 at 19:07

Profile

eddiebeano

Senior User

Location: Edinburgh

Registered: 31 Dec 2008

Posts: 715

Status: Offline

Post #22

clen666 wrote:

dan86 wrote:

No, toe out was more stable. Toe in makes the steering response sharper, but not unstable by any means. It just requires less steering input to get the same result. Toe-in FTW.

I thought the opposite was true Dunno

toe out should make steering turn in sharper as the wheel on the inside is already facing in the direction of turn. At least that's what I've read.

________________________________________

team: Stealth Ninja

Posted 21st Mar 2012 at 19:17

Profile

mik

Seasoned Pro

Location: Kent

Registered: 17 Feb 2011

Posts: 2,100

Status: Offline

Post #23

...but the car's weight is more on the outside wheel in a corner, so toe-in on the front wheels will mean the outside wheel is already pointing slightly in the direction of turn. Toe out will give the opposite.

________________________________________

Cherry Rallye SOLD

Posted 21st Mar 2012 at 19:49

Profile

woody.

Senior User

Location: London

Registered: 18 May 2009

Posts: 799

Status: Offline

Post #24

Toe out for more straight line stability, toe in for better cornering. That's vaguely how I've been taught!?

Posted 21st Mar 2012 at 19:49

Profile

eddiebeano

Senior User

Location: Edinburgh

Registered: 31 Dec 2008

Posts: 715

Status: Offline

Post #25

The above guide says..

________________________________________

team: Stealth Ninja

Posted 21st Mar 2012 at 19:55

Profile

Pages (2): [1] 2

All times are GMT. The time is now 09:03

Please Note: The views and opinions found herein are those of individuals, and not of The Peugeot 306 GTi-6 & Rallye Owners Club or any individuals involved.
No responsibility is taken or assumed for any comments or statements made on, or in relation to, this website. Please see our updated privacy policy.