306oc - Peugeot 306 Owners Club & Forum

Full Version: Rear suspension, torsion bar to mcpherson
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I am doing some research into a future build, i am not yet a 306 owner, but while i wait for space on the driveway (and permission from the misses....or when she isnt looking) i am trying to gather as much info as i can so i can crack on with the project when the time arrives, looking at the rally maxi they had the torsion bar system removed and replaced with a more traditional mcpherson type set up. Aside from the fabrication practicalities (have welder will travel) is there any advantage or disadvantage to doing this? Or is it better to get a wider tracked torsion bar? I am not a fan of adding spacers so trying to avoid doing that. What is the general recommendation? Even better, has anyone done this conversion before and have pictures?
maxi did not use a mcpherson strut, just a much stronger beam assembly, still trailing arm with torsion bars, iirc some variants used an additional coil spring on the dampers mounted in the same location as standard.

Without going significantly wider up front the rear will be finesat standard width.
Ah, that makes things alot easier, i thought the images looked a bit odd but that makes sence now.....thank you Smile Certainly one less thing to worry about. Although i remember changing the ride hieght on both my 205xs and GTI years ago, i hope the job gets easier with experience Smile i remeber it being a bit of a struggle.
there was a company (maybe an individual?) developing an independent rear setup for the 306, I posted a vid from their youtube on it but can't find the link now, fully custom job.
Okay I will look out for it. I just did a google image search for the rear suspension, clearly some of the images are not even Peugeot related, i did see what looked similar to a peugeot set up with some custom fabricating with a spring used in a vertical position, but i didnt click on it to see what it actually was and i cant find it again. But if the standard torsion beam set up was used then i am more than happy to keep that, it will save some fettling.......i think i can remember where the slide hammer is Smile
What are you doing with the car that needs the torsion bars removing?
Apart from the difficulty in damping and height adjustment it works otherwise
(20-12-2015, 06:13 PM)adam b Wrote: [ -> ]What are you doing with the car that needs the torsion bars removing?
Apart from the difficulty in damping and height adjustment it works otherwise

Nothing yet, i am hoping to make it into a rally car, I guess i should wait until i get the homologation papers before planning ahead. i should also see what passed as homologation in the Maxi days that is still current , i know roll cage regs have changed since then.
standard 306 setup IS independent.
(20-12-2015, 05:49 PM)tigerstyle Wrote: [ -> ]....an independent rear setup for the 306....

Nospeak

(20-12-2015, 05:49 PM)tigerstyle Wrote: [ -> ]....an independent rear setup for the 306....


Nospeak Nospeak

(20-12-2015, 05:49 PM)tigerstyle Wrote: [ -> ]....an independent rear setup for the 306....


Oh for f***s sake. Not again. Rofl
just an idle thought, instead of McPherson, how about a beam & coil-spring set-up, like under the back of Combo vans etc?
chop out all the mounting points & inner arches (as rqd), & carefully measure alignment to weld in.
http://www.satchellengineering.co.uk/106...n-kit.html
Not for a 306, but if there was enough interest im sure sandy and colin would oblige
(31-12-2015, 05:07 PM)Magenta Sunset Wrote: [ -> ]just an idle thought, instead of McPherson, how about a beam & coil-spring set-up, like under the back of Combo vans etc?
chop out all the mounting points & inner arches (as rqd), & carefully measure alignment to weld in.

So going backwards in development!?
Not sure its backwards Piggy.

Many 106s and 205s have been turretted to allow greater damper control and bring the wheel rate to damper travel to 1:1
(31-12-2015, 05:31 PM)thododd Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.satchellengineering.co.uk/106...n-kit.html
Not for a 306, but if there was enough interest im sure sandy and colin would oblige

Thats an interesting set up for sure. I like it.

I was looking again a couple of days ago and came across what looked like a 205 where someone had put in mcpherson suspension turrets. It was an impressive bit of fabrication. 

I would have to look into it a bit more, i am not sure there would be much benefit for a tarmac rally car/track car.
 
I think widening the track is one of my main concerns, i am sure there are kits available but i havnt looked into it much yet. (I hate wheel spacers so need to find an alternative)

 My firstborn is due on monday Smile and i want to get my current project underway before i get too involved with the 306 project....saying that i have figured out some of what i want to do ( in theory anywaySmile. )   only the suspension set up and brakes remain a bit of a mystery.....and most of the interior Smile
(01-01-2016, 05:32 PM)thododd Wrote: [ -> ]Not sure its backwards Piggy.

Many 106s and 205s have been turretted to allow greater damper control and bring the wheel rate to damper travel to 1:1

thats a bit different to the non independent beams on vag and gm stuff.
(01-01-2016, 05:32 PM)thododd Wrote: [ -> ]Not sure its backwards Piggy.

Many 106s and 205s have been turretted to allow greater damper control and bring the wheel rate to damper travel to 1:1

when they are turreted they still use the oem beam etc, most cars like vags use a solid beam with independent setup
not sure why youd want to replace one of the best handling rears with that!
there is that.
mind, my van is pretty chuckable down the back roads Smile
Their main problem is the damper angle. That and bearings going south
a lot of bikes have sloping shox, gives a longer travel on a shorter shock (trailies)
not ideal at all though.