206 Suspension/axel,damp issues

pauljeff39 · Post by **pauljeff39** » 02 Oct 2005, 14:25

I have a 206, under 4 yrs old, around 80,000 miles on the clock, had a prob with a rear wheel moving strngely, took it to a garage who said it was damp that had crept in, and now the rear axel/suspension/arms etc need replacing as it had spread, this has cost around £700 - Has anyone heard of such a thing before ? The rear wheel was rubbing the inside of the wheel arch to give you a clue as to the position of the wheel. - Thanks

Dave Burns · Post by **Dave Burns** » 02 Oct 2005, 15:38

This has been happening to Peugeot/Citroen cars for years and years, ever since this design of rear axle came along, poor sealing at the arm shaft allows water to get in, this causes the needle roller bearings to completely rust away, damaging the shaft in the process which then rubs against the inside of the axle tube, resulting in rear wheel misalignment.
They are easey to change and good used units should be readily obtainable from a breakers yard, probably for around £150 - £200.
Dave

PowerLee · Post by **PowerLee** » 02 Oct 2005, 16:13

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Dave Burns</i>

This has been happening to Peugeot/Citroen cars for years and years, ever since this design of rear axle came along, poor sealing at the arm shaft allows water to get in, this causes the needle roller bearings to completely rust away, damaging the shaft in the process which then rubs against the inside of the axle tube, resulting in rear wheel misalignment.
They are easey to change and good used units should be readily obtainable from a breakers yard, probably for around £150 - £200.
Dave
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hi
Ive owned many Peugeots over the years with this rear axle unit fitted on, Ive never had a problem YET with one, Last cars had 128K miles on it when I got rid of it & rear axle was fine.
Does anybody know what steps can I take to prevent my 206 axle from doing the same?

fastandfurryous · Post by **fastandfurryous** » 02 Oct 2005, 16:50

Powerlee... your 405 was a saloon wasn't it? The saloon models never seem to suffer from this (and are an excelent source of good axles) whereas the estate models are more prone to it. (due to heavier loads? I guess)
Usually starts on the nearside first, as the location of the torsion bars means that the loading on the nearside bearing is greater than the offside. I've had 3 405 estates with varying degrees of lean on the nearside wheel. My current 405 Hunter now has 150k on it, and is beginning to show problems.
The only preventative maintainece I'm aware of is to dismantle and pack with waterproof grease every now and then. If you're feeling adventurous, you can fit a grease nipple, and pump it full of grease every now and then.
I designed and manufactured a fix for this problem (for 405's) a while ago, which involves completely removing the idiot needle-roller bearings, and fitting a combination of a hardened bush, and a deep-groove ball bearing. It has the benefit of being able to be fitted to an otherwise damaged axle, and means far less work to fix. It was fitted to the last 405 I had (not my current one) and worked really well.
I'm currently talking to a engineering machine shop to see if I can have a batch of these made. I'm also looking for an old (free!) damaged back axle from a 106, a 206 and a 306 to see if the same will work for these cars.
Estimated cost of repair kit will be about £80 per side. Time to fit will be about 2 hours per side, with no need to dismantle brakes or remove the axle. Any takers?

PowerLee · Post by **PowerLee** » 02 Oct 2005, 17:06

Hi
Yeah, Both the 405s I had where saloons.
The GTX had around 80K miles on it when I got rid & the Exec had 128K miles on it when it decided to let me down.
Both where on the original rear axles.
You mentioned fitting grease nipples, Where abouts would these be fitted?
Has anybody got a picture / drawing where they would be located?
I still have my grease gun from my Austin & Rover Metro days.

fastandfurryous · Post by **fastandfurryous** » 02 Oct 2005, 17:28

80k and 128k? they were both young 'uns!
I think if you want to fit grease nipples, you have to dismantle the trailing arm from the axle, and drill and tap it to suit whatever grease nipple you have. You *could* drill and tap it still in position, but you then run the risk of putting swarf into the bearings.
My 405's were 330k miles (and truly knackered), 225k (with my modification fitted for about 25k) and the current one at 150k.
What I still don't understand is that Peugeot managed to get rid of the excelent trailing arm design they had on the Talbot/Simca range of cars, and then replaced it with the (excelent handling, but) rather weak design they use now. The Talbots I had were way over 200k miles, and the suspension bushes were still just fine. Ah well, that's progress for you!

PowerLee · Post by **PowerLee** » 02 Oct 2005, 17:34

Thanks, Thats another job on the list for when the warranty runs out.

Dave Burns · Post by **Dave Burns** » 02 Oct 2005, 18:05

"Usually starts on the nearside first, as the location of the torsion bars means that the loading on the nearside bearing is greater than the offside. I've had 3 405 estates with varying degrees of lean on the nearside wheel."
I doubt it, both torsion bars are the same distance away from the cross tube centre, which is also the pivot axis for the arms, if the loading wasn't symetrical the handling would be strange to say the least.
There is a more simple theory as to why the nearside goes first, as it did with my 205, this is the side that gets bombarded with the most spray from the wheel, because thats the side that most surface water stands on the road, so avoid driving through it if you can.
Dave

fastandfurryous · Post by **fastandfurryous** » 02 Oct 2005, 18:56

Dave.
Yep, I see your point about that. Just spent 20 minutes with a free-body diagram, resolving torques, and can't quite convince myself if the torsion bar anchor point makes a difference or not. If you resolve torques around the cross-tube centre, then the results are identical for each side. However, if you resolve torques around the wheel centre, then the distance from the wheel centre to the torsion bar becomes relevant, and shows that the loads are indeed (slightly) different, with the nearside being under greater load. Hmmm.....
The theory with road-wash being greater on the left-hand-side might hold water (pun fully intended[:D]), but as aparently LHD cars on the continent go on the left-hand-side first too, I wonder if it's something else. Theoretically, they should go on the right (their nearside) first.
Maybe something to do with the fuel tank / exhaust etc. shielding the right-hand-side one more than the left? Certainly every ZX I've seen with this problem seems to be about the same on each side, suggesting that it's floor offers no shielding at all, and they both deterioirate at the same rate.

pauljeff39 · Post by **pauljeff39** » 02 Oct 2005, 21:42

Thanks everyon e for the input.
For info, the car in question is LHD and it was the right hand side that went.