172 cup track rod ends?

[jamievt]

just had advisory for track rod end should i just replace the one side or do both?
also had one for inner steering rack end cant seem to find the part anywhere get taken to axial/tie rod are these one and the same?

thanks

 

[Scott H.]

I'd say change both ends and get the tracking/alligment done after. I just posted in another thread that Lemforder ones are common on here and can be bought from euro car parts for £13.86 a side using promo code "midmonth30" to get 30% off.
Inner steering rack is the inner tie rod as you mentioned I would have guessed. I'm sure for a Cup tho they are dealer only parts and are a right pain to change!

 

[BrianB]

I'm sure for a Cup tho they are dealer only parts and are a right pain to change!

Can anyone confirm this as I'm sure there common to all ph2 172s

 

[Fred@BTM]

inner tie bars (or inner track rods) for a 172/182 CUP are dealer only, TRE's are the same and can get had from anywhere

inners for non cup can also be had from anywhere

 

[jamievt]

cheers they were up on ECP website for 29.40 but obviously there not for cup even though its says they are :S stupid website

 

[PBCup]

Why are inners dealer only? Anything to do with the different wishbone? I.e. if I change to cup wishbones does that mean I need other differing parts too?

 

[Fred@BTM]

wider track the inners on a cup are about 30mm (each) longer

 

[p@blo]

wider track the inners on a cup are about 30mm (each) longer

How exactly?

 

[Fred@BTM]

they make them longer?

driveshafts are longer, therefore hubs must be further apart hence longer arms

 

[p@blo]

they make them longer?

driveshafts are longer, therefore hubs must be further apart hence longer arms

So you're saying the 172 Cup w/b are longer?

I must've been done - mine were the same length as regular mk2 items!? Didn't chip note they were the same length when he compared his too? :quiet:

Can you whack up a like for like image of these longer triangles please Fred?



:rasp:

 

[Chip-mk1]

The reason the track rod ends are longer on the cup I would imagine is because the extra caster moves the steering arm on the hub further forward of the rack, when you fit the cup wishbones you have to wind the rod ends out about 1 turn per side, this wasnt enough to be an issue, but maybe renault introduced longer ones than were needed so that they could use them as homologated parts.

The track width on the cup wishbones isnt wider, the 20mm extra track width is from the different offset on the wheels.

 

[Chip-mk1]

they make them longer?

driveshafts are longer, therefore hubs must be further apart hence longer arms

We measured a cup wishbone against a standard wishbone, they were exactly the same length.

I believe this is why the cups have a problem with bottoming out the driveshaft when you add lots of camber but a phase 1 doesnt have.

That said, it might be that the ones we measured were the same but that others arent, renault do seem to like to chop and change a lot!

 

[PBCup]

Is the castor worth the effort? Would it be better to fit new cup wishbones or to polybush the old ones?

Sorry for the thread hijack.

 

[p@blo]

We measured a cup wishbone against a standard wishbone, they were exactly the same length.

I believe this is why the cups have a problem with bottoming out the driveshaft when you add lots of camber but a phase 1 doesnt have.

That said, it might be that the ones we measured were the same but that others arent, renault do seem to like to chop and change a lot!

One piece shafts off the ph1 (oem Renault items) i stripped for running gear were identical length to the one piece shafts off the 172 Cup (again oem Renault items). Surely contrary to there being any difference bar the track rods?

Bit like the myth of the hubs with the caster...

Lol.

 

[Chip-mk1]

One piece shafts off the ph1 (oem Renault items) i stripped for running gear were identical length to the one piece shafts off the 172 Cup (again oem Renault items). Surely contrary to there being any difference bar the track rods?

Bit like the myth of the hubs with the caster...

Lol.

The ones I measured recently were 10mm longer on the cup than on the phase 1.

So something certainly inconsistant with what renault put on which car, or what has been swapped on since.

 

[Chip-mk1]

Is the castor worth the effort? Would it be better to fit new cup wishbones or to polybush the old ones?

Sorry for the thread hijack.

Its no effort to just fit cup ones instead of standard ones really.
Yes in my opinion its worth the effort.

TBH im not a huge fan of the powerflex, they dont last massively long and arent much stiffer than new standard bushes, although they are a LOT cheaper of course!

 

[PBCup]

Its no effort to just fit cup ones instead of standard ones really.
Yes in my opinion its worth the effort.

TBH im not a huge fan of the powerflex, they dont last massively long and arent much stiffer than new standard bushes, although they are a LOT cheaper of course!

Thanks. I'm not a great fan of powerflex either, I had them fitted on one of my 172 Cups about 5 years ago. Steering etc was tightened up but they were really noisy. Also they disintergated very quickly on a mates Fiat Coupe.

Cup wishbones it is then.

 

[Chip-mk1]

Thanks. I'm not a great fan of powerflex either, I had them fitted on one of my 172 Cups about 5 years ago. Steering etc was tightened up but they were really noisy. Also they disintergated very quickly on a mates Fiat Coupe.

Cup wishbones it is then.

Ive got powerflex on my turbo, as I wanted to cheaply freshen up the arms that I modified for extra caster, and as that car doesnt do many miles I wasnt too bothered about the fact that I know they wont last.

But last weekend on our N/A car which sees a lot more mileage, I fitted new genuine cup wishbones.


So its just a case of horses for courses really.

 

[Fred@BTM]

driveshafts ARE different lengths between phs1 and cup, i've got a set infront of me

 

[Chip-mk1]

driveshafts ARE different lengths between phs1 and cup, i've got a set infront of me

I concur.


The parts that are different based on the comparisons me and Mike from MWM did are:
Wishbone balljoint location pushed forward (more caster)
Track rod ends longer on cup
Driveshafts longer on cup

The parts that are the same
Wishbone length (ie track is same)
Hubs are identical
Balljoint are identical


The track width is wider just due to the wheels, and I suspect (but havent checked) the reason its not as much wider on the rear on the cup as it is at the front, is actually because I think the rear beam (well stub axles probably not the beam itself) is narrower on the cup.

Ie if you put cup turninis on a phase 1/2 non cup then it would end up wider at the back than a cup, and the same at the front as a cup.

 

[p@blo]

driveshafts ARE different lengths between phs1 and cup, i've got a set infront of me

But obviously a negligible amount if the same shafts can be run on either application. Unintetnional parts bin variation? Bar the rubber gaitors mine are the exact same shafts. Lol.

I concur.


The parts that are different based on the comparisons me and Mike from MWM did are:
Wishbone balljoint location pushed forward (more caster)
Track rod ends longer on cup
Driveshafts longer on cup

The parts that are the same
Wishbone length (ie track is same)
Hubs are identical
Balljoint are identical


The track width is wider just due to the wheels, and I suspect (but havent checked) the reason its not as much wider on the rear on the cup as it is at the front, is actually because I think the rear beam (well stub axles probably not the beam itself) is narrower on the cup.

Ie if you put cup turninis on a phase 1/2 non cup then it would end up wider at the back than a cup, and the same at the front as a cup.

Chip, you've spoilt the fairytale, lol. Rear Cup/Ragnotti stubs are around 5mil narrower yup.

 

[BrianB]

Chip do you mean the track rods are longer and the rod ends are the same??

 

[pUkas]

Did someone check ph2 172 and 172 cup subframes? What i found is different wishbone mounting holes location:

Usual clio subframe - 21mm
Clio cup 172 subframe -11mm
Clio 172 - ??? (should be about 16??)

This should give wider track.

 

[mark123]

I've just measured a ph1 172 subframe I have in my garage and the distance above is 21mm.

 

[pUkas]

So - cup have 20mm wider track due to subframe. Due to wide track it has longer drive shafts, longer tie rods. Hubs are same, tie rod ends same, same wishbones (just outer ball joint hole is in differnet place - it gives more caster).

 

[mark123]

Yes I was looking under my cup tonight and the gap is definitely smaller as you've already said.

 

[JJS1979]

Chip - I also need to know this are the tierods longer and the track rods the same?

 

[5678]

Reading this with interest as I want to try and fit 172 cup arms to my 182 with cup suspension.

 

[mark123]

The 172 cup tie rods are about 20mm longer, the track rod ends are the same. They are about 40mm into the track rod end though so even the shorter tie rods would still be about 20mm inside the TRE.

I would have thought the 182 cup/cup pack would have the same longer tie rods and also the bottom arms with more caster like the 172 cup. You should be able to tell with a quick look at the 182 cup arms, post a pic up if you can't tell.

 

[MG cup]

Do you think the measurement shown above is smaller than 21mm on your car mark?

 

[5678]

The 172 cup tie rods are about 20mm longer, the track rod ends are the same. They are about 40mm into the track rod end though so even the shorter tie rods would still be about 20mm inside the TRE.

I would have thought the 182 cup/cup pack would have the same longer tie rods and also the bottom arms with more caster like the 172 cup. You should be able to tell with a quick look at the 182 cup arms, post a pic up if you can't tell.

I've got some on their way. I'll then get a picture of my Cup'd 182 arms in situ to try and work out whats what.

 

[mark123]

Do you think the measurement shown above is smaller than 21mm on your car mark?

Yes I think so. I'll try and remember to measure it this evening.

 

[MG cup]

Yes I think so. I'll try and remember to measure it this evening.

That would explain the longer drive shaft's, longer track rod ends fitted to cups. Extra caster from the offset holes on wishbones and extended track and camber from the subframe. Seems like an easy solution on Renaults part.

 

[Ianboom]

I have a 182 non cup, the inner track rods are approx 15mm longer than a standard clio. Lemforder do not make an inner track rod for a 182, cup or not!
I had to buy genuine and am taking the ECP lemforder ones back. There web site in wrong!

 

[MG cup]

That would explain the longer drive shaft's, longer track rod ends fitted to cups. Extra caster from the offset holes on wishbones and extended track and camber from the subframe. Seems like an easy solution on Renaults part.

EDIT just noticed pukas mentioned this all above.

 

[mark123]

Some pics. These bits are my 172 cup compared to a 172 ph1 subframe and track rod I have lying about.

Track rod about 15mm longer on cup.

Subframe wishbone mounting hole about 10mm further out on cup.

 

[mark123]

And I've just been out to look at my 182 with cup packs and the wishbone looks the same as the 172 cup i.e. it has the extra caster from the different ball joint position.

 

[5678]

And I've just been out to look at my 182 with cup packs and the wishbone looks the same as the 172 cup i.e. it has the extra caster from the different ball joint position.

Ahh! That's interesting to know. I was going to make the same comparison once some 172 Cup arms I've bought turn up. If it wasn't dead money, I'd go and get a full geo check and measurement to bloody find out!

 

[MG cup]

Nice to see some ACTUAL measurements. If the hubs are the same throughout the 1*2 range then the 172 cup is 39mm than phase 1 and 29mm wider than the 172 FF. I now know how they got the extra camber/caster/track width. There is a lot of talk but this is in black and white.

 

[Tony Hunter]

Phew, Renault........