Open discussion on how the wider rear tracking is achieved on Facelift models

[marko]

I'm no expert but I would of imagined the rear bearings are designed to take extra load with boot full and 3 passengers in back so 15mm will not have a significant impact on day to day driving..

 

people are just arguing for arguing sake, keyboard warriors lol!!

 

besides, if it's good enough for Chop Shop then it's good enough for us

 

[Jaco2k]

But back on topic - what about what are the actual differences on the rear between the old car and the new car?

[themanwithnoaim]

I've ask a Skoda Parts Manager whom comes down to our meets occasionally, next meet is the 1/8/17

[Jaco2k]

5 hours ago, themanwithnoaim said:

I've ask a Skoda Parts Manager whom comes down to our meets occasionally, next meet is the 1/8/17

 

I tried to ask on a dealership and the answer literally was "if you want the wider tracking, just buy the new car"

...at the time I thought he was just messing with me, but maybe he knows something about it and it is just too much work to make it worth it.

[nidza]

18 hours ago, KenONeill said:

That's an interesting piece of physics, where the load on a wheel bearing is dependent on the unloaded kerb weight on the axle rather than the rotating mass of the wheel and any offset between the centrelines of the wheel and bearing.

 

Could you supply a link to an English language version of your original research please?

 

What influence rotating mass has on this? I believe none if the wheel is properly balanced. All other forces do have effect, load of the bearing due to mass of the car and forces in curves and braking, but we will not resolve this matter in the forum, let's stop it here. People drive with spacers and suffer no consequences, although you can't argue lever effect if you put centre of your wheel further. 

 

13 hours ago, Jaco2k said:

But back on topic - what about what are the actual differences on the rear between the old car and the new car?

 

Old car has already partially worn parts which you put under additional stress. 

[KenONeill]

16 minutes ago, nidza said:

 

What influence rotating mass has on this? I believe none if the wheel is properly balanced. All other forces do have effect, load of the bearing due to mass of the car and forces in curves and braking, but we will not resolve this matter in the forum, let's stop it here. People drive with spacers and suffer no consequences, although you can't argue lever effect if you put centre of your wheel further. 

 

Which are exactly my points! Increased rotating mass increases loads on bearings (and suspension). Increased lever effect from offsetting the bearing centreline from the wheel centre of mass line creates a bending load on the bearing(s) which will increase wear rate. If people are "getting away with" using spacers then either they're compensating for using much wider wheels than the car was designed for (how often do you see a slammed car with, say, 9" Porsche wheels?) or they're just not doing many miles, or the bearings are actually significantly over-engineered for the model. (worked example. My Octavia TDi110 is one of the most powerful models to use the FSIII calipers; The SDi with 68bhp uses the same front hubs and bearings, but has narrower tyres and only 62% of the power and torque so it's a good bet that the bearings on the SDi are over-engineered for the application.)

[Jaco2k]

19 minutes ago, nidza said:

 

Old car has already partially worn parts which you put under additional stress. 

 

You misunderstood my remark - although I think this is a great discussion about the pros and cons of using spacers, I was meaning to say that I would rather we slightly got back to trying to find out what are the different design/parts on the newer cars that allow a wider tracking WITHOUT spacers

 

I understand that there are other more immediate and easy ways to achieve it - which I was and am also considering:

- spacers

- wider wheels with different ET

 

We can also discuss on those - it is just that we now have 2 pages of a passionate discussion about spacers and we are still none the wiser about what has changed.

 

Given it seems it was not the hub/disc (based on the crude measurements we did earlier) it might even turn out the changes are simply too expensive to realistically consider, but let's still try to find out.

 

Hoping then someone has some contacts with some Skoda mechanics that can say for a fact what is the new setup - even better with part numbers/prices.

[nidza]

Must be a suspension upgrade as this is the only proper way to do it.

 

If you really want to try how car behaves, put some spacers and proper longer bolts temporarily. It will not hurt at least to try how it feels and looks. Little stress to the bearings will be present, you should be aware of it, but nothing terrible or that it will show its symptoms any time soon. Maybe never. Worst case scenario is a bearing replacement. In my mind bearing replacement must be cheaper then upgrading a suspension to be FL a'like.

 

[Ootohere]

& Sorry to be OT on the Open Discussion on the wider track and how it is achieved but just an observation, 

the wider track even if retro fitted might be not much different unless the tyres are just right.

 

?

What Summer Tyres does the car run on now while behaving as it does and does tyre pressure experimenting make much difference?

[Esseesse200]

I've had 15mm spacers on and lowered springs H&R for 70k miles with NO ill effects and it handles beautifully.

but yes skoda have obviously widened the back end in some way and all I can imagine is a change of hub 

[fabdavrav]

I have a very good answer to the OP;-

 

Wider rear hub carriers...the previous platform Golf/A3/TT had the same..the TT had thicker (10mm) alloy rear hub carriers...

 

http://www.golfmk7.com/forums/showpost.php?p=470724&postcount=60

 

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?7018526-Rear-Wheel-Bearing-Housing

[nidza]

Could be, but FL has huge 19mm per hub.

 

I wonder if it is so simple and how much upgraded part cost. Replacement should not be complicated at all.

 

[Jaco2k]

9 hours ago, nidza said:

Could be, but FL has huge 19mm per hub.

 

I wonder if it is so simple and how much upgraded part cost. Replacement should not be complicated at all.

 

 

Isn't the difference 12mm per corner?

[fabdavrav]

SOLVED IT!!!!

 

Right VAG mixes & matches & the TT wider bearing got me thinking...what about the current Passat as that is basically a bigger MQB platform..

 

Current Passat has a rear track of 1562 to 1570mm..so wider than FL MK3 Octavia, but nothing a different ET for wheels won't cure.

 

Passat has its own rear subframe, & lower main arm, & bearing/hub carrier. However it uses the same upper arm as the Octavia/Golf. It also has listed the trailing arm section as both its own part & the Octavia /Golf part.

 

I recon that VAG use the longer lower wishbone (one that the spring sits in) from the Passat & possibly the hub/bearing carrier also from the Passat... 

 

https://volkswagen.7zap.com/en/rdw/passat+4motion+santana/pa/2016-793/5/505-505005/#7

 

 

[Jaco2k]

I guess this mystery will only get solved when we have access to the part numbers to see what has changed.

 

Does anyone know a Skoda technician that could shed some light?

 

Ideally we would get a Pre-FL and a FL car on a lift and do some measuring.

...the hubs it isn't, since we have measured those.

 

I had my car lifted just a couple of days ago, but it was in a hurry... If someone lifts theirs, please take some measures of the rear arms.

[nidza]

On 20/08/2017 at 08:24, Jaco2k said:

 

Isn't the difference 12mm per corner?

 

My apologies, I talk about RS 230 --> RS 245 difference, which is in total +38mm wider track. Other Octavias really never were in segment of my interests.

[Jaco2k]

35 minutes ago, nidza said:

 

My apologies, I talk about RS 230 --> RS 245 difference, which is in total +38mm wider track. Other Octavias really never were in segment of my interests.

 

We might be both wrong:

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/skoda/octavia/98097/new-2017-skoda-octavia-vrs-facelift-prices-and-specs-revealed

 

"Tell-tale vRS design cues for the hot model include 18 or (optional) 19-inch alloy wheels, a 15mm lower ride height and a rear track that's 30mm wider than the previous car's."

[nidza]

 

No we are not.

 

Source: www.skoda-auto.com

Quote

Its rear track is 38 mm wider than that of the predecessor.

 

[Jaco2k]

20 minutes ago, nidza said:

 

No we are not.

 

Source: www.skoda-auto.com

 

 

Interesting - so they have 2 setups? Strange...

[fabdavrav]

3 minutes ago, Jaco2k said:

 

Interesting - so they have 2 setups? Strange...

 

I posted the information of the various track widths earlier in this thread..previous page...all info from Skoda UK brochures...

 

Autocar are wrong..

[nidza]

@Jaco2k, I don't think so, autoexpress is probably referring wrong car, maybe civil O3, not O3 RS.

 

I've seen FL RS on the road, following it. The difference in the back is so obviously noticeable.

 

 

Edited 21 August, 2017 by nidza

[Jaco2k]

45 minutes ago, nidza said:

@Jaco2k, I don't think so, autoexpress is probably referring wrong car, maybe civil O3, not O3 RS.

 

I've seen FL RS on the road, following it. The difference in the back is so obviously noticeable.

 

 

 

Yeah, saw one on the road this morning also and even it was on 17's the difference was dramatic.

[Jaco2k]

Can we get a FL-VRS volunteer to measure the rear suspension control arms? Not this exact part, but similar to it: http://www.ebay.ie/itm/Audi-Seat-Skoda-VW-Meyle-Rear-Lower-Control-Arm-Wishbone-inc-Bolts-1160500079-S-/321836428335?hash=item4aeef22c2f:g:-D0AAOSwd0BV0umL

 

I will try to go measure mine also and report here. Let's go with the measure from bolt to bolt.

[nidza]

Ordered Eibach (S90 7-20/017/B) for my car, one pair just for the rear.

 

I like this part as it will be integrated into the hub. Still wonder if the bearing of the FL is in the same position as in the pre-FL? If so, all forces it suffer will be exactly the same as with this little gimmick. Take a look how it looks:

[Robinmarriott]

Just comparing part numbers on ETOS, the 'wheel bearing housing' which all the arms bolt to is a different part number (with a larger stub axle diameter) and the lower arm the spring sits is also a different part number.

 

Pre facelift are;

5Q0505435F and 5Q0505436F on the wheel bearing housings

5Q0505311C on the lower arms

 

Facelift are;

5QA505433B and 5QA505434B on the wheel bearing housings

5Q0505311D on the lower arms

 

The trailing arm (5Q0505223D/5Q0505224D), track rod (5Q0501529C) and upper arm (5Q0505323C) are identical on pre-facelift and facelift, as are the wheel offsets (ET51)

 

Wheel bearings appear to be the same 'height' so it's them.

 

Obviously unless you put them side by side, it's difficult to be certain that this is how they've done it but there's nothing else at all which looks to be different between the two.