Dimensions are critical. That'll need careful jigging to ensure they are equal distance from centreline, and at the correct angle, vertically and horizontally. Good luck with that.
Currently reading:
Technical Panda Axle repair
Dimensions are critical. That'll need careful jigging to ensure they are equal distance from centreline, and at the correct angle, vertically and horizontally. Good luck with that.
As far as I can tell, it seems that whether the spring pans will fail or not must depend on a variety of factors. I have been checking quite a few lately, and have discussed the subject with a couple of MOT testers, and between us we have only seen 1 Panda with serious rot on the spring pans. And the rest of the car was "better than usual". It was a 1.2 not a 100hp.
All of the others ranged from "a bit crusty" to "like new".
Portland Bill makes a good point though. I straightened a slightly damaged nearly new Panda axle, and all measurements seemed fine, but ended up junking it and going with a second hand replacement eventually, as the rear tyres used to feather on the inside edges. I checked it against the replacement when it came off and it still looked right, but obviously it wasn't.
Can't have been out by much in any dimension. Very annoying!
All of the others ranged from "a bit crusty" to "like new".
Portland Bill makes a good point though. I straightened a slightly damaged nearly new Panda axle, and all measurements seemed fine, but ended up junking it and going with a second hand replacement eventually, as the rear tyres used to feather on the inside edges. I checked it against the replacement when it came off and it still looked right, but obviously it wasn't.
Can't have been out by much in any dimension. Very annoying!
Portland Bill's comment isn't a condescending statement - it's a well-reasoned and important consideration from a long standing and well-respected forum member, and you'd be well advised to take it seriously. Correct four wheel tracking on the car is dependent on the rear beam being dimensionally correct to small fractions of a millimetre. Even the factory sometimes get this wrong; when these cars were new, several folks reported premature rear tyre wear and a number of rear beams were changed under warranty.
Unless you have the means to ensure these brackets are replaced to the required dimensional accuracy, then at best you'll see rapid and uneven tyre wear, at worst, the car will handle dangerously.
As far as any other differences between the axles are concerned, until someone with access to the various parts takes proper comparative measurements, we simply don't know what, if any, these may be. Right now, the hub carrier brackets (and the stiffer beam on later 500's) are all that we know for sure.
Fitting a 500 beam will widen the rear track by 2" and that will turn a rigorously tested, homologated car into an unknown and unproven design. I can't see an insurer being keen to accept this modification, if declared, but if folks do this, find it works, and on properly declaring it, are able to get their cars insured without too much hassle or extra cost, then I'll be an enthusiastic supporter.
Last edited:
I work for an engineering firm and have access to large jig systems. It would be a relatively straight forward job.
I appreciate what is required, and I was hoping for a little support in my efforts.
Oh, and I don't think that everything will have to be millimetre perfect. Tolerances on new cars are not that close, even nowadays.
If a car that is worth a few grand can be repaired with a £100 rear axle and some fettling, it's worth a try rather than scrapping it. If it is unsuccessful, at least it would have been tried.
I appreciate what is required, and I was hoping for a little support in my efforts.
Oh, and I don't think that everything will have to be millimetre perfect. Tolerances on new cars are not that close, even nowadays.
If a car that is worth a few grand can be repaired with a £100 rear axle and some fettling, it's worth a try rather than scrapping it. If it is unsuccessful, at least it would have been tried.
dac69er, we are being supportive; I'd an avid fettler myself and would be the first to encourage anyone trying to save a car in this situation.
But the dimensions are critical. If the rear wheels aren't square and true to +- 1mm at the rims, the car will wear the rear tyres prematurely and won't handle quite right. Those brackets are only a few inches wide, and any error in the brackets will be multiplied by the time you measure it at the wheel rims - they likely will need to be jigged square to +- 0.1mm in three dimensions and and any welding distortion will need to be accounted for too.
If you've got access to suitable jigs & equipment, then by all means go for it - but do be aware that if the brackets are even slightly misaligned, it's not going to work very well.
It's problematic enough even when new parts are used, as the manufacturing tolerances in the beam are wider than ideal - there was much discussion about this back in the day when these cars were new. The manufacturer tolerances on rear tracking are too wide to guarantee even tyre wear - just ask anyone who's tried to do a four wheel alignment on a Panda 169.
But if your really can work to fine tolerances, you could remanufacture the beam to be better than new. Don't assume that the original beam was truly square to start with; it could have been one of those beams manufactured at the end of the tolerance band, and it could also have suffered damage in service. Just finding out what the dimensions are supposed to be is the first challenge.
Last edited:
If I get no obvious handling or tire wear issues with the current rear arm, I would go with the assumption that those measurements will be fine.
I Havnt had a long look at the rear, but there may be the option of making the hub fittings adjustable to account for any slight misalignment. This would then allow you to dial out any wonky bits when doing the tracking. Dont shoot me down for this, I Havnt honestly taken much of a look at how they fit so it may not be possible, just an idea.
I don't honestly think it would be that hard to do with the right gear. Desperate times call for desperate measures and all that!
I will probably find the rear beam will last the life of the rest of the car and it may not be an issue, only time will tell.
I Havnt had a long look at the rear, but there may be the option of making the hub fittings adjustable to account for any slight misalignment. This would then allow you to dial out any wonky bits when doing the tracking. Dont shoot me down for this, I Havnt honestly taken much of a look at how they fit so it may not be possible, just an idea.
I don't honestly think it would be that hard to do with the right gear. Desperate times call for desperate measures and all that!
I will probably find the rear beam will last the life of the rest of the car and it may not be an issue, only time will tell.
Last edited:
I think it would be a great idea in pronciple, given the rear tracking issues commonly reported here. Making provision for adjustment is often easier than trying to work to impossibly tight tolerances.
I don't want to pour cold water on this, but it may not be that simple in practice. Remember this is a critical connection and failure of the hub bracket in service could result in death or serious injury.
The simplest and easiest way might be to use appropriate shims between the hub & bracket. Some have already tried this in search of more accurate alignment. Calculating the requisite shim sizes for all four bolts based on tracking measurements taken at the rims should be a suitable challenge to anyone's mathematical and geometric capabilities.
A perfectly adequate four wheel alignment can be done at home, given patience and a reasonable understanding of the principles of metrology. Start by getting the rear wheels aligned with the centreline of the car, and work from there.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2009
- Messages
- 19,492
- Points
- 3,294
This is the 500 axle with its cranked out hub carrier brackets. The Panda 169 brackets are straight up from the swing arm. The brackets are 4mm steel and clearly could be cut and welded. A jig is sensible to make sure the ends remain parallel to each other as they should.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2009
- Messages
- 19,492
- Points
- 3,294
You would need to cut a strip across the angled end of the hub mountings and out of each side to bring the end plate closer in. Going the full 25mm will probably mean lots of metal grinding but 20mm off each side would not be visible in normal use.
You could make a jig with angle iron to hold it all in place. Do one side and check it's square then do the other side parallel to the first one. As you'll know, measure lots tack weld measure again, grind out any wrong tack welds and try again until its right. When doing the final welds do the ends on both sides of the bracket to even out the distortion effects of weld shrinkage.
You will need to get it accurate to (a lot) less than 1mm across the chassis. But if the ends settle slightly out of square use aluminium shims under the hub stub axle mounts. Aluminium can deform to take up an angled position.
You could make a jig with angle iron to hold it all in place. Do one side and check it's square then do the other side parallel to the first one. As you'll know, measure lots tack weld measure again, grind out any wrong tack welds and try again until its right. When doing the final welds do the ends on both sides of the bracket to even out the distortion effects of weld shrinkage.
You will need to get it accurate to (a lot) less than 1mm across the chassis. But if the ends settle slightly out of square use aluminium shims under the hub stub axle mounts. Aluminium can deform to take up an angled position.
It's also got to be square to the centreline of the car (which if Fiat have done their job right, means square to the mounting holes). Jigging all this is non-trivial and full respect due to anyone who manages to achieve a satisfactory result. Fiat don't do that good a job of the OEM beams, which is why the Panda has a stupidly wide tolerance for rear tracking and a lot of Pandas are heavy on rear tyres.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2009
- Messages
- 19,492
- Points
- 3,294
Ive been looking at mine thinking about this issue. To make a fundamentally accurate beam from any OEM item you would probably not start with the original components.
For simply narrowing the beam we would have to assume the original ends are correct. Mark the cut lines and scribe across at right angles. That way the scribed lines can be lined up so at least the vertical dimension is set. Without a chassis jig there is no way to check the actual body individual wheel alignments.
The fore-aft parallel to centreline and camber would have to be done with the angle iron jig. I would suggest the jig is made a wide U shape to fit the existing end plates with holes drilled to match at least two of the hub carrier bolt holes. When the side plates are cut back the plate can be spaced inboard of the jig by the required amount and the scribed lines matched up. Looking at mine, a 20mm cut back would be MUCH easier than trying for the full 25mm. Changes to camber toe in/out and even lateral spacing could be done with shims under the hub carrier.
To get a fully accurate axle it would be much easier to follow the old Austin Mini rally prep methods and start from scratch with adjustable swing arms and coilover shocks.
This example uses springs and dampers but could also use coil-overs. The strongest setup with the beam running directly between the wheels would need drop brackets to take the coil-over bottom ends. Alternatively angle the shocks as Fiat have done with the dampers.
For simply narrowing the beam we would have to assume the original ends are correct. Mark the cut lines and scribe across at right angles. That way the scribed lines can be lined up so at least the vertical dimension is set. Without a chassis jig there is no way to check the actual body individual wheel alignments.
The fore-aft parallel to centreline and camber would have to be done with the angle iron jig. I would suggest the jig is made a wide U shape to fit the existing end plates with holes drilled to match at least two of the hub carrier bolt holes. When the side plates are cut back the plate can be spaced inboard of the jig by the required amount and the scribed lines matched up. Looking at mine, a 20mm cut back would be MUCH easier than trying for the full 25mm. Changes to camber toe in/out and even lateral spacing could be done with shims under the hub carrier.
To get a fully accurate axle it would be much easier to follow the old Austin Mini rally prep methods and start from scratch with adjustable swing arms and coilover shocks.
This example uses springs and dampers but could also use coil-overs. The strongest setup with the beam running directly between the wheels would need drop brackets to take the coil-over bottom ends. Alternatively angle the shocks as Fiat have done with the dampers.
Last edited:
From some of the results folks have posted after having a four wheel alignment, that's an assumption that might not be justified.
My thoughts also. It'd be easier to build in the capability for adjustment than work to the very tight tolerances required without it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2009
- Messages
- 19,492
- Points
- 3,294
End result would simply put the wheels closer together. Wheel alignment would be be no worse than the OEM axle.
Wheel alignments could possibly be corrected before welding. The most simple method would be shims under the hub carriers to alter toe in/out, camber and lateral placement.
This actually makes the welding job easier because slight variations can be shimmed out. A chassis jig allows the finished job to be completed with more precision than the OEM axle.
A fully home made beam axle could actually be less hassle to make and save a lot of unsprung weight compared to the OEM axle. Suspensions arms and cross arm would have to be adjustable.
Wheel alignments could possibly be corrected before welding. The most simple method would be shims under the hub carriers to alter toe in/out, camber and lateral placement.
This actually makes the welding job easier because slight variations can be shimmed out. A chassis jig allows the finished job to be completed with more precision than the OEM axle.
A fully home made beam axle could actually be less hassle to make and save a lot of unsprung weight compared to the OEM axle. Suspensions arms and cross arm would have to be adjustable.
Last edited:
Sweetsixteen
Established member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2014
- Messages
- 1,109
- Points
- 204
Plenty of talented guys on this forum.
I wouldn't even consider rebuilding an axle, let alone modifying one from another model.
On the other hand, the old saying 'A stitch in time ...' has proved true in this case. Cars today go so well for so long that even basic checks are often overlooked. Examining for rust I consider basic, which means getting under the car from time to time.
The attached photos show my rear axle, after years of living by the sea. Once (or lately, twice) a year I spray it with a 50/50 mix of Waxoyl and old engine oil. The result is not particularly pretty, but the axle is sound and will go on for years yet.
It has to said, sadly, that much of the above work could have been avoided with normal checks and maintenance.
I wouldn't even consider rebuilding an axle, let alone modifying one from another model.
On the other hand, the old saying 'A stitch in time ...' has proved true in this case. Cars today go so well for so long that even basic checks are often overlooked. Examining for rust I consider basic, which means getting under the car from time to time.
The attached photos show my rear axle, after years of living by the sea. Once (or lately, twice) a year I spray it with a 50/50 mix of Waxoyl and old engine oil. The result is not particularly pretty, but the axle is sound and will go on for years yet.
It has to said, sadly, that much of the above work could have been avoided with normal checks and maintenance.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2009
- Messages
- 19,492
- Points
- 3,294
We now know there is no need to modify a 500 axle to fit a 169 Panda. 500 axle fits fine and improves the handling & ride.
We can now buy Panda cheap because its back axle is falling apart and drop in a new 500 axle.
We can now buy Panda cheap because its back axle is falling apart and drop in a new 500 axle.
So is this now proved as FACT? Went to look at my '07 67k this afternoon to check bump stops and the axle corrosion is pretty bad IMO, similar to really the worst photos seen on here. eBay breakers I've tried are asking for £400 for the assembly, seems they've cottoned on...
I think rear beam failure is going to kill a lot of Pandas. On an '07 car, a pukka repair using new parts will likely cost more than it's worth. Disregarding for a moment the extortionate price some breakers are quoting, any secondhand 169 beam sourced from the UK is already going to have the seeds of corrosion well and truly set by now. Perhaps we need to look at importing a truckload of beams from a scrapyard in Southern Europe.
Dave's excellent work has shown that the later type 500 beam will physically fit, although both the rear track and ride height will be different. Dave has also reported this improves the ride and handling. Perhaps not altogether surprising, since the whole point of revising the 500 beam was to improve the ride and handling - and on that car, it most certainly did. (As an aside, for £150 this would be a most worthwhile upgrade for anyone with an early 500 (pre 2010 model year)).
What hasn't been discussed yet are the insurance implications. I'm sure most insurers would view this as a modification, and if you declare it, may either increase the premium or refuse cover entirely. If you don't declare it and the worst happens, well...
Also, it changes the appearance of the car. Without wishing to take anything away from Dave's achievement, to my mind, it doesn't look quite right (Dave's pictures are in this post). This is just a personal observation and I'm sure there will be plenty of others who think it looks better with the wider track.
Last edited:
Thank you very much for clarifying. After 6 years of happy lo-cost ownership I hope this will not be my first and last post. It's into the garage on Thursday to gain their opinion..and price. Hopefully this will give others a guide to whether repair is economic or not, if not of the self repair mindset.
I attach picture of my condition. Not sure what the purple haze is, I'm clean.
I attach picture of my condition. Not sure what the purple haze is, I'm clean.
Attachments
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2009
- Messages
- 19,492
- Points
- 3,294
That just needs a proper clean up and should be fine. But get look inside the spring pans. If there is a lot of flaking metal it may be wise to have some welding done before it cracks.
Two options.
Axle removal and replacement including a full rebuild with brake pipes etc is a day's work or less if you have help.
Two options.
- Jet wash the axle and spray with ACF-50 and later with black Waxoyl. That should stop most corrosion.
- Remove the axle and have it grit blasted and hot metal zinc sprayed. It's not quite as good as hot dip galvanising but comes close.
Axle removal and replacement including a full rebuild with brake pipes etc is a day's work or less if you have help.
