General 100HP Rear anti roll bar

Currently reading:
General 100HP Rear anti roll bar

Claude,
I,m in suffolk (just) if you haven't yet managed a test in a 100hp, welcome to have a go if you wish. John B(y)

Thanks for the offer John, I'll try the local stealers once more and if they still don't have any I might take you up on your kind offer! (y)

Btw I am about to check the Ford ECAT system to find the arb part numbers. Cheers Claude.
 
Damn I have looked on ECAT (what the dealers use to find parts) and the roll bar isn't listed on there! Could just be they haven't updated it yet, as it's so new.

Anyway here's the other bits for what it's worth...

Ford Ka (all) bump stop 9S51-5K570-AA (£9.81 each)
Ford Ka (all) rear spring 9S51-5560-AA (price not shown)
Ford Ka (all) rear shock 9S51-18125-AA (price not shown)

Cheers Claude
 
Claude, the weird thing about the 100hp is that it tends to lift an inside front wheel on cornering, which obviously have some fairly serious drawbacks.
I was thinking about this and ARBs today.
IMO the reason is that to make it stiff at the rear (to prevent understeer) they have relied on the bumpstops and as a result they're too hard and there isn't enough suspension travel. Cornering I think the travel and bumpstop compliance runs out very soon, the rear can't roll any more, so in response to the forces the front rolls instead and lifts the wheel.
A rear ARB, with softer shorter bumpstops seems like it might be a better way to keep the rear stiff enough to resist understeer.

I'm not a 100HP owner yet though it's just my kind of car. I like them, but it's this behaviour that has put me off buying one. On a fwd car the rear should lift (or at least go light) before the front as on 205s etc, and you don't lose traction that way. It makes me think the suspension isn't sorted really. So I'll be really interested to know the results if anyone tries an ARB.
 
Having looked under a Ka the other day and my 500 tonight methinks the torsion beams are different. Part numbers would of course confirm this....

Just to confirm the torsion beam ARE different and the ARB would not be a retrofit item at least on the 500 hatchback. The 500 does not have the hole in the beam where the ARB goes in and I suspect the Panda will be very much the same but a picture would confirm.

Here is a picture of a 500c rear beam to illustrate :)
04092009180.jpg
 
I had a look a while ago, there is no hole present on the panda for it to pass through. Whether you could drill it out and do it that way or you'd need the whole torsion beam I don't know, but suspect you'd be changing the torsion beam which may make it expensive.
 
I had a look a while ago, there is no hole present on the panda for it to pass through. Whether you could drill it out and do it that way or you'd need the whole torsion beam I don't know, but suspect you'd be changing the torsion beam which may make it expensive.
I wouldn't think drilling out your torsion beam would be a bright idea :p
 
I must be the only person out here that has retro fitted the 100HP suspension to a normal panda (well Multijet Sporting actually).
That's front springs, struts, rear dampers, rear springs and bump stops, just shy of £500 for the lot. They were the only parts differences between the MJet and the 100HP accoridng to the Fiat parts computer.
Naturally the car is a lot stiffer now, and thankfully it doesn't fall over in the corners anymore, so it's a lot more confidence inspiring to drive quickly. I've fitted the 7Jx15 wheels from my old Alfa 33, which rotted many years ago, and with 195/50VR tyres, it manages to have grip and a bit of comfort as well. ( the 195/45 tyres on the 100HP don't do it any favours on the comfort front. (no scraping or rubbing with the 50 profile tyres either, and Lo and Behold, the speedo is a little less optimistic as well) <grin>.
I'm not a fan of the 100HP actually, as I find the engine to be a bit gutless to be honest, the Mjet diesel certainly out punches it at lower revs, and gets better economy to boot. - Which is why I bought it's suspension not the car itself !
Think I'll now go for an ECU chip to 90HP (ish), and then the "Sporting" will actually live up to it's name.
 
I'm not a fan of the 100HP actually, as I find the engine to be a bit gutless to be honest, the Mjet diesel certainly out punches it at lower revs, and gets better economy to boot.

The 100hp does have to be revved to get the best out of it, but I certainly wouldn't call it gutless.... :confused:
 
I must be the only person out here that has retro fitted the 100HP suspension to a normal panda (well Multijet Sporting actually).
That's front springs, struts, rear dampers, rear springs and bump stops, just shy of £500 for the lot. They were the only parts differences between the MJet and the 100HP accoridng to the Fiat parts computer.
Naturally the car is a lot stiffer now, and thankfully it doesn't fall over in the corners anymore, so it's a lot more confidence inspiring to drive quickly. I've fitted the 7Jx15 wheels from my old Alfa 33, which rotted many years ago, and with 195/50VR tyres, it manages to have grip and a bit of comfort as well. ( the 195/45 tyres on the 100HP don't do it any favours on the comfort front. (no scraping or rubbing with the 50 profile tyres either, and Lo and Behold, the speedo is a little less optimistic as well) <grin>.
I'm not a fan of the 100HP actually, as I find the engine to be a bit gutless to be honest, the Mjet diesel certainly out punches it at lower revs, and gets better economy to boot. - Which is why I bought it's suspension not the car itself !
Think I'll now go for an ECU chip to 90HP (ish), and then the "Sporting" will actually live up to it's name.
Nigel has put 100hp suspension on his other Panda so you're not the only person :)
Also if you didn't like the 100hp you probably weren't revving it hard enough.
 
I must be the only person out here that has retro fitted the 100HP suspension to a normal panda (well Multijet Sporting actually)......
I'm not a fan of the 100HP actually, as I find the engine to be a bit gutless to be honest, the Mjet diesel certainly out punches it at lower revs, and gets better economy to boot. - Which is why I bought it's suspension not the car itself !
Think I'll now go for an ECU chip to 90HP (ish), and then the "Sporting" will actually live up to it's name.

Interesting post. I'd assumed that the 100HP's rear beam was different, partly to accommodate disc brakes and also stiffer to reduce roll. I posted an enquiry a while back about part numbers for Panda and 500 Abarth rear beams and other bits but unfortunately no one responded.

I've driven my own 100Hp for nearly 10,000 miles now and Mrs babbo umbro's for enough of its 13,000 to compare them. The "outpunches it at lower revs" needs to be examined. At not particularly low revs, from 2250 to 3,000, the MJ's torque is quite impressive, but the fact that the 100HP is only just beginning to get into its stride at those revs is a question of basic characteristics, it's a statement of fact not a comparison or criticism - it's like saying the 100HP outdoes the MJ at over 5,000 revs - true but relatively meaningless.

To make genuine comparisons. I reckon there is a very narrow band - in the MJ's already relatively narrow power band - where it will accelerate more quickly than a 100HP that's either below it's own sweet area, or the driver opens the throttle too far and actually loses some grunt - if both cars are doing 2,250 revs at the same speed I've no doubt that the MJ would pick up speed more quickly (for a brief period) but that's hardly a real comparison. However, a few further comments: a well run-in 100HP is actually much more flexible than you'd imagine from first or brief experience; a 100HP in the right gear will always out-accelerate an MJ by a substantial margin; any advantage the MJ might have is very brief to the point where it can't be sustained for more than a few seconds before the diesel starts treading water while the 100HP sings on up to 7,000 revs; in give-and-take driving I change gear at least as often in the MJ as in the 100HP, the MJ has to be in the right gear or it can just die from lack of oomph whereas the 100HP will pick up speed quickly enough for most traffic conditions even in one or even two gears too high; finally, a 100HP driven to give the same performance as an MJ (and boring the arse off the driver) would - and I'm guessing - give 45-50 to the gallon - nothing like the 55-60 of the MJ but quite reasonable.
 
I'm not a fan of the 100HP actually, as I find the engine to be a bit gutless to be honest, the Mjet diesel certainly out punches it at lower revs, and gets better economy to boot. - Which is why I bought it's suspension not the car itself !
Think I'll now go for an ECU chip to 90HP (ish), and then the "Sporting" will actually live up to it's name.

But that's what diesels do as they don't rev highly. Having owned both I couldn't bear the turbo lag of the MJ. Never again. As a driver's car it really doesn't cut it. You can always drop a gear or two in the 100hp and leave the MJ for dust.
 
Back
Top