For your project i really would not use 2cv rear arms as they only made from 2.0 mm thick steel
Ami / AK are made from 3 mm thick , so much stronger up to 50 %
check their weights in KG
Listen to us and the raid boys it makes good sense
and go make a great Raider
pony

I will do my best!

I have, however, run into some problems with the AMI vs. 2CV suspension. Spent some time in the garage today. Removed the rear arm on the 2CV, and tried on the AMI6 arm. First problem, the mounting on the arm for the tire rod hits the body, not allowing the end-stop to hit the chassis when I lift the car from the ground. It seems that is because of the aluminium(?) distance piece between the chassis and the crossmember. I guess I can just remove it, as the AMI doesn't have it and therefore the arms are not designed for it.
Removing this will raise the car at the back with one cm, witch is great.
I have tried to figure out why that piece is there on later 2CV, but I can't understand why. Anybody knows?




WHY is this here on later 2CV's? And can it be removed in general?



The next, bigger problem, is that there are no way the 155's tires will fit with the AMI-arms. They are not even close to pass by the bump-stop, and they will hit the inner wheel well at the front. Even the 135's hit the bumpstops, but will clear the inner wheel well, but it's a tight fit.







AMI6 Break arm. Pony, you answered what I was wondering about when looking at the arms. So there really IS a difference in metal thickness. The AMI arm was way heavier, but I thought maybe it was all because of the inertia-damper...

So, there are my current problems
If I want to use the AMI-arms, I can only see two options; Rebuild the inner wheel wells, or build some 10mm spacers to put between the rims and brakedrums.....
What about GSA-rims? Different offset on the rims, or will I have the same problem?

Another option is to rebuild the 2CV-arms with reinforcements and use them. But then it seems I must move over the brackets to the tierods also!! And I will have to make some kind of "jig" to get the geometry right.

Hmmmm...

Simple.. Dismantle this bumpstop. Take the bumpstop from the front (which sits in the chassis) and put it in place of the original rear bumpstop and your done.. It is about 4cm thinner then the original one. In my mind Meharis have the same and some Azu.

weld an U profil against the inner wing with a plate underneath and mount the bumpstop to it.. You can use Ami reararms then....

Maybe you need to make the rear inner wing wider at the front too with these tires. Original Sahara has this modification also...

Ps. Gs(a) wheels are worse. Peugeut 404 sedan could work...

Don't use spacers they ruin your bearings

Almost everything can be removed from a 2cv espescialy this kind of crap. It makes the suspension stiffer while the car is lower at the rear...

And judging by what you see on the worldmeetings, almost everything can be added also



Why would one want that?! Really? Stiffer too?
Even though my AMI6 Break's body was in a bad shape, and therefore got scrapped, the ride was fantastic! It floated along bumpy roads considerably better than my 80's 2CV's. The suspension comfort in the AMI was more like my DS, than my 2CV's. Maybe the shocks are bad

I would love this project to keep the ride-comfort of the AMI6. So I think I will be rebuilding the inner wings to accept the narrower AMI-arms and the 155 tires. Then I get to use the complete rolling chassis, in original condition. It seems like the easiest thing to do. And besides, narrowing the front of the inner wing is not a problem for the back seat, as there will be no back seat in this car, just my bed. I'm also planning to build something
like the "ESCH". In aluminium. Maybe I should start a thread for the whole car...

I did put a 1978 front axle with batteurs on my 83 2cv. It has a much softer ride now too. It are the hydraulic schocks that make the suspension stiffer. Frotteurs and batteurs give a softer ride.

Just go for Ak 350 or early AK 400 rear arms
pony