Just been for a drive in Jasmine after finally fitting the new front shock absorbers last night. There didn't appear to be anything wrong with the action of the old ones, but I have no idea how old they are and she's done over 100K miles now. The difference when cruising along between 40 and 60mph is fantastic! No wobbles over little potholes or those annoying yellow stripes before roundabouts. At under £20 for the pair, it is the cheapest 'improvement' I have ever made that gives instant gratification. I can now see why there is a lot of advertisement pushing the safety factor of replacing old shocks.
One of the greatest misconceptions having to do with cars is the feel we get when we replace our worn out and totally knackered coil springs and/or shock absorbers with new and most of the times far more expensive, heavy duty, harder, taller etc ones.
We feel a TREMENDOUS difference because of this change and we attribute it, most of the time, to the new shocks and coils being more expensive or better (?) than the stock ones. In the true world if you replace a worn out and destroyed shock absorber and/or coil spring with a new one, even it being totally standard, the difference in feel and road manners is absolutely sure to be tremendous and spectacular.
This is what I tell to my friends and fellow members who ask me about upgrading to very expensive shock absorbers and coil springs. Replace your worn out old ones with something logicaly priced and easily available and you will get almost the same feel. And a cheap shock absorber even if it lasts less than the very expensive ones is almost sure to be a far more logical choice in the long term (cheap but good aftermarket shocks usually cost half or even less money than the very expensive ones, not to mention gas filled competition specs ones)
Take care Pantelis
P.S. of course the above applies for drivers who use their vehicles for everyday life and conditions. Race specs or vehicles with race specs drivers is a totally different thing.
One of the great misconceptions is I think around gas filled shock absorbers. These were introduced initially solely to compensate for the lack of travel of low profile tyres. Yet how many people now firmly believe they are "better"?.
I really did not know that. I was under the impression that gas filled shocks are more resistant against high temperatures created when the shock absorber is used in heavy duty or competition applications.
But then again the PROFLEX nitrogen filled with remote reservoir and twin direction 20 settings per side adjustment shock absorbers I have fitted but in 1997 on my 1993 evented CT Discovery are yet to be even refilled or topped up with nitrogen.
On the other hand I had to change all four shock absorbers twice per year when I was using the standard Land Rover items. So those VERY expensive PROFLEX shocks have managed to pay themselves after
3 years (and they are now 8 years old). And they NEVER felt shoggy or tired when used or abused on and off the road.
I wasn't aware of the low profile bit either, but for off-road use I would certainly agree that gas shocks only true benefit is the ability to work at higher temperatures, really only needed for Comp. Safari and Hill Climbing in the UK, and places like the desert or outback where long distances are covered at reasonable speed. Lets face it, there is a reason why they are painted bright colours with snazzy lettering.......
I'm not an expert on the subject. I just remember when the Golf Gti and the Escort XR3i came out. The Golf had "low profile tyres and gas filled shock absorber" how sexy does that sound. The XR3 did not and Ford engineers after exhaustive tests came to the conclusion that they were a waste of time and did not improve handling or road holding. They were overruled by Marketing so the story goes and the XR3i came out shod same as the Golf. (I knew someone in Ford's marketing dept at the time).
The thing about the gas filled shockers at the time was that as they compressed the resistance to travel increased so they got progressively harder. This compensated for the reduced flexibility in the low profile tyre wall. Obviously this was years ago and things have progressed since then.
Indeed. However, the original reason for producing "gas" shocks was to provide a higher pressure above the oil reservoir to try and prevent foaming/frothing of the oil under extreme conditions. The additional effect in practice is to prevent the oil foaming until a higher temp is reached (viscosity change), therefore they work better than an equivalent oil-only shock absorber (damper) when hot. What a lot of people sometimes don't realise is that with gas shocks it is still the oil that provides the damping medium. Badger.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.