Wouldn't the same apply to the front/rear balance?
I've never understood how someone could argue to replace in axle pairs for "balance", yet totally ignore the front/rear balance of new versus old shocks.
Is it REALLY preferable to have the front "bouncy" while the rear is "tight"?
Likely. all four are at the same level of wear, and should be replaced.
No, because the front and rear see different stresses while driving (see front vs rear tires), and because the fronts affect handling far more than the rears do.
Maybe his fronts are not 'bouncy'. He did not provide that information. If the fronts are 'bouncy', they should be replaced. But 'bouncy' is not the same as 'leaking' or 'clunking', or sagging springs, some of which can be dangerous. And some new shocks do provide a rather mushy ride, complementing a worn set well.
As long as the ride quality between the front and rear is similar enough not to negatively affect handling, I see no imperative to replace all four shocks every time an individual one bites the dust. Contrast the front to rear bouncing of having one tight and one mushy set, to the side to side bouncing of having one tight and one worn within a set - which situation is more adverse to driving control?
I replaced my front struts and mounts and left my rear "bouncy" ones on several thousand miles ago. That's several hundred dollars that can go towards more important maintenance and repairs, and the handling is as tight as I need it to be for city and highway driving. If you have the money to burn it certainly wouldn't HURT to replace them all, but again I'm not seeing the imperative.
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.