I've been looking around the Suspension forum without much luck for info about guys running shorter shocks on cars that have been lowered. I don't have much lowering on my '87, but I do have a half-coil chop up front, which probably equates to maybe a 1"-1.5" drop. It seems like my 10-year-old stock-replacement SensaTracs aren't quite up to the job of controlling the front end any more. I'd been planning to put off shock replacement until I could get heavier springs, but the budget still doesn't really allow that and I need more controlled handling NOW.
Now, even if it weren't for the availability of shock absorbers intended specifically for lowered trucks, logic dictates that a lower ride height will often want a shorter-than-stock shock absorber, the same way several guys are running longer F-150 shocks on the rear of their cars that are riding higher than stock.
Soooo..... I looked up the compressed and extended lengths of the stock-replacement shocks listed at PartsAmerica.com (since they sell Monroe and it is a pretty common brand and economically priced). Looks like they're usually about 9-1/4" to 14-1/2" without extension bumpstops or 9-1/4" to 13-3/4" with extension bumpstops.
Now, based on some comments from another thread where guys were shooting the wind about how much a shorter spring would lower a car's actual ride height, I decided for the sake of argument to assume that the ride height at the shock would be reduced by about half the amount by which it is reduced at the wheel. If this is at all a reasonable assumption, it means that for a car lowered 1" to 1.5", a person might want a shock with a compressed length of about 8.5" to 9" and an extended length between 13" and 13-3/4". And obviously, the upper and lower shock mounts ought to come close to matching up so that the things can be installed without much tweaking.
So far this is leading me in a couple of directions. One is shocks that are replacements for the vast majority of midsize GM vehicles such as a '70 Chevelle or an '85 Cutlass Supreme - this does make sense since the Suspension FAQ specifically mentions several Street Stock parts designed for these cars. An example from the cheaper Monroe line would be PN 5804 (SensaTrac Passenger, 8.625"-13.375"). Avoiding extended lengths under 13" and compressed lengths over 9", I also came up with part numbers for '82-'83 S10s and Blazers, such as PN 37019 (SensaTrac Truck, 8.875"-13.250") or 911516 (Reflex Monotube Truck, 9.000"-13.375"), as well as for '97-'04 Dakotas and Durangos, such as PN 32318 (Monro-Matic Plus, 8.500"-13.000") or 37137 (SensaTrac Truck, same lengths).
My *assumption* is that all things being otherwise equal, the "truck" shocks will generally be better suited to really controlling a heavy car than the "car" shocks, as according to Monroe.com most if not all of their truck lineup uses heavier-duty components such as 5/8" shafts (versus 1/2" for cars). I am also *assuming* that shocks for lightweight vehicles such as the Chevy S10 may be valved too gently for really controlling a 4,000-pound vehicle in silly urban traffic. This seems to leave me with the choice basically between the A/G-body shocks, which look pretty good except for the possibly lighter-duty "passenger car" construction, and the Dakota/Durango shocks, which at about 13" extended without bumpstops may be a tad short at max extension.
So my question to the more serious suspension tech-heads is, is there any validity to this line of reasoning, and if so, what choices would you guys make? Should I just choose whatever A-body or G-body shock suits my fancy? Or am I pretty much chasing my tail in trying to get too technical about super-cheap shocks in the first place, in which case I should just get the cheapest Crown Vic shock available and be done with it for the time being?
Now, even if it weren't for the availability of shock absorbers intended specifically for lowered trucks, logic dictates that a lower ride height will often want a shorter-than-stock shock absorber, the same way several guys are running longer F-150 shocks on the rear of their cars that are riding higher than stock.
Soooo..... I looked up the compressed and extended lengths of the stock-replacement shocks listed at PartsAmerica.com (since they sell Monroe and it is a pretty common brand and economically priced). Looks like they're usually about 9-1/4" to 14-1/2" without extension bumpstops or 9-1/4" to 13-3/4" with extension bumpstops.
Now, based on some comments from another thread where guys were shooting the wind about how much a shorter spring would lower a car's actual ride height, I decided for the sake of argument to assume that the ride height at the shock would be reduced by about half the amount by which it is reduced at the wheel. If this is at all a reasonable assumption, it means that for a car lowered 1" to 1.5", a person might want a shock with a compressed length of about 8.5" to 9" and an extended length between 13" and 13-3/4". And obviously, the upper and lower shock mounts ought to come close to matching up so that the things can be installed without much tweaking.
So far this is leading me in a couple of directions. One is shocks that are replacements for the vast majority of midsize GM vehicles such as a '70 Chevelle or an '85 Cutlass Supreme - this does make sense since the Suspension FAQ specifically mentions several Street Stock parts designed for these cars. An example from the cheaper Monroe line would be PN 5804 (SensaTrac Passenger, 8.625"-13.375"). Avoiding extended lengths under 13" and compressed lengths over 9", I also came up with part numbers for '82-'83 S10s and Blazers, such as PN 37019 (SensaTrac Truck, 8.875"-13.250") or 911516 (Reflex Monotube Truck, 9.000"-13.375"), as well as for '97-'04 Dakotas and Durangos, such as PN 32318 (Monro-Matic Plus, 8.500"-13.000") or 37137 (SensaTrac Truck, same lengths).
My *assumption* is that all things being otherwise equal, the "truck" shocks will generally be better suited to really controlling a heavy car than the "car" shocks, as according to Monroe.com most if not all of their truck lineup uses heavier-duty components such as 5/8" shafts (versus 1/2" for cars). I am also *assuming* that shocks for lightweight vehicles such as the Chevy S10 may be valved too gently for really controlling a 4,000-pound vehicle in silly urban traffic. This seems to leave me with the choice basically between the A/G-body shocks, which look pretty good except for the possibly lighter-duty "passenger car" construction, and the Dakota/Durango shocks, which at about 13" extended without bumpstops may be a tad short at max extension.
So my question to the more serious suspension tech-heads is, is there any validity to this line of reasoning, and if so, what choices would you guys make? Should I just choose whatever A-body or G-body shock suits my fancy? Or am I pretty much chasing my tail in trying to get too technical about super-cheap shocks in the first place, in which case I should just get the cheapest Crown Vic shock available and be done with it for the time being?
Comment