| Author |
Message |
Shonandb 
Samba Member
Joined: January 12, 2019
Posts: 2082
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2025 4:43 pm Post subject: Re: New Fox 2.0 Shocks |
 |
|
| airschooled wrote: |
What’s different on the suspension travel from pop top to tin top?
Ride height isn’t travel…
Robbie |
I don't know the specifics and was surprised when I ordered the Bilsteins from Type Two Detectives in the UK and found out they were 1.5" shorter than the full travel of my spring plates. I reached out to Type Two detectives and they checked the travel of a Late Bay Tin Top and asked me to check mine and their specs were about 1.5" shorter than my Westy.
When I posted this about 2 years ago, there were about 2 or 3 other Samba Members who experienced the same issue but I don't have a Tin Top in my garage or in my close network to jack up and measure/compare.
Robbie, could you check/measure the suspension travel on the next Late Bay Westy or Riviera and compare it to your Early Bay Tin Top's travel or a Late Bay Tin Top if you have the opportunity?
It would be good to know if there really is a difference or the shock manufacturers are making shocks shorter on purpose to keep costs down as most Buses are adjusted to ride at normal ride height and wouldn't need the full travel unless going off-road.
I first noticed when I went to install mine as I had to put the jack under the rear shock mount and raise it a bit to get the shocks on but mine would top out with a bang on FSRs so I checked with the Type Two to see if I was sent the wrong shocks. They said at the time that the Bilsteins were for a Late Bay Tin Top and there was no option for a Late Bay Westy. I went on to Bilstein's website and they had the same code and only listed for a Tin Top.
Hence, I made up the extenders and they have worked out well but it would be good to know if Fox and Bilstein actually make a shock that will cover the entire travel of the Spring Plates, not just the normal ride height or lowered suspension on a Bus.
_________________
*******************************
76 Westy with a 2.5L Subaru SOHC + Vanagon (010) Automatic Transaxle
Build & Trip Thread: https://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=758760
Previous 1973 Panel Bus:
Click to view image |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SGKent
Samba Member
Joined: October 30, 2007
Posts: 42731
Location: at the beach
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2025 4:47 pm Post subject: Re: New Fox 2.0 Shocks |
|
|
As I recall, Bentley publishes the rear spring angles. With even an inexpensive protractor level one should be able to tell if their bus rear suspension is at the proper angle. The front is different but there are threads where people have taken measurements loaded and unloaded.
My bus took an adjustment of one spline when I went thru the rear suspension. I also replaced the rear donuts. When done we checked camber and toe - both were dead accurate so the torsion bars had sagged one spline with age. The front is set by the leaves and if all are good and present, there is not a lot someone can do to change it unless they go to an adjustable height on the front.
_________________
"Most people don't know what they're doing, and a lot of them are really good at it." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TDCTDI
Samba Advocatus Diaboli
Joined: August 31, 2013
Posts: 13323
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2025 5:21 pm Post subject: Re: New Fox 2.0 Shocks |
|
|
I doubt that there is a difference between tin tops & a Westy in regards of the rear suspension. (Other than torsion bars.)
Unlike other manufacturers, Bilstein will not cross reference their shocks just because “it fits” a similar vehicle (I used to sell lots of them & communicated with them occasionally.). As far as the engineers are concerned, a Westy being heavier would require different valving, if they did not do the R&D for the Westy, then they will not list it even though they “fit”.
There might be a difference between early & late bay buses though. Since these were made specifically for Type Two Detectives, I suspect that Bilstein made them per their specs, and their dimensions were incorrect.
And here’s the rub, (just speculation on my part.) in the modern era of parts manufacturing or cataloging, it’s possible that Fox reverse engineered a shock that was manufactured incorrectly (maybe the too short Bilstein) and now theirs is incorrect too.
_________________
Everybody born before 1975 has a story, good, bad, or indifferent, about a VW.
GOFUNDYOURSELF, quit asking everyone to do it for you!
An air cooled VW will make you a hoarder.
Do something, anything, to your project every day, and you will eventually complete it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raygreenwood
Samba Member
Joined: November 24, 2008
Posts: 23201
Location: Oklahoma City
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2025 6:11 pm Post subject: Re: New Fox 2.0 Shocks |
|
|
| TDCTDI wrote: |
I doubt that there is a difference between tin tops & a Westy in regards of the rear suspension. (Other than torsion bars.)
Unlike other manufacturers, Bilstein will not cross reference their shocks just because “it fits” a similar vehicle (I used to sell lots of them & communicated with them occasionally.). As far as the engineers are concerned, a Westy being heavier would require different valving, if they did not do the R&D for the Westy, then they will not list it even though they “fit”.
There might be a difference between early & late bay buses though. Since these were made specifically for Type Two Detectives, I suspect that Bilstein made them per their specs, and their dimensions were incorrect.
And here’s the rub, (just speculation on my part.) in the modern era of parts manufacturing or cataloging, it’s possible that Fox reverse engineered a shock that was manufactured incorrectly (maybe the too short Bilstein) and now theirs is incorrect too. |
I have been lurking this thread and just not commented....because for years in "shock" threads I have been ranting pretty .much what you just posted.
KYB is pretty much the same as Bilstein policy wise. For example, the VW 411 and 412 rear shocks have a KYB dedicated part #.
However, it does cross match to another shock on the KYB lineup (the shock from the front of a Ford econoline 1/2 ton van)...but ONLY Because it has the exact same extended and compressed length, valving and diameter. And, the cross match in the dealer books noted that it requires a different lower eye bushing and tube that at one time (many years ago) was available as a small kit.
It's not enough to just find a shock that "FITS". Without proper valving, on some vehicles you are taking your life in your hands. Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SGKent
Samba Member
Joined: October 30, 2007
Posts: 42731
Location: at the beach
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2025 8:04 pm Post subject: Re: New Fox 2.0 Shocks |
|
|
thanks Ray. That is a really honest assessment.
For the record, I am 74 years old and have been playing this shock game on VW Buses and other cars for a very long time. Been to the welding shop on more than one occasion on different cars because a shock marketed as proper bottomed on a speed bump or with someone in the back seat, and tore a mount loose. Have had the "Oh my god, I drove with that crap for that long? What a waste of money that was" moment. Add to that the worse customer service, worse engineers, over zealous accountants and the situation is far worse today. Look what Ford, and GM are going thru with engines and transmissions, what Tundra is going thru with engines. To my knowledge, Koni are the only after market shocks that are engineered for our buses, but that is in part because they were a resurrected older design that Ron at BusDepot solicited to be made again. I know how hard it was to find shocks for this 1977 that made it handle as well as the 1971 bus I had way back.
_________________
"Most people don't know what they're doing, and a lot of them are really good at it." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
airschooled
Air-Schooled
Joined: April 04, 2012
Posts: 13522
Location: West Coast, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2025 8:42 pm Post subject: Re: New Fox 2.0 Shocks |
|
|
Bold assessment to think that shock makers care about valving when they show up nearly an inch too short.
It's ok though, missing that detail on installation just means pulling the engine and the gas tank, cutting a hole in the gas tank compartment, fabricating a new upper mount assembly, welding the gas tank area back together, and reinstalling the engine.
But sure, rant about valving. 
--
There is nothing different in the suspension assembly dimensions of a tin top/camper/commercial/deluxe/whatever. The differences are in early/late geometries, and heavy/light torsion bars corresponding with ride height.
Rear torsion bar angles are 23° for all station wagons with soft torsion bars, 21° 10' for early campers and commercials, and 20° for late campers and commercials, both with stiff torsion bars. (+/- 50')
Robbie
_________________
One-on-one tech help for your vintage Volkswagen:
www.airschooled.com
https://www.patreon.com/airschooled |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raygreenwood
Samba Member
Joined: November 24, 2008
Posts: 23201
Location: Oklahoma City
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2025 6:52 am Post subject: Re: New Fox 2.0 Shocks |
|
|
| airschooled wrote: |
Bold assessment to think that shock makers care about valving when they show up nearly an inch too short.
It's ok though, missing that detail on installation just means pulling the engine and the gas tank, cutting a hole in the gas tank compartment, fabricating a new upper mount assembly, welding the gas tank area back together, and reinstalling the engine.
But sure, rant about valving.
--
There is nothing different in the suspension assembly dimensions of a tin top/camper/commercial/deluxe/whatever. The differences are in early/late geometries, and heavy/light torsion bars corresponding with ride height.
Rear torsion bar angles are 23° for all station wagons with soft torsion bars, 21° 10' for early campers and commercials, and 20° for late campers and commercials, both with stiff torsion bars. (+/- 50')
Robbie |
Actually most of the better ones generally do care. However, the huge problem is not knowing enough about the stupendous range of differences within certain vehicle lines.
That's still not a viable excuse, but we have seen this issue with replacement parts for decades and not just for shocks and not just for VW'S. The amount of research required to get ALL of the proper specs....would have to include years, Vin # ranges AND country of delivery data. To many special editions and country of origin specific differences.
But what you mentioned is probably spot on. The biggest difference in this case IS probably suspension "tuning" differences.
Then we get into some of what I have seen across a wide range of OEM's that are manufacturing for long defunct/classic vehicles. It's out of production but if they see classic as a lucrative market....you get idiots working in these companies that may either think...."hmmm the form factor is fine/same....let's offer them these".....even though the valving may be totally wrong.....or...."the valving is the same....form factor is ...close....they can figure it out"
The big item in that kind of decision is knowing whether the shock is the rotation stop for this particular suspension setup....or does it have a seperate stop?
The very first time I learned exactly how big of a deal both valving and geometry are was on one of my 412 cars rear shocks. I knew nothing of valving yet. I went shopping at an offroad shop with a staggering range of shocks on site. I had exact measurements for my rear shocks in all dimensions. Dude goes through all of of catalogs (nice guy).... and comes out with an exact match in diameter, orientation, extended and compressed lengths and bolt sizes. They were Rancho units.
I bolted them up. They "rode" well but it didn't take long to realize that they were soft on rough pavement and "hammered" down. Within about three weeks they were blown out and leaking oil.
Some research and conversations with some suspension guys who looked at my car....its because these were REAR shocks for a pickup with leaf springs. Very heavy springs with short stroke. And....one has to remember that shocks are only DAMPERS for the springs they are paired to. The springs (or torsion bars) do the main work.
My car overworked them. They were mounted some 30" from the pivot/vertex point of the rear trailing wishbone. Lots of leverage. Long range of motion. Very high rod and piston velocity. Just wore them out.
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TDCTDI
Samba Advocatus Diaboli
Joined: August 31, 2013
Posts: 13323
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2025 7:01 am Post subject: Re: New Fox 2.0 Shocks |
|
|
| airschooled wrote: |
Bold assessment to think that shock makers care about valving when they show up nearly an inch too short.
|
Since the above shocks have a label on them, with the name of the vendor on them, then that vendor specifically ordered a large batch of them, and Bilstein built them to THAT vendor’s specifications. That is on the vendor, not the manufacturer.
Bilstein dropped the original part number out of their catalog decades ago.
I also suspect that Fox either had a shock that sorta fit the parameters (thus the incorrect ID collars.), or copied another manufacturer’s incorrect part.
_________________
Everybody born before 1975 has a story, good, bad, or indifferent, about a VW.
GOFUNDYOURSELF, quit asking everyone to do it for you!
An air cooled VW will make you a hoarder.
Do something, anything, to your project every day, and you will eventually complete it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raygreenwood
Samba Member
Joined: November 24, 2008
Posts: 23201
Location: Oklahoma City
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2025 8:53 am Post subject: Re: New Fox 2.0 Shocks |
|
|
| TDCTDI wrote: |
| airschooled wrote: |
Bold assessment to think that shock makers care about valving when they show up nearly an inch too short.
|
Since the above shocks have a label on them, with the name of the vendor on them, then that vendor specifically ordered a large batch of them, and Bilstein built them to THAT vendor’s specifications. That is on the vendor, not the manufacturer.
Bilstein dropped the original part number out of their catalog decades ago.
I also suspect that Fox either had a shock that sorta fit the parameters (thus the incorrect ID collars.), or copied another manufacturer’s incorrect part. |
Same with KYB. 1999 was the last year that KYB had a part # for rear shocks for my 411/412 cars. It was gas-a-just series only and they were the only manufacturerof this shock by about 1990 anyway. They also dropped the lower eye bushing conversion kit for converting the Econoline shock so they had no offerings after 1999 for 411/412.
This does not mean that one could not make your own conversion bushings for the other shocks, but KYB considered it an obsolete part.
The gist is that it's not that the shock companies couldn't probably find a still manufactured part with the same valving and form for older cars, they don't want the hassle and warrant liability. Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Convoy
Samba Member
Joined: March 17, 2011
Posts: 331
Location: San Clemente
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2025 9:10 am Post subject: Re: New Fox 2.0 Shocks |
|
|
BTW if this helps. The old Bilstein rear shock number and valving for Westfalia
Bilstein F4-B46-638 ha
Valve 178/71
Length 13.62 - 22.05
_________________
1974 Westfalia
2.2 Subie
Benco 002 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shonandb
Samba Member
Joined: January 12, 2019
Posts: 2082
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2025 9:21 am Post subject: Re: New Fox 2.0 Shocks |
|
|
| Convoy wrote: |
BTW if this helps. The old Bilstein rear shock number and valving for Westfalia
Bilstein F4-B46-638 ha
Valve 178/71
Length 13.62 - 22.05 |
Good to know and thanks for posting. Is this info from an old catalogue or manual?
Did a search with that Bilstein number and got this from some kind of forum.
"Bilstein changed its numbering system a few years back. The old alphanumeric numbers are gone, in their place a new 'logic' so to speak. By the way, the term B46 in the old Bilstein numbering referred to 46mm piston diameter; B36 referred to 36mm piston diameter. Note that all of our Volkswagens got the 'manly' 46mm pistons. It's because we rock.
The figures 280/100 and 330/130 are damping forces in kilograms but I can't remember the rate. The first figure is rebound (extension) and the second figure is compression. A damper usually needs more rebound damping than compression damping as the spring itself serves as a compression damper. The rebound damping controls the rate that the spring releases its energy after being compressed. So increasing spring rate requires more rebound damping and less compression damping; reducing spring rate requires less rebound damping and more compression damping. Make sense?
Rennen is racing auf deutsch.
Here's a cross reference of old numbers and the new numbers with application. The online format screws up the tab spacing so you'll have to copy-paste-edit it in a word processor.
App Old # New # damp length
Typ I ball F4-B46-0620-H0 24-006200 185/75 16.12/10.31
Typ I ball Cut/turn B46-0493VW 265/70 18.6/11.7
Cut/turn w/reservoir B46-1085R
Typ I kingpin F4-B46-0032-H1 24-000321 255/108 15.25/10.24
Typ I swing F4-B46-0040-H1 24-181488 330/130 15.25/10.24
Typ I rear F4-B46-0033-H0 24-000338 330/130 15.43/10.41
Class 11 rear F4-B46-0930 345/135 16.22/10.86
Typ I IRS F4-B46-0034-H0 None (NLA) 360/160 16.22/10.71
Thing/Super IRS F4-B46-0634-H0 24-006347
Typ I IRS F4-B46-0034-H1 24-000345
Split bus front F4-B46-0032-H1 24-000321 255/108 15.25/10.24
Split bus rear F4-B46-0040-H1 24-181488 330/130 15.25/10.24
Bay bus front (orig) F4-B46-0828 NLA
Bay bus front F4-B46-0032-H1 24-000321 255/108 15.25/10.24
Bay bus rear F4-B46-0032-H0 NLA
Bay bus option F4-B46-638-HA NLA 178/71 22.05/13.62
VW 221 513 031 bay bus rear, 22.2/13.74
Bay bus opt II F4-B46-1047-H0 24-010474 (from Bilstein off road; same as Astro/Safari van)
Bay Bus opt II 1989 GMC Safari van, rear; (Rancho RS5147) 22.98/14.03
89 GMC Safari rear
Typ III front F4-B46-0032-H1 24-000321 255/108 15.25/10.24
Typ III rear (all) F4-B46-0040-H1 24-181488 330/130 15.25/10.24
Here are the listings from the old Bilstein racing catalog. These are all Volkswagen applications for primarily off-road racing. Ball is ball joint.
Part Number Application Length Valving
B46-0032-H1 Kingpin 10.25 to 15.25 289/104
B46-0033 king or swing 10.41 to 15.43 330/130
B46-0034-H0 IRS 10.86 to 16.13 358/166
B46-0040-H1 BJ or swing 10.25 to 15.25 337/136
B46-0930 Class 11 front 10.86 to 16.22 345/135
B46-0493VW turned BJ 11.70 to 18.60 265/70"
_________________
*******************************
76 Westy with a 2.5L Subaru SOHC + Vanagon (010) Automatic Transaxle
Build & Trip Thread: https://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=758760
Previous 1973 Panel Bus:
Click to view image |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geeze
Samba Member
Joined: July 30, 2025
Posts: 30
Location: land before time
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2025 9:50 am Post subject: Re: New Fox 2.0 Shocks |
|
|
on the T2D bilsteins I could be wrong but I think they do some that are intended for use with their lowered (kicked up) adjustable spring plates
the kick would mean the wheel doesnt drop quite as far which would explain the difference |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Convoy
Samba Member
Joined: March 17, 2011
Posts: 331
Location: San Clemente
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2025 10:01 am Post subject: Re: New Fox 2.0 Shocks |
|
|
Shonandb,
Old Bilstein catalog.. which you referenced in your post above.
_________________
1974 Westfalia
2.2 Subie
Benco 002 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shonandb
Samba Member
Joined: January 12, 2019
Posts: 2082
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2025 11:05 am Post subject: Re: New Fox 2.0 Shocks |
|
|
| Convoy wrote: |
Shonandb,
Old Bilstein catalog.. which you referenced in your post above. |
Thanks, Convoy.
| geeze wrote: |
on the T2D bilsteins I could be wrong but I think they do some that are intended for use with their lowered (kicked up) adjustable spring plates
the kick would mean the wheel doesnt drop quite as far which would explain the difference |
Yes, I remember that they had a kit for a Lowered Bay Window and the kit I bought for a reg height "Tin Top" Bay Window.
When I found out that they were short, my initial thought was that they mixed up my order and sent me rear shocks for a lowered Bus but they confirmed that the ones I received, were for the regular height "Tin Top" Bay Window and the person was surprised that I had a problem as they had been selling these sets for years and said that they never had someone come back to them with the extended length being too short issue.
I wanted to return the set of 4 (front & rears) but the return shipping was going to be on me and was over $100 at the time so after doing some research in the off-road market, I found out that shock extenders were very common when people raise their vehicles so I build my own and they solved the issue and the shocks work well.
However, when it comes time to replace them, I'll look at the models for either a Safari or Ford Van to make sure I get the right length and weight configuration.
I'll go back through my paperwork and see if they have the shock numbers and spec somewhere and post here for reference.
Edit:
I checked the order and bill details but no actual model or identifying numbers on the Bilsteins from T2D but in the reply email, the person states that:
"I can confirm that we have fitted hundreds of these to standard Height buses with zero problems. This shell is what Bilstien themselves have always supplied for standard height buses so I am confident that you will not have any issues.
I hope this reassures you that all will be fine?"
I did a search and found this showing a bit of discrepancy in Base model Buses versus Westfalia suspension travel but it seems short of spec too:
(rear shock dimensions, 1973–79 late bay):
Base Bus/Kombi: ~ Extended 20.1" (510 mm) / Compressed 12.8" (325 mm)
Westfalia: ~ Extended 20.5–21" (520–533 mm) / Compressed 13.0–13.2" (330–335 mm)
Spec says it should be 22.95" (590mm) fully extended but each shock manufacturer show their shock spec from 22.2" to 23.1" so I guess like most parts manufactures now, make the part to fit the majority of use cases, not to fit the OEM auto manufacture's' spec.
_________________
*******************************
76 Westy with a 2.5L Subaru SOHC + Vanagon (010) Automatic Transaxle
Build & Trip Thread: https://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=758760
Previous 1973 Panel Bus:
Click to view image
Last edited by Shonandb on Fri Aug 08, 2025 11:59 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SGKent
Samba Member
Joined: October 30, 2007
Posts: 42731
Location: at the beach
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2025 11:47 am Post subject: Re: New Fox 2.0 Shocks |
|
|
| Quote: |
| and said that they never had someone come back to them with the extended length being too short issue. |
all the more reason to check the spring plate angle. checking is non-invasive
_________________
"Most people don't know what they're doing, and a lot of them are really good at it." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TDCTDI
Samba Advocatus Diaboli
Joined: August 31, 2013
Posts: 13323
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2025 11:48 am Post subject: Re: New Fox 2.0 Shocks |
|
|
I just installed a pair of Bilsteins for the rear of a Vanagon Syncro. They were 1/2 longer, but ones for a standard vanagon were 1” shorter.
_________________
Everybody born before 1975 has a story, good, bad, or indifferent, about a VW.
GOFUNDYOURSELF, quit asking everyone to do it for you!
An air cooled VW will make you a hoarder.
Do something, anything, to your project every day, and you will eventually complete it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TDCTDI
Samba Advocatus Diaboli
Joined: August 31, 2013
Posts: 13323
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2025 11:53 am Post subject: Re: New Fox 2.0 Shocks |
|
|
| SGKent wrote: |
| Quote: |
| and said that they never had someone come back to them with the extended length being too short issue. |
all the more reason to check the spring plate angle. checking is non-invasive |
The spring plate needs to hit the stop before the shock tops out, this is not affected by the spring plate angle.
_________________
Everybody born before 1975 has a story, good, bad, or indifferent, about a VW.
GOFUNDYOURSELF, quit asking everyone to do it for you!
An air cooled VW will make you a hoarder.
Do something, anything, to your project every day, and you will eventually complete it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wildthings
Samba Member
Joined: March 13, 2005
Posts: 52441
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2025 4:22 pm Post subject: Re: New Fox 2.0 Shocks |
|
|
| Shonandb wrote: |
The figures 280/100 and 330/130 are damping forces in kilograms but I can't remember the rate. |
Would love to see these numbers for the OEM Vanagon shocks, as I certainly picked up nose dive when I replace the leaky original shocks on my 91 Multivan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SGKent
Samba Member
Joined: October 30, 2007
Posts: 42731
Location: at the beach
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2025 5:06 pm Post subject: Re: New Fox 2.0 Shocks |
|
|
| Wildthings wrote: |
| Shonandb wrote: |
The figures 280/100 and 330/130 are damping forces in kilograms but I can't remember the rate. |
Would love to see these numbers for the OEM Vanagon shocks, as I certainly picked up nose dive when I replace the leaky original shocks on my 91 Multivan. |
some shocks are single action and some dual action. I ran into it on my Opel GT many years ago. Single action dampens one direction, dual dampens both directions. Single action would be rebound only, dual is compression and rebound. If the original shock on the 91 Vanagon was dual action, and the replacement single action, then there would be no effect, or minimal on the compression stroke. That would allow diving on braking. With my Opel GT, the original rears were single action, and the aftermarket were dual action. Made the ride quite harsh. I had to buy the factory shocks to get ones that had the correct valving for the ride. It is more than just the physical fit and at least at that time, 99.99% of the people who sold them didn't know the difference. They sell marketing.
There is an art form to shocks. When I worked as a Fiat/Alfa/Lansia/Ferrari mechanic, the shop was next to Walker Evans in Riverside CA. They are gone now. Walker Evans had all their Baja 500 and 1000 racers next door. I'd go over at lunch and eat with their engineers and mechanics. It was amazing what they did with shocks on the trucks for that rough 1000 mile course. Later, Bill and Wally did the Score trucks for Al Unser Jr., although those trucks used airbags instead of springs but the shock engineering was similar. The whole reason that industry, which spawned Rancho Shocks, went to heavy duty gas filled shocks where one sees three or four shocks mounted, was to increase surface area and shed massive heat that the constant working on the off road course created, otherwise the oil in the shocks would fail. The combination of shocks were not significantly stiffer than a single passenger shock, but the heat dissipated was so much greater. Mounts, valving and dust / sand seals and boots were the main differences. Companies like Bilstein and Spax already had gas filled shocks for some of the high end European sports cars before everyone else did. The gas was used to stop the shock oil from frothing on rally cars - which if anyone has ever been around a true rally car, one will know how crazy that crowd is. (And the drivers and navigators have cojones a lot bigger than most). 
_________________
"Most people don't know what they're doing, and a lot of them are really good at it." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
