Hmm...so I don't love Monroe shocks...

nm9stheham said

Interesting that someone has commented on the damping match of the Fox's to a significantly stiffer T-bar. Thanks for that info, 72 blueNblu..... What needs to be realized is that there is a damping match in the shock for each spring rate...i.e., a stiffer spring requires a stiffer main shock 'rate' to minimize the suspension motion but not be too harsh.

Sounds like the Fox's will be too stiff for a smaller T-bar thant 1.12". You might not see this much but you WILL see an issue with too stiff a shock rate on rough pavement surfaces (like the Rancho shock story above); the wheels will tend to 'skitter' about on small bumps. This can compromise steering traction on rougher surfaced roads, sealed pavement cracks, etc.

Click to expand...

The only issue I see here is that the shock "rate" is not a linear affair. Or at least, it doesn't have to be. The valving in the shock determines how quickly the shock reacts and with what amount of resistance. But the shocks can react differently depending on the speed and force of the spring input.

Higher end shocks have better valving, allowing them to compensate better over a wider range of suspension inputs. The shock piston will travel at different speeds and travel over different distances depending on the suspension inputs, which of course is related to the spring rate. But improved valving will allow better compensation over that entire range of movement.

So, what I'm saying is that the fox shocks will probably perform just as well on lighter torsion bars, because their valving is better. But, you may or may not notice as much of a difference compared to the Bilsteins with lighter bars as you would with the really heavy torsion bars, because the valving on the Bilsteins is good enough to deal with the lighter spring rates. The Fox's aren't just a stiffer shock, they're a better shock. But, if you aren't pushing the limits of the Bilsteins, the Fox's could very well be overkill.