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

[nm9stheham]

Depends a lot on how you use them.... A stiffer shock damping rate than optimal will usually show up fast on rougher surfaces. My racing format has been rally, and getting the shocks too 'stiff' shows up immediately...and adveresly. On smooth pavement, too stiff might feel (and even perform) better.

The other incidental and (sometimes purposeful) function of shocks is to give more resistance in roll when entering a corner, so a stiffer shock acts like a larger anti-sway bar on turn in. That usually gives a more 'confident' feel when diving into a corner, as the car rolls and transitions into roll more slowly. So shock rates show up good or bad in several ways.

I just looked a the Fox site for the first time in a long time; looks like they really have broadened their applications; first time I heard of them some years back, it seems like they were mostly for circle track. The short lengths that they offered then was what made me not consider them further; N.G. for rally use. Looks like I will be spending some time there to see what has chaged in their offerings.

Still...be careful if the length is short as noted.

 

[nm9stheham]

I'm thinking I want better shocks first, given the variety of different roadsurfaces I encounter everyday.

I'll venture to guess that you will be happy you did.....

IMO, this thread certianly has moved a long way from Monroes! But it is a good discussion.

 

[jerry6]

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.

Also (for jerry6), if the shock extension is not long eoungh, you will be using the shocks as the droop stops instead of the car's droop stops (the ones on the subfame that hit the uppper control arm). This will sooner or later blow out the shocks. So if you use these, lower the ride height, and then either never drive on rough roads or do any Dukes of Hazzard jumps, or make the droop bump stops taller to hit before the shocks are at full extension. I did not know this 40 years ago and blew out my first set of Bilstein's on my Ranchero; I modded the top mounts to give the shock more extension room and get it better centered in the travel (and was happy ever after).

Thanks , that "lowered " suspension note about the fox socks has put me off them , maybe the adjustable are a better choice , no mention of " for lowered suspension " .

Agreed this has turned into a good informative thread

 

[72BBSwinger]

The best thing you could do is call Dan from DTM racing on here about what he recommends. The only reason I brought up the Fox's was that the non-adjustables are not a heck of alot more than the RCD Bilsteins, the Bilsteins by no means suck at all, just the Fox's really are nicer.