What are you running for shocks up front?

[ntsqd]

If anything it's dated rather than new policy.

 

[BwoncoHowie]

Ok Paul,
I got under there with a tape measure finally.

Working length between the centers of the mounting points is 18"
Looks like it will compress another 5.5" when the axle smacks the snubber.
the old shock extends about 23.5" between the center of the eyelet and the grommet sandwich.
What would you recommend from your shop inventory that would have compression/ rebound similar to Duff 70/30? i need a lot more rebound than compression, and have progressive wound coils up front.

 

[DirtDonk]

Ok that's pretty short then. We talking using the stock front mounts then? Or will they be eye-to-eye mounts? Didn't want to go over the whole thread again, so figured you wouldn't mind cluing me in.

For that length in an eye-to-eye shock (or loop/loop as some say), as they all are in this category of shock, a 7100 in the 9" travel category might work out acceptably.
There is a reservoir 7100 with 360/80 valving, an extended length of 24.31" and a collapsed length of 14.21"

As you can see, this short of a mount distance limits you to what part numbers you can run. There is literally nothing long enough in the 8" travel category, and nothing short enough in the 9" category to put you directly in the center of your stroke.
This is not a huge problem, as the one cited above allows only slightly less compression than droop, and should fit in there well.
You can get non-reservoir 7100's, but none are available in that valving and length.

If you're keeping the stem/eye style mounting, then there is nothing in the book regarding 7100's or 5165's that will fit within a reasonable range.
If we get back to the 5100's, we'll have to get some valving characteristics from them, as they list only the lengths and mount types in the book I have.
This is last year's book too, so maybe there is more info in any new one coming out?

Not sure, but easy enough to call them to find out if there are new numbers, or if there is a perfect 5100 to fit the way you want.

Do you want it in the center, or biased a particular way? I think I mentioned that I set mine up with slightly longer shocks to allow the suspension to hang down and droop more than it can compress. Worked well for me.

Paul

 

[DirtDonk]

Looks like they have a couple of new catalogs that might help. I'm downloading them now.

Paul

 

[DirtDonk]

Here we go with another couple of choices.
Some 5125's with stem/eye mounting, 360/80 valving. And lengths of:
Part number 33-230450 is 14.30" collapsed and 22.90" extended.
Part number 33-230412 is 15.20" collapsed and 24.40" extended.

Now that's pretty close to the middle of the travel too (or as close as you're likely to get) but they're both still biased to longer extension than compression.
So even with these new choices, you would still need to decide if you're going to go just "wheeling" for fun, or really bounding over whoop-de-doos where you might need more compression protection or vice versa. Or better yet, just more shock travel than any shock with this overall length can supply.

Which is why everyone offers longer/taller/bigger shock mounts for longer shocks in the first place.
But for street and "normal" wheeling, any of the above might be decent choices. Most would be easy to order and get quickly as long as they're in stock, but they are not on our shelves at any given time.

Recently Bilstein has been backordered on some common shocks, which has not been a common occurrence up to now.

Paul

 

[BwoncoHowie]

Paul,
Thanks for your willingness and interest to chime in here while I'm trying to solve this front shock issue.
What I had before was rancho rs 7000 adjustables on the soft setting in the stock location, and duff 70-30 in the stroppe location. the front ride was too rough even on the street. I blew out the urethane insulators on the ranchos and took the shocks off altogether. The Duff shocks were what remained bolted to the weld-on stroppe mounts. Great ride improvement with just the 70-30s alone, but I'm still wondering if I should run the singles in the stock location. Now the insulators on the duff's are shot, so i found these 2-piece Napa grommets and installed them on the shocks, and I am wondering how long these will last. So I'm sure I will be faced with replacing the shocks soon, so i'm considering a good off-road shock that will not jarr the front end while I'm hitting small bumps going fast, but will still have the solid rebound dampening to keep the axle under control.

As you know the shocks bolted to the Stroppe mounts on the front are actually rear early Bronco shocks.

 

[bronconut73]

Bilsteins seem to do all things well.

The Rancho RS 9000's are adjustable so you can have your cake and eat it too.

I run the RS 9000's but I wouldn't kick the Bilsteins out of bed though.

There is always really high dollar stuff like FOX and KING, if you want to take it to that level.

 

[ntsqd]

The thing that doesn't seem to be generally understood is that the Rancho's are adjustable because they have to be to do it all, while the mono-tubes (Bils, Fox, SAW, King, FOA, etc.) don't need to be adjusted once the shim stack inside of them is correct. They can do it all.

 

[bronconut73]

The thing that doesn't seem to be generally understood is that the Rancho's are adjustable because they have to be to do it all, while the mono-tubes (Bils, Fox, SAW, King, FOA, etc.) don't need to be adjusted once the shim stack inside of them is correct. They can do it all.

That is true.....

 

[DirtDonk]

For your different mounts Howie, the rearward stock front mount would have less damping effect for a given valving than the forward-of-the-coil mount would.
The forward mount would afford a longer shock (usually) though, so could be considered for allowing more wheel travel in the right circumstances.
So given the same valving, the rear mounted shock would have a softer ride, but less travel.

It's a leverage thing...
I doubt that the difference is substantial, but it should be measurable.

In the old days, even Koni adjustable shocks were stated to be adjustable not to suit the user's tastes, but to compensate for wear as the shocks aged.
Probably could use the same statement for Ranchos, but the main issue with a Rancho shock as I see it is that we don't even know what galaxy the valving or it's ratios are. Sure, other than the ones listed in their catalog for a specific application we can pick and choose based on length and end mount design. But we don't know if we're using a shock with a good choice of valving characteristics or not, until we actually try it.
Luckily, for the most part the huge range of the adjustments lets us pick and choose the shocks based on size and most of the time get pretty lucky on valving. Which is why one of the things I wanted to do was to try the different Rancho 9000's that fit my particular vehicle in the same positions.
That's a pretty expensive test method, which is why it has not happened in all these years frankly.
At least with Bilsteins you can not only pick them based on a range of valving specs, but with some models even build your own once you know what you actually want.

As we've talked about before, Rancho even makes three or four part numbers that are specifically valved softer for use in dual-shock applications. But what ratio they have is still a mystery.
Might be an interesting thing to try out as well though.

Paul

 

[BwoncoHowie]

Wow, more info! Thanks all.

So I have a history of blowing out urethane bushings. Are these 2-piece chinese things from napa going to last a while?

I wonder if someone out there has replacement rubber bushings that are 1-piece? my original 1-piece bushings on the Duffs are hourglass shaped. If you take that Duff bushing and cut it in half where the narrow spot is then it resembles the bushings inside the Napa repair kit.

I still would like to get something close to the valving as the Duffs but without urethane bushing material. I'm thinking rubber is better. Heck, it lasted 30 years on my radius arm bushings, they were surface cracked but still working fine. Replaced them with urethane and they lasted less than 5yrs.
Replaced them again with MOOG rubber and never heard another peep out of them!

 

[BwoncoHowie]

The thing that doesn't seem to be generally understood is that the Rancho's are adjustable because they have to be to do it all, while the mono-tubes (Bils, Fox, SAW, King, FOA, etc.) don't need to be adjusted once the shim stack inside of them is correct. They can do it all.

The trouble with the Ranchos I had was that when you made them firmer, both compression and rebound got firmer. It would have been nice to firm up the rebound without messing with the compression settings. Or adjust the compression and rebound independantly of each other. what do you think Paul?

 

[BwoncoHowie]

The trouble with the Ranchos I had was that when you made them firmer, both compression and rebound got firmer. It would have been nice to firm up the rebound without messing with the compression settings. Or adjust the compression and rebound independantly of each other.

 

[ntsqd]

It is my understanding that the 9k's adjustment only affects the rebound damping and not the compression damping. I've never owned any though, so no experience. Nor do I want any.

The various brand monotube dampers previously listed have a separate and distinct shim stack for each, compression and rebound. Can tune one without affecting the other. Some mfg's have different piston porting for compression vs. rebound as well.
That starts to get into some pretty esoteric shock tuning if the piston porting version (not type*) is starting to be considered. You've long ago left the norm and are now looking for that 1/10th of 1% performance increase.

*type: digressive, regressive, linear

 

[DirtDonk]

The trouble with the Ranchos I had was that when you made them firmer, both compression and rebound got firmer. It would have been nice to firm up the rebound without messing with the compression settings. Or adjust the compression and rebound independantly of each other.

Definitely. Always wanted something like a QA1 or something like that, but never had the budget nor did they have the proper shocks back when I was looking.

It is my understanding that the 9k's adjustment only affects the rebound damping and not the compression damping.

Negatory. Definitely adjusts both. Whether it's at the same ratio or not, I can't say. But if you ever get the chance, just try to compress the shock on 1, then on 9 and you'll see what I mean!

This would not be so bad though, I don't think, if the actual dampening characteristics were just right for our EB's. Which it does not seem to be for me anyway. But that's why I had always wanted to try all the part numbers that were compatible with mounting and length specifications. Since they don't really publish their rates, we don't all need the same ones, and even needs vary per trip, it would be all about experimentation.

Paul

 

[ntsqd]

Perhaps I have it backwards, perhaps the adjuster only changes the compression valving. The person who told me this is not one to get something like that wrong (he tunes desert racing dampers), but my memory could easily be faulty.
How is the extension difference between the settings?

 

[Rustytruck]

This would not be so bad though, I don't think, if the actual dampening characteristics were just right for our EB's. Which it does not seem to be for me anyway. But that's why I had always wanted to try all the part numbers that were compatible with mounting and length specifications. Since they don't really publish their rates, we don't all need the same ones, and even needs vary per trip, it would be all about experimentation.

Paul

I agree with this. This was the same experience with the Rancho 9000 that I had and Why the Duff 70/30 were an improvement up front. In my heart I believe the Rancho 9000 were designed for leaf springs. They work extremely well in the back. I still run the old school horribly stiff Rancho 2.5" lift coils up front. In the back I run the Rancho 9000. The front Rancho 9000 are residing in the shed. If I ever change to progressive coils up front maybe I will test the 9000's again. Never ran Bilstiens so can't comment on those.

Everybody's rig is different finding the perfect part from a catalog can be tough.

 

[DirtDonk]

Perhaps I have it backwards, perhaps the adjuster only changes the compression valving. The person who told me this is not one to get something like that wrong (he tunes desert racing dampers), but my memory could easily be faulty.
How is the extension difference between the settings?

Well, maybe I have it wrong and there is a difference in the amount of change, but it definitely changes in both directions. Perhaps it's just less in compression than rebound, or perhaps because compression is lighter than rebound anyway, even the same percentage of change would feel different by hand.
Your guy probably has equipment to measure this instead of our old method of playing tug-o-war with customers to show them the differences.
We used to do that regularly when someone asked how much change it made, or "which shock is softest" or "hardest" and that kind of stuff.

If you are pulling or pushing, you spin that dial and you're going to feel the difference easily. While it's still easier to push, I've yet to try a 9000 that did not change the dampening in both directions.
On full soft you can literally push the rod in easily with no exertion. Feels like an old worn out shock it's so soft.
Even one or two clicks can be felt, but go all the way stiff and it's hard for two people to compress or extend without a lot of grunting and groaning. Almost like a frozen shock.

Now, to be fair most of my experience in this regard is with the old "5-speed" Rancho 9000's of old. The newer "10-speed" shocks actually have the same range of dampening, but with a finer vernier on the dial. No difference in range, just in number ratings. So a 5 on the old scale is a 10 on the new.
Or at least roughly, because not only did they make that change many years ago, but in more recent years have made larger internal changes to design, changes to the physical size of the bodies and shafts, and even changed a few years ago from their old non-pressurized "cellular gas" technology to a true pressurized nitrogen charged technology of the new "X" models.

There are still listings in their books in fact, for two distinctly different categories of RS9000 shock. I don't know if they're both still sold, but the specification section of their catalog has sure grown exponentially in the last 10 years!

Maybe your guy just has more experience with the newer ones, and certainly access to better test equipment and direct comparisons with other brands, given his job description.
So trust him over me on that, but verify if you can personally, because I can't see it by hand. To me they feel like both compression and rebound change with the knob.

Paul

 

[BwoncoHowie]

Wow, more info! Thanks all.

So I have a history of blowing out urethane bushings. Are these 2-piece chinese things from napa going to last a while?

I wonder if someone out there has replacement rubber bushings that are 1-piece? my original 1-piece bushings on the Duffs are hourglass shaped. If you take that Duff bushing and cut it in half where the narrow spot is then it resembles the bushings inside the Napa repair kit.

I still would like to get something close to the valving as the Duffs but without urethane bushing material. I'm thinking rubber is better. Heck, it lasted 30 years on my radius arm bushings, they were surface cracked but still working fine. Replaced them with urethane and they lasted less than 5yrs.
Replaced them again with MOOG rubber and never heard another peep out of them!

So, has anybody had as much trouble with urethane bushings as i have?