kubtastic
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Tacoma, WA
Does the rear shock boot go on the top, or the bottom? I don't want to break it, and the shock I have (a rancho 9000) looks like it could go either way
-
Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.
which way is up on the rear shock?
- Thread starter kubtastic
- Start date
- Location
- Westminster, SoCal
Some shocks have an imprint on them saying top or bottom or have an arrow pointing upwards. I know my rsx ones did so your 9000's probably do to.kubtastic said:
kubtastic
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Tacoma, WA
Wait, the arrow on the shock points up? I wish I was near my car to take a picture of it, because on the fronts the text is up, and the arrow is down (and its impossible to put the fronts in upside down). I did get BPE's, but the Rancho's came with bar pins in a separate bag that they expected me to press through the bushing. Ha.
old_man
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Loveland, Colorado
The standard configuration on the Rancho Shocks on both ends is the rod up the body down.
LouisianaZJ
NAXJA Member #1362
- Location
- Louisiana
shock can goes towards the bottom, shaft up top.
take off the boots unless you like ruining shocks
take off the boots unless you like ruining shocks
thooogy
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- LONG ISLAND, NY
old_man said:
aren't ALL shocks like that?
LouisianaZJ
NAXJA Member #1362
- Location
- Louisiana
that is the std configuration. some shocks can be run inverted, but it depends on the shock design
kubtastic
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Tacoma, WA
Why is the boot bad?
LouisianaZJ
NAXJA Member #1362
- Location
- Louisiana
it traps moisture, mud and other assorted crap that can rust out the shock can or mess up the shaft
ECKSJAY
Water is dirty
- Location
- Covington, WA
kubtastic said:
Traps water, mud, small rocks, squirrels, ducks, churches, swallows, etc...can lead to seal failures and rusted rods. Bad stuff.
:laugh3:
thooogy
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- LONG ISLAND, NY
ECKSJAY said:
Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?
Yucca-Man
NAXJA Member # 683
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
He must be Arthur, King of the Britons!!
Beej
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The Wet Coast of BC
So if she weighs the same as a duck.... then she must be made of wood! Aaaandd?........
afjeep2082
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Portland, Or
thooogy said:
Most are but like edelbrocks mount upsidedown, that what I have and I can fell a distinct difrence...more of the shock is absorbed because it doesn't travel through the shock body first thusfor absorbing the shock as the shaft goes up into the body as apposed to the body being pushed into the shaft.....
no I don't write porn articles
Matthew Currie
NAXJA Member #760
- Location
- Vermont, land of big clay
afjeep2082 said:Most are but like edelbrocks mount upsidedown, that what I have and I can fell a distinct difrence...more of the shock is absorbed because it doesn't travel through the shock body first thusfor absorbing the shock as the shaft goes up into the body as apposed to the body being pushed into the shaft.....
I had a set of Fichtel and Sachs shocks long ago that mounted upside down too. There's no real reason why they couldn't be designed that way, though I don't see why it would make a difference in absorbing the shock. The relative movement of the two parts of the shock is the same, so if for some reason the shock body were less rigid or efficient than the shaft, it wouldn't make a difference whether it was up or down. As a thought exercise, imagine putting a hard bushing at one end of the shock and a soft one at the other. Would the soft bushing compress less, or later, if it were on the top? I don't think so.
An upside-down shock might make a difference in unsprung weight, though. It can also use an open unsleeved shaft, since it won't collect crud. On the other hand, if the seal leaks, it will empty fast.
- Location
- Westminster, SoCal
Actually it has to do with how they're valved and not as much as the absorbtion and pushing and pulling of the shaft.afjeep2082 said:
old_man
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Loveland, Colorado
With 35's, I think the unsprung weight thing is too far gone to help.
- Location
- Port Orchard, WA
huh?old_man said:
Matthew Currie
NAXJA Member #760
- Location
- Vermont, land of big clay
XJ_ranger said:
Well, in theory, the less unsprung weight (that is, weight on the wheel side of the spring system) there is, the better it is for handling and spring response. If at all possible, you should add weight on the receiving, rather than the sending, end of the springs. The top half of a shock absorber is sprung, the bottom unsprung. On sports and racing cars with little light wheels and that sort of stuff, it's potentially an issue. If your tires weigh 80 pounds apiece and they're hung by leaf springs on solid axles that weigh about as much as a whole Lotus Elan, saving the weight of a half pint of shock absorber fluid isn't going to get you much satisfaction.