I've just spent 90 minutes reading old threads on shock absorbers - it's still unclear what brand to go for.

I have an 88 Auto which is my daily driver here in Australia - (www.myvette.20m.com)

My shock absorbers were reconditioned and are now worn again, leaking and need replacing.

The ride in my Z52 88 is very harsh especially because our roads in Tropical North Queensland are bad and because my back is in bad condition.

I'm looking for the softest ride I can get. I tried some other shockies 4 years ago and had to return them because of the extreme harsh ride, I had the delco bilsteins reconditioned to be as soft as possible, but they didn't last long after and I doubt by now that they are working at all.

Is there any shock absorber you would recommend for my conditions? I need one that can absorb harsh bumps.

I looked at the Bilstein replacements at Ecklers and it said they were 20% more firm than OEM shocks - I certainly don't want that!!

Other brands I have checked out are Monroe and KYB -There are some Monroe 'sensatrak' shock absorbers for my 88, in stock in Australia, I'm not sure how good they'd be. The KYB's are supposedly adjustable, which sounds good.

Reading the search results, some people say a shock absorber is good because they want a firm ride - which is not good for me.

About 90% of posts said KYB gave a softer ride than Bilsteins and 10% said the opposite - thats confusing. One post said the Monroe gave a soft ride, another post said they don't last long.

I'd like to hear from all the back sufferer's out there - whats the best 'soft' shock absorber?

S'nut

 

my vote goes to swaping the springs out for the late C4 base rates. shocks seriously don't impact ride stiffness anywhere near as much as spring rate. a soft spring and a moderate shock like bilstein HD is your combo.

 

I also have a z52 88 and the front spring is very stiff. The rear spring isnt quite so bad but still pretty stiff. Take a look at the spring chart in the c4 faq tech and performance sticky and you'll see what I mean.

With all the guys upgrading for track use, you might ask around and see if someone has springs that could help you out. (though not cheap to ship overseas!)

 

I have a 95 with bilstein HD and I live in michigan, I doubt your roads are worse than ours.
my car rides like a cadillac (as far as corvettes go I suppose) and have no harsh ridding issues.
but I agree, it is not the shocks that factor your ride comfort, it is the springs by far.

 

To get what you are looking for a spring change is the way to go. Short of that I suggest KYBs. I tried Monroes, failed in less than a year with very few miles.

 

Ditto on late model springs, the softest shock wont help that much.

KYBs are stiff for what its worth, Edelbrocks have a good rep.

 

 

Monroe will give you a soft ride but they are not good quality. KYB's I have ridden on were not to stiff to me.

 

Thanks everyone - I've had the spring chart for a few years and I am planning to get some late model springs.

Meanwhile I have to replace the shocks which have failed.

While the springs certainly are the main part that affects the softness of the ride, I did fit a set of shocks that were supposed to be soft and they were so hard it was like having no suspension at all - The company, Pedders, told me it was their softest shock and eventually agreed on removing them and a full refund - those shocks were terrible, and THAT'S what I'm hoping to avoid happening this time, I hope to choose shocks that will be close to the revalved delco-bilsteins that have now worn out.

Looks so far as if the Monroes are a waste of time.

Cruisinartvette, are you saying that the Edelbrocks are softer than KYB.

The KYB's are called 'gas adjust' - I thought that meant they were adjustable, is that right?

Would the softest shock be the OEM Delco-Bilsteins and where would I get them from?

S'nut

 

I have the perfect shock for you. Seriously.
TPIS makes a revalved shock that is specifically designed to give a better ride. I bought some for my old Z51 '85, and I loved them. They aren't expensive, and they really work.
Here is a link to them in Mid America's catalog. You can probably still buy them direct from TPIS if you want to.

 

KYBs arent adjustable to my knowledge. I have them on two other cars and the stickers say "Gas-a-just" but they are not adjustable.

 

wow, thanks Lite Blue, that sounds like exactly what I'm looking for

Anyone else like to comment on the revalved tpis before I buy them?

S'nut

 

no experience with the TPIS shock, the kyb is only adjustable in the AGX model which i'm not sure about being produced for the C4 or not. see them frequently on hondas. basically any decent brand shock will do on a base rate spring. the tpis probably isn't bad, nor is the tokico hp, or the bistein hd. google those 3 and buy whatever is cheaper i say. bilstein hd sets are $298 on ebay, the tokico hp runs 204 for a full set...this is a good deal. and you know what the tpis cost. take your pick. to find the tokicos type 'tokico hp corvette' in google.

 

There are rarely any 88 shocks on the bay...

 

oh yes, you reminded me, 1988...what exactly is the difference with that year anyway? i know shock listings in some catalogs list 84-87 then 88 then 89-96 which is odd since i thought there were only 2 c4 suspensions. 87 down and 88 up

 

88 front shocks are unique to C4's.

According to someone here on the forum, they are longer.

Someone else has suggested they might be softer because of the very hard Z52 front spring in the 88

S'nut

 

and another forum member is looking up exactly how much longer they are.

I highly doubt they would softer being as the z51 is little stiffer in spring rate than the z52, but that could be possible.

Performance-wise I always thought as you went up in spring rate, its a good idea to go a little bit stiffer on the dampening rate also, not the other way around. Think that it holds a little more water the other way around (slightly softer dampening rate is a good idea with a soft spring)

The theory there would be a softer spring would have a little tougher time than a stiffer spring overcoming the viscosity in the same shock... The spring controls the weight transfer and the shock controls the speed (and total distance) at which it happens

again that is a more performance-wise thought and Im not sure how that equates to ride comfort

I could be way off, but thats just something to think about.

Please anyone feel free to correct me on any of that

 

longer? hmm.. i'll wait for measurements before i dream up ideas. if they are close to 89+ i would be half tempted to just use the 89+ shock. the suspension uncompressed has a lot of travel. bringing it in an inch or so would be harmless, least it would seem so. what's different exactly on this suspension? i don't think i've ever found 1988 suspension arms, it's always 87 down and 88 up.

 

"The 89-96 shocks are 27 mm shorter than the 88 shock." -Another forum member

That being true, I might look at using 89 shocks. 27mm is not a whole lot

from what ive heard, the shock is mounted in a different location. I dont know that the arm or the geometry are any different.

Anytime you limit the range of a suspension arm, the car will react (transfer weight to the opposite end) quicker. Only limiting the front may not provide good results. Also, I would prefer to have a range of length adjustments rather than just one. So maybe there is a way to do something like that with shims on the shock. I really would like to get information from someone that has done this. Arm droop angle is an important aspect of suspension tuning but has nothing to do with this thread (hijack)

 

a shim was my idea as well. the top of the front shock is a single post that would be pretty easy to shim. the shock on the c4 is under no real stress like, say, a strut. our dual A arms take all the hard stuff leaving the shock to do what it was made for, to dampen. i'm starting to wonder if some companies actually plan for this, since the post on my Konis is rather long. i have a double nut lock on top and some of the post is still sticking out. using a single nut with a nylon lock would shave about 10mm by itself. using a small piece of tubing on the post under the mount bracket and a single nut could net half of your 27mm pretty easy. personally, i would probably try mounting the 89+ as it sits figuring that the reduction in suspension movement will be a non event. rarely is the front suspension uncompressed where you would be at the end of travel in a normal, or even racing situation. might notice it if you rally old logging roads or something i'm trying to visualize what would happen using a shorter shock....ride height should be the same, compression should be and so should travel upward. the downside is the only place i can mentally picture a shorter shock having an impact. i wonder what kind of other ideas we'll hear on this?