-
Hi Guest!
You can help ensure that British Car Forum (BCF) continues to provide a great place to engage in the British car hobby! If you find BCF a beneficial community, please consider supporting our efforts with a subscription.
There are some perks with a member upgrade!**Upgrade Now**
(PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
tube shock conversion?
- Thread starter jackag91
- Start date
Share this page
LastDeadLast
Jedi Knight
Offline
Lot of people have them with no trouble... me included. Very nice upgrade, especially when adjustable shock are used to tune in the desired handling characteristics.
With any mod, I would carefully inspect the mount points on the chassis to make sure the metal and welds are in good shape.
You can also get uprated cantilever shocks as well.. so I would definietly give the a look as well.
With any mod, I would carefully inspect the mount points on the chassis to make sure the metal and welds are in good shape.
You can also get uprated cantilever shocks as well.. so I would definietly give the a look as well.
D
DougF
Guest
Guest
Offline
I have the bolt on variety. I haven't experienced any problems with them and like them very much.
Just read the TRF TR6 Glovebox Companion writeup on them by Charles. He says that a friend of his had his frame crack using this type. He also states that the frame could well have been bad to begin with.
This type is less expensive and considerably easier to install.
Just read the TRF TR6 Glovebox Companion writeup on them by Charles. He says that a friend of his had his frame crack using this type. He also states that the frame could well have been bad to begin with.
This type is less expensive and considerably easier to install.
TRSIXPLUSIX
Freshman Member
Offline
19 December 2007
This is Tony From RATCO. I have done a lot of research and inspected many cars with and without the tube shock conversion kits installed. The evidence is inconclusive as to whether the kit causes frame failure as a matter of course. It is without question a really good idea to inspect the rear differential crossmember especially at the weld joint at the frame rails. If it is in any way suspect of fatique failure then don't install the kit unless the structure is reinforced. I can say that the tube shock kit does not by itself cause structual failure but it expidites any invevitable failure for sure. Also I can say that it is the most inexpensive and easiest performance upgrade that dramatically improves the performace of your car.
This is Tony From RATCO. I have done a lot of research and inspected many cars with and without the tube shock conversion kits installed. The evidence is inconclusive as to whether the kit causes frame failure as a matter of course. It is without question a really good idea to inspect the rear differential crossmember especially at the weld joint at the frame rails. If it is in any way suspect of fatique failure then don't install the kit unless the structure is reinforced. I can say that the tube shock kit does not by itself cause structual failure but it expidites any invevitable failure for sure. Also I can say that it is the most inexpensive and easiest performance upgrade that dramatically improves the performace of your car.
kodanja
Obi Wan
Offline
I also have the bolt on type & have very good luck with them so far.
just remember there is a plus and minus to every aftermarket replacement part!!!!
A noticable improvemnet in the ride!
& I see NO wear on my frame at all! /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/angel.gif
but if you rather go original lever type, theres nothing wrong with that!!!
just remember there is a plus and minus to every aftermarket replacement part!!!!
A noticable improvemnet in the ride!
& I see NO wear on my frame at all! /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/angel.gif
but if you rather go original lever type, theres nothing wrong with that!!!
Opa
Jedi Trainee
Offline
I think that if the tube shock becomes the primary suspension travel stop it could break the frame mount.Before I installed mine I removed the spring and with a jack under the T/A put it thru it's full range of travel until the T/A bump stop came up hard and started to lift the car,measured the height of trailing arm from the floor.Then dropped it to where the lever arm rested at the bottom bumper and measured the distance.Then put in tube kit and did the same routine.Found that tube shock was fully topped before any amount of pressure was applied to bump stop in fender well.(tube shock had less travel than lever did)To remedy this I shimmed up the bump stops about 3/8" and that left about a 1/2 of shock travel from the top.I also put an o ring on the shock shaft to be able to keep an eye on shock travel.The shock pushes up the O ring to indicate it's maximum travel
Am I on the right track ??
Am I on the right track ??
TR3driver
Great Pumpkin - R.I.P
Offline
Just to clarify my earlier comment; there are several different designs of tube shock conversion around (at least 3 that I know of and I think there is a 4th). By "attached to the tub", I thought jackag91 was referring to the conversion that bolts into the body sheet metal instead of tying back into the frame. Over time, if the car is driven, the attachment to the body will work harden, crack and eventually tear it's way out of the body.
The other designs try to tie back into the original shock mount; which places more load on the mount than it was originally designed for. (Caused both by the longer lever arm to the shock location, and by using stiffer shocks which, after all, is the main reason most people convert.) The mount doesn't always fail, but failures are more common with the conversion (and not unknown even with the stock lever shocks).
Something else to keep in mind, most of the conversions also limit the clearance for tires. Stock tires & wheels won't normally be a problem, but if you've gone wider, they may interfere.
The other designs try to tie back into the original shock mount; which places more load on the mount than it was originally designed for. (Caused both by the longer lever arm to the shock location, and by using stiffer shocks which, after all, is the main reason most people convert.) The mount doesn't always fail, but failures are more common with the conversion (and not unknown even with the stock lever shocks).
Something else to keep in mind, most of the conversions also limit the clearance for tires. Stock tires & wheels won't normally be a problem, but if you've gone wider, they may interfere.
Interesting thought Casey. I've heard that with KYB there is more often a problem but the Konis are fine. Wonder if the Konis have more travel, thus negating the need to shim the bump stop.
-Lee
OBTW, I have the blind moose bolt on w/ KYB and would not switch back!
I'd boxed the front diff mounts when I did RGood's diff conversion but didn't do the rear. The rear is now boxed after it failed - on the Mass Pike, on my way to my last day at a job of 15 years, on Friday the 13th. . .
-Lee
OBTW, I have the blind moose bolt on w/ KYB and would not switch back!
I'd boxed the front diff mounts when I did RGood's diff conversion but didn't do the rear. The rear is now boxed after it failed - on the Mass Pike, on my way to my last day at a job of 15 years, on Friday the 13th. . .
Opa
Jedi Trainee
Offline
I have the kit from BPNW with the KYB.I don't think the shock type matter's to much.It's the length of the bracket and were the body stop is in relation to the rubber buffer.If the bracket were to be 1/2' higher your rubber stop would run into the stop before shock bottoms out.Kind of fine line there IMO.I think a longer bracket may run interference with the wider tire we use these days.
Offline
I'm curious....
Has anyone ever done a relatively "scientific" test? By that, I mean has anyone performed controlled handling tests on a sound TR6 in stock configuration, then installed one of the shock conversions ON THE SAME CAR (with NO OTHER CHANGES) and tested it again...to see if there really was a significant improvement?
Like so many other "modifications" for these cars over the years, I'm suspicious that the comparison ends up being apples v. oranges...in that it seems obvious that any brand new shock might perform better than a worn-out, 30-year-old shock. (Same with R&P conversions on sidescreen TRs, etc., etc.)
--Joe Skeptic /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
Has anyone ever done a relatively "scientific" test? By that, I mean has anyone performed controlled handling tests on a sound TR6 in stock configuration, then installed one of the shock conversions ON THE SAME CAR (with NO OTHER CHANGES) and tested it again...to see if there really was a significant improvement?
Like so many other "modifications" for these cars over the years, I'm suspicious that the comparison ends up being apples v. oranges...in that it seems obvious that any brand new shock might perform better than a worn-out, 30-year-old shock. (Same with R&P conversions on sidescreen TRs, etc., etc.)
--Joe Skeptic /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif