My major motivation at the time was cost. 2 conversion kits including
shocks were much cheaper than 4 new Armstrongs. I believe the current
economics are not quite so compelling.
Performance-wise, my understanding is that the lever shocks are not as
effective at rebound control as tube shocks. This may be what creates the
subjective impression of a better ride. Since my lever shocks were
completely dead when I bought the car, I have no basis of comparison.
Come to think of it, this false comparison between worn-out Armstrongs
and new Monroes may be responsible for most claims of dramatic
improvement. Something to think about. I think you are wise in looking
for objective data.
Tim Economu had this to say:
>Hi Craig and everyone:
>
>Anyone have any qualitative test data on the performance of tube shocks vs.
>lever shock, when both are in good working order?
>A couple of anecdotal quotes I have heard are "really makes handling
>better," and "sure improves the ride." But I guess it's my engineer
>mentality that requires a little more fact than hearsay. Like does the car
>ACTUALLY handle better? How do you know? Does it really improve the ride?
>I am not much a fan on blindly keeping the car original, but personally I
>plan to keep my car for a long time and fitting parts other than what are
>standard easy to replace/rebuild and find, doesn't get me very excited.
>Unless there is a actual real performance improvement.
>So what about it guys? Is this just a maintenance upgrade, or is there
>something else to it??
>
>Kind regards,
>Tim.
>
>
>Tim Economu
>Mona '69 MGBGT
--
Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the red one with the silver bootlid.
|