[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Shock Conversion

Subject: Re: Shock Conversion
From: Chad Cooper <>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 18:11:23 -0500
I did my own  front conversion in addition to the rear, I will send you 
pics if you are interested.  I was almost sent to hell for mentioning it 
before but I did it anyway and I love them.

Chad Cooper '72B wrote:

>WOW!   I didn't expect to start such a heated debate on the topic.  I agree
>with one responder that the rear kit (I'm looking at) bolts on to the same
>mounts as the existing, after you remove the originals, so the loads should
>be the same.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but probably the genesis of the tube
>shock conversions were:
>1) the tube shocks were more widely available for replacement;
>2) easier to replace (and cheaper).
>3) wide variety of tube shocks so makes it very 'tunable' (i.e. adjustable
>gas shocks)
>4) due to the more common design, they probably last longer.
>If the above items were not at least mostly true, there would not be the
>number of kits out there being successfully sold.
>If I were the type that put only a few hundred miles on my car every year,
>the refurbished Armstrongs would probably do me for life, but I use mine as
>an (almost) daily driver.  I have heard stories of the poor life of the
>Armstrongs.  Maybe true or not, but replacing a couple of tube shocks takes
>a couple hours.  Pulling a couple of the Armstrongs is a big pain and puts
>the car out of action for a good while.  I agree that  when it comes to the
>ride, the average driver probably couldn't tell between the tube or
>Armstrong when in good working order.  It's the above listed advantages I
>was after.
>John Hed
>80 MGB LE

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>