acastillo
07-07-2007, 04:26 PM
Replaced my rear Monroe shocks that were installed 2yrs and ~20k ago with Koni SA's purchased from eric@SPP's group buy.
Interestingly, I was suprised to notice even after 20k, the Monroe's had considerably more compression dampening than the new Koni's as they were very hard to compress in an A/B comparison. Rebound, with the Koni's set at 1 turn out from soft, the Monroe's offered slightly less rebound. Obviously, without a shock dyno, these are generic tests, and I'm no shock expert, but I figured I'd mention my observations.
About the new Koni's, I noticed that even with both set exactly at 1 turn out from soft, the pistons rose out at different rates from full compression to full extension. To get them to rebound equally one shock was turned soft to 0.75 turns while the other was increased to 1.75 turns. I wasn't sure if this was differing tolerances, so I called the distributor who told me to ignore and set them both with the same # of turns. The rate at which the piston/shaft rebounds without load can be affected by oil seal, oil on the shaft, etc and shouldn't be used for comparison. He also maintained Koni has a 1% limit on factory tolerances when they dyno test, so in they went readjusted to 1 turn from full soft.
Ride quality...tough to say as I've only put a few miles, but it appears the Koni's might be slightly less harsh over bumps, which makes sense since they seem to have less compression dampening. I haven't pushed them yet.
Lastly, if anyone's interested in a set of good condition, lightly used Monroe shocks/struts for a 96-99 M3, let me know. I should have the fronts out in a couple weeks, and they're only being replaced because I'm going back to Eibach springs, which Monroe does not recommend using their product with non OEM ride heights. Otherwise, I've been happy with the Monroe's.
Interestingly, I was suprised to notice even after 20k, the Monroe's had considerably more compression dampening than the new Koni's as they were very hard to compress in an A/B comparison. Rebound, with the Koni's set at 1 turn out from soft, the Monroe's offered slightly less rebound. Obviously, without a shock dyno, these are generic tests, and I'm no shock expert, but I figured I'd mention my observations.
About the new Koni's, I noticed that even with both set exactly at 1 turn out from soft, the pistons rose out at different rates from full compression to full extension. To get them to rebound equally one shock was turned soft to 0.75 turns while the other was increased to 1.75 turns. I wasn't sure if this was differing tolerances, so I called the distributor who told me to ignore and set them both with the same # of turns. The rate at which the piston/shaft rebounds without load can be affected by oil seal, oil on the shaft, etc and shouldn't be used for comparison. He also maintained Koni has a 1% limit on factory tolerances when they dyno test, so in they went readjusted to 1 turn from full soft.
Ride quality...tough to say as I've only put a few miles, but it appears the Koni's might be slightly less harsh over bumps, which makes sense since they seem to have less compression dampening. I haven't pushed them yet.
Lastly, if anyone's interested in a set of good condition, lightly used Monroe shocks/struts for a 96-99 M3, let me know. I should have the fronts out in a couple weeks, and they're only being replaced because I'm going back to Eibach springs, which Monroe does not recommend using their product with non OEM ride heights. Otherwise, I've been happy with the Monroe's.