KYB shock?'s

-

GeorgeH

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2014
Messages
8,644
Reaction score
3,560
Location
Liberty, NC
Did some searching and came up with some conflicting info. I'm going to running pst 1.03 bars . It seems guys running stock stuff really like the ky's, but anything up from that seems the bilstein/ fox are what's recommended. Most recommending those are serious about or close to autox cars. This car will never see a race track. Trying to get some feedback on how well they work with. or not, with 1.03 or if it's a poor choice. Thanks
 
Bilsteins on all four corners with 1.03 torsion bars. With 1.5 sway bar on front. 1" sway bar on back. Home made rear springs out of a c body using a body main leaf. Six pack of leafs cut to my specs.
 
I had Kyb shocks on my belvedere and replaced them with bilsteins and now I wanna replace all my shock with bilsteins. Def worth the money. Dustin.
 
KYBs are much stiffer than other shocks, but they are also cheaper (or were). We ran them on my son's 67 Barracuda with .990 and then 1.14 torsion bars and home-built rear springs. The ride was not objectionable and handling was excellent. He will likely run better shocks the next time the car goes together. I am going to use the slightly used KYBs on my Barracuda (.890 t-bars).
 
I ran KYB's on my Challenger with 1.12" torsion bars for tens of thousands of miles, they were new and on my car when I bought it so I left them there when I installed the bigger bars. When I put my Duster together with 1.12" torsion bars I installed a set of Bilsteins because I needed new shocks. Now, keep in mind A-body 1.12" bars have a 300 lb/in rate, and E-body 1.12" bars have a 270 lb/in rate.

Guess which one had a harsher ride? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the Duster. Even though it had stiffer torsion bars, 18" rims instead of 17's like on the Challenger, and is at least a few hundred pounds lighter.

So yeah, even for a street car the Bilsteins are better. In fact, it's MORE noticeable on the street. The Challenger handled well with the KYB's, it just had a harsh ride quality to it. I've since gone to Bilsteins on the Challenger, and Hotchkis Fox shocks on the Duster. For really big torsion bars, like the 1.12's on the Duster, the Fox's are a bit better than the Bilsteins. Not as big a difference as there is between the KYB's and the Bilsteins though.
 
I ran KYB's on my Challenger with 1.12" torsion bars for tens of thousands of miles, they were new and on my car when I bought it so I left them there when I installed the bigger bars. When I put my Duster together with 1.12" torsion bars I installed a set of Bilsteins because I needed new shocks. Now, keep in mind A-body 1.12" bars have a 300 lb/in rate, and E-body 1.12" bars have a 270 lb/in rate.

Guess which one had a harsher ride? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the Duster. Even though it had stiffer torsion bars, 18" rims instead of 17's like on the Challenger, and is at least a few hundred pounds lighter.

So yeah, even for a street car the Bilsteins are better. In fact, it's MORE noticeable on the street. The Challenger handled well with the KYB's, it just had a harsh ride quality to it. I've since gone to Bilsteins on the Challenger, and Hotchkis Fox shocks on the Duster. For really big torsion bars, like the 1.12's on the Duster, the Fox's are a bit better than the Bilsteins. Not as big a difference as there is between the KYB's and the Bilsteins though.

I wish I had read your posts before I ordered my KYBs and put them on. :banghead:
Oh well they should suffice for now.
 
I wish I had read your posts before I ordered my KYBs and put them on. :banghead:
Oh well they should suffice for now.

The KYB's work just fine, and I put like 40k miles on the ones that were in my Challenger without any issues at all. But, they definitely give a harsher ride, especially with larger torsion bars. It's not unbearable or anything, but it is definitely noticeable when you swap out for a set of Bilstein's or Fox's. The KYB's aren't horrible by any means, especially considering what they cost, but the Bilsteins are much better shocks. And the Fox's are a step up from them.
 
What part number bilsteins do you guys run? seems the don't make any specifically for the A's
 
Thanks for all the responses guys. I have read through many a post from some of you. I don't doubt the bilstein shocks are much better. Its hard to get solid wheel rate info on the PST bars. Most claim there a bit softer than the ff 1.06? bars. I might be wrong in my thinking so correct me if I'm wrong, but typically cranking ride height into a t- bar suspension makes the ride stiffer. So I'm thinking wheel rate is function of preload, and why the results vary so much. I want it lowered, so I'll be on the softer side of that scale.

I can deal with a stiffer ride. I have a long way to go and quite a few $$ before car is roadworthy. Jim's running larger bars and his info always seems solid so I probably get the Kyb's while the rebate is going on, and if I don't like them when I get to the debugging stage deal with it then.

Still interested in anything else that can be added.
 
The KYB's work just fine, and I put like 40k miles on the ones that were in my Challenger without any issues at all. But, they definitely give a harsher ride, especially with larger torsion bars. It's not unbearable or anything, but it is definitely noticeable when you swap out for a set of Bilstein's or Fox's. The KYB's aren't horrible by any means, especially considering what they cost, but the Bilsteins are much better shocks. And the Fox's are a step up from them.

That's what I was looking for, and with the rebate they have going on, were talking less than a c- note for the set if I don't like the ride quality. Which, ride quality is such a subjective term making it difficult.. What's acceptable from one to another varies greatly
 
Its hard to get solid wheel rate info on the PST bars. Most claim there a bit softer than the ff 1.06? bars.

Good luck on getting a rate from PST. I tried for over a year, messaging them here and through their site. I gave up and bought a set of FFI 1.06's. Their loss.

Based on the 1.03" diameter and the "normal" spring constants for torsion bar type steel, you should be looking at a spring rate that's probably between 215 - 230 lb/in. Roughly. The listed rates vary by manufacturer, but that's a pretty decent ball park. Most of the 1" bars are around 200 lb/in, the 1.06's are usually around 250 lb/in, so, yeah.

I might be wrong in my thinking so correct me if I'm wrong, but typically cranking ride height into a t- bar suspension makes the ride stiffer. So I'm thinking wheel rate is function of preload, and why the results vary so much. I want it lowered, so I'll be on the softer side of that scale.

You're wrong. ;)

This is a common misconception. Adjusting the ride height does absolutely nothing to the spring rate. Zilch, zip, nada.

It doesn't even change the preload under normal circumstances. That is a function of the weight of the car, and pretty much the weight of the car alone.

Take a look at your lower control arms. You can see that the torsion bar socket is connected to an adjusting lever, which is controlled by the torsion bar adjusting bolt. Most people think that turning the torsion bar adjusting bolt twists the torsion bar. It does not under most circumstances. It changes the angle of the LCA with respect to the torsion bar socket. Without the adjusting bolts in place, the LCA just rotates loosely on the torsion bar socket. The adjusters just hold the LCA in place at a certain angle.

So, why then does it get hard to turn the adjusting bolts if you really crank them down? There's only so much adjustment in the LCA when it's on the car. So, at some point, you max out the angle of the LCA with respect to the torsion bar socket, and you do start to place load on the torsion bar. But, the ONLY way to put more preload on the bar than is what is normally there with the car sitting on it's suspension is to completely exceed the force exerted by the weight of the car. IE, the suspension would not settle even a fraction of an inch with the weight on the wheels compared to no weight at all. Otherwise, even though you may have "preloaded" the bars some with the adjusters, the weight of the car is still more than that, and that will be your final amount of preload.

The only other way to change that would be to lower the car so much that the torsion bar adjusting bolts come out of the adjusting arms at full droop. With the car on it's wheels, you'd still have the car's weight as your "preload". But, if you hit a pothole and induced negative travel, the LCA would freewheel and there would be no load on the bars at all. Also- not good. But, as soon as the adjusters were back in contact, yup, you guessed it, same amount of preload.

So, under normal operation, the only thing that the torsion bar adjusting bolts change is the ride height (which does change your alignment numbers).
 
I sort of disagree, changing the ride height will change the wheel rate (agree that it doesn't change the spring rate - that's fixed by the dimensions of the bar).
It falls into nearly the splitting hairs zone, but changing the pre-load setting changes the angle of the LCA. Since a Moment (torque on the t-bar) is always, always, always a force (weight on the lower ball-joint) X the perpendicular distance to the axis of rotation (inner LCA pivot) then changing the angle of the LCA will lengthen or shorten the effective lever length. The angle change isn't great, so the lever length change won't be large either, but some drivers should be able to tell the difference. Not all, but some.

As to the OP's question, all stock / t-bars & rear springs on my '65 Valiant 2 dr. I put KYB's on it to get it drivable. Figured to put something better on it later. I noticed what I've always noticed about KYB's on any car that I've ridden in or driven with them. The ride tends toward the harsh end of the spectrum. Slightly annoying, but not totally objectionable.
 
Some vehicles 1.5 ride height difference seems to make a night and day difference,such as a truck. I can see where angles and leverage can make the diffence. Guess it' s not such a concern on these cars. Thanks for all the input guys
 
It would be interesting to plot that change in angle vs. the ride quality perception.

Something to note, torsion bars have a lot higher rising rate than do coil springs. That makes damping them properly a bigger challenge.
 
It would be interesting to plot that change in angle vs. the ride quality perception.

Something to note, torsion bars have a lot higher rising rate than do coil springs. That makes damping them properly a bigger challenge.

My perception was that at 1.5 inches up my truck would toss coffee cups out the cupholders. Lol Didn't need a graph on that one. It would be neat to see some numbers and graphing
 
You do nothing to spring rate when you adjust the torsion bars as long as you weren't on the bump stops to begin with. ALL the adjustment does is to LOWER the LCA away from the frame. You CANNOT add twist to the bar OR change spring rate.
 
But you WILL change wheel rate with the change in LCA angle from moving the adjuster bolt. There is a difference btwn spring rate (inherent rate of the spring by it's physical dimensions) and wheel rate (effect of spring rate and the leverage(s) involved at the wheel).
 
As far as Bilstein's go, the only vendor that I know of that may still sell them is Bilstein. Once Hotchkis released their Fox shocks (non-adjustable) everyone pretty much pulled the Bilstein's off the market.
 
Leverage is the same as the LCA does not change length.
Doesn't physically change length, but re-read what I said above. The lever's effective length is always measured perpendicular to the direction of the force. In this case the force is gravity, straight up and down. So the effective lever length is always perfectly horizontal. Since the LCA travels in an arc the effective lever length varies with the angle of the LCA relative to the ground.
 
Leverage is the same as the LCA does not change length.

You have to picture it like the:the force at the wheel from the spring is down ward perpendicular to the ground and everything is relative to that. Picture the car/truck sitting on the ground, control arms parallel to the ground. Picture a verticle line through the control arm pivot(a) and another through the ball joint centerline(b). A and b will equal a given length on the ground. Raise the vehicle 2 inches and recheck. Now the control arm is angled upward from b to a but the direction of force has remained constant, and the spring remains constant. Now the length from a to b papallel to the ground and perpendicular to the force has shortened decreasing leverage against the spring. Or, as the control arm swings through it's arc the bottom bj moves inward towards the spring, shortening a to b in relationship and perpendicular to the direction of force.

My example, a truck with a long control arm, the effect is greater and a substantial difference in ride quality.
 
Early A Bilstein part #'s I purchased from PST, and on a street car these made a Tremendous difference in ride quality. One of those happy moment's in life when the extra $$$ spent was actually noticeable and worth it. PST also offers a FABO discount and free shipping.
 

Attachments

  • 2014-09-18 09.30.05.jpg
    31.1 KB · Views: 145
Interesting that PST was who you got them from, but the label is RCD (an off-road suspension vendor). Thanks for posting those numbers though, will help me & others I'm sure.

FWIW RCD does still have them listed, but no pricing.

http://racecardynamics.com/search?c...y=position&orderway=desc&search_query=55-R082

http://racecardynamics.com/search?c...y=position&orderway=desc&search_query=55-R092

PST does though.
Currently $409 for the set:
http://www.p-s-t.com/s.nl/it.A/id.6374/.f?sc=12

$228 for just the fronts:
http://www.p-s-t.com/s.nl/it.A/id.6256/.f?sc=12

$210 for just the rears:
http://www.p-s-t.com/s.nl/it.A/id.6261/.f?sc=12

Compare that to $119 for either the front or rear set of KYB's
http://www.p-s-t.com/s.nl/it.A/id.10035/.f?sc=12
http://www.p-s-t.com/s.nl/it.A/id.10047/.f?sc=12
 
-
Back
Top