Thanks for the feedback. Thats good to know. I can't imagine why anyone would like a shock as "loose" as the Rancho felt to me, so I always figured it was the spring rate. But now I wonder if it might be a combination of the extra weight of an LJ (with hard top and rear seats) combined with my preference for a "tight" road feel. I appreciate your contribution to the thread.
Do springs and shocks need to be matched to perform properly?
- Thread starter Fargo
- Start date
Thanks for the feedback. Thats good to know. I can't imagine why anyone would like a shock as "loose" as the Rancho felt to me, so I always figured it was the spring rate. But now I wonder if it might be a combination of the extra weight of an LJ (with hard top and rear seats) combined with my preference for a "tight" road feel. I appreciate your contribution to the thread.
I've said it before, the 5000x is a mushy feeling shock. But I'll take that compromise over the jarring I have felt with several TJs with the previous popular favorite Bilstein 5100.
I like a soft and mushy compression, but I wan't a well controlled rebound. So I guess I take the other end of that compromise and prefer the Bilstein.
I like a soft and mushy compression, but I wan't a well controlled rebound. So I guess I take the other end of that compromise and prefer the Bilstein.
I would like something with the better aspects of both!
I don't feel a mushy feeling so much with the 5000X's, but softer, yes. It's soft to a point in the compression until it no longer is, then seems to kick in a harder compression. I can hit mountain roads with a confident amount of control without the suspension feeling mushy. They are the closest feeling to my previous set of first gen OME Nitros, but that has to be taken with a grain because I haven't tried anything else except the Ranchos.
I don't think they are a bad shock. And they also remind me of the old style OME shocks, which I liked. I think if I didn't have a sense of what the rear is doing, I would like the 5000x more than I do. If the support after the initial hit was just a bit more, I would feel differently.
To add some complexity to my feelings, I also run a front Antirock (middle setting) and my overall suspension is very freely moving. Having a shock that had more damping after the initial, smaller hits would go a long way towards controlling things like body roll and brake dive.
All of that is to say that there are many factors to consider that can also make these forum comparisons difficult. And if we go back to some of the comments on shock valving and custom tunes, what I just described are things that would get accounted for during the tuning process. Basically, a tremendous amount of these ride quality and behavioral characteristics comes right back to the shocks and how they respond to the unique character of the vehicle they are installed on. I really find it fascinating and surprising.
To add some complexity to my feelings, I also run a front Antirock (middle setting) and my overall suspension is very freely moving. Having a shock that had more damping after the initial, smaller hits would go a long way towards controlling things like body roll and brake dive.
All of that is to say that there are many factors to consider that can also make these forum comparisons difficult. And if we go back to some of the comments on shock valving and custom tunes, what I just described are things that would get accounted for during the tuning process. Basically, a tremendous amount of these ride quality and behavioral characteristics comes right back to the shocks and how they respond to the unique character of the vehicle they are installed on. I really find it fascinating and surprising.
I would almost wonder if the Bilstein 5100's would actually work for your more free flowing suspension?
It's an interesting thought. My hunch is that the general characteristics of a given shock would still be recognizable across varying setups. But I'm not sure. Some who have had the 5100s on more than one vehicle have said that it behaves better on a heavier truck than a lighter weight TJ. That is to suggest that it takes more significant changes to make a given shock work differently than the typical changes we can make to our TJs.
Last edited:
Again, this is the answer to all of the questions. At given lift heights on a TJ all of the springs are within a certain lb'age range. I've no idea what that range is but suggest it's maybe within 100lb from softest to hardest.
However, if you had experience doing setups on racecar suspension for circuit racing (especially if its a drive to circuit vehicle) it's quite easy to experience the differences that spring rates make to ride. Maybe because in those situations spring lb'age changes can be huge and/or the vehicles are a lot lighter and more responsive to change.
As an example,I have a Renaultsport Clio on coilovers, with no change to the shock I know that a 50lb change in spring rate will take it from a reasonable riding day to day drive to a teeth-rattling track beast. Yes it's not a TJ, and it's lighter so changes make more of an impact but give you a gist of why there are a few of us that jump on this.
It's more the blanket statement that spring rate has nothing to ride characteristics that is sparking the negativity.
What length travel shocks are you running on the car? Maybe short travel shocks are more prone to bottoming out with a spring change? Or maybe longer travel setup is just more forgiving it relation to spring rate?
Shocks shouldn't bottom out as it wrecks them. should hit bump stops before they do. No, its all setup correctly and the other racecars I've had were too.
The difference on our TJ's is weight, especially unspung weight.
By bottoming out I was thinking of bump stops. Does changing springs on your car change ride height at all? Just curious why it would be more noticeable in a car.
50lb does nothing to ride height on the Clio, and I'd buy same length springs from the Eibach catalogue.
As stated its more noticeable in the car because its lighter and deals with less unsprung weight (ie. wheel/tire/brake package).
As an experiment, take off the 35's and put on standard wheels and tyres and go for a drive. Ride should be harsher as you have less unsprung weight to make the suspension work. That said, you'd be getting a little bit of dampening from the 35's sidewall but its some way of understanding things.
As stated its more noticeable in the car because its lighter and deals with less unsprung weight (ie. wheel/tire/brake package).
As an experiment, take off the 35's and put on standard wheels and tyres and go for a drive. Ride should be harsher as you have less unsprung weight to make the suspension work. That said, you'd be getting a little bit of dampening from the 35's sidewall but its some way of understanding things.
Brianj5600
TJ Expert
I think percentage of change is a better way to describe rate change. I saw a couple post where 160 lbs spring were mentioned. I tried to find other rear sprngs, but most don't show rates online. Clayton listed some 225 lbs spring which is 40% stiffer than the 160 lbs springs mentioned. Though not normal, the rates can vary more than just a little different.
Mr Blaine, I know its frustrating for you, but please continue to contribute to these types of threads. Some of us just have to figure these things out on our own, but your knowledge and insight is helpful. Even if it sounds like we are disagreeing, I think most of us still value your input and use it to help us figure out what is happening.
Looking at the rear spring only, because that is where I had my issues in the past, I have seen rates anywhere from 150lbs to 250lbs. But they may not yield the same final height.
If that is true then the Clio must be a good amount lighter than a TJ. Or maybe these coils you are using as an example are of a certain difference in length that the ride height isn't changing on your car. On a TJ, a 50lb difference in rate on the same length coil can be a 1/2" difference in ride height. The point being that there is more to this story than just a rate change and that this example is getting into apples and oranges territory.
Last edited:
I've been thinking about this comment. I agree that the spring can not create more force than the weight that is put upon it, but I have a question. Would a stiffer spring rebound that same force at a faster rate?
Correct, I'm comparing a much lighter vehicle to the TJ (maybe a little over half the weight) but only doing so to suggest that springs do alter ride characteristics. I'm also running a 475lb coil on rear of the Clio and the 50lb change would bring that back to 425lb.
Just trying to get across that the statement 'spring rate does nothing to ride characteristic' isn't true.
It can be seen as true when we are working with TJ's and off the shelf springs at a given height, however.