Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You said linear shock for autocross. Would you also suggest linear valving also for this car in a Road Race application (Willow Springs)?

What kind of rate range at given IPS of adjustable shocks should I be looking for? Like between the 16, 13, 38, and 32 series which fits the range you suggest? Which ones are linear, digressive, progressive?

What about a non adjustable shock starting point?

---

Autox,

Tracks like Willow Springs or any faster road course will like the linear valving as well. The heavier the car, the more we can work with shocks to help performance....(Sporty cars are already built for handling, shocks are important to them but really important to guys running American Muscle on road courses)

Regarding valve ranges....we have seen a need to have shocks dampen at rates of 600#'s@6 IPS..That is over 1000# at 10-13 IPS. so I think you could look for a shock to be in this area as a good starting point to begin..Again, how serious your effort is and how aggressive you drive will help shape the shock. The good thing is shocks can be valved to do many different things when you have the shim stack/needle & seat design.

On the question of non-adjustable shocks, a shock package can be built that will give good service. However, you are fixed with that valving. In the case of one shock company I know rather well, one can purchase single adjustable shocks at a similar price and get more bang for the buck..

---

Thank you very much. That gives me some parameters to start with.

Now I look on the Afco website, how do I tell what rate and what liner curves each 16, 13, 38, and 32 series Afco shock has for my car?

I got these shock I had dyno'd below for song at a Swap Meet that were supposed to be front shocks set up for Road Racing. They are too tall for my car anyway, but the don't seem to have enough rate? Or are these rear shocks. Should the rears be 600#'s @ 6 IPS

Tests at 6 IPS and shock 100 degrees warmup..

---

Quote:

---

The 16 and 13 series shocks are expressed in valve numbers.(They are fixed valve shocks)..An example is 1675 or 1375T. The last digit in this case represents the dampening. "5" is typically the mid-point in dampening from soft to stiff. The 32 series shocks are gas charged monotube shocks and are a good shock for hard road racing applications. They are designed for heavy usage and for road racing, will resist fading very well. Any valve code config can be developed in this series of shock. They are adjustable, single or double. The 38 series shocks are initially destined for drag racing...However, we can shape the graph to what is needed. Normally, the series of shocks you list are built with a digressive code for shelf stock...(There are some exceptions though-mostly circle track applications)

..Looking at your dyno graphs, those shocks will be significantly stiffer than OE. Also, they will provide an improvment in performance...I don't think we can determine which end these shocks were built for...Probably built to an application-what someone had some success with for the car they were working on...If you were replacing stock type shocks, these will be a ton better.

Have you ran them? If so, what results did you see?

---

Quote:

---

Eric

Thanks for coming here and helping out . Shocks seem to be one of those subjects that almost everyone has an opinion on but in reality only a few actually know much about.

I've asked this question in a PM to one of the "experts" here and all I got a smart a$$ pm reply. So I'll try again.

My car is a 3260# 69 Dart, 54%F/46%R weight distribution, street/strip, pump gas 408 that runs high 6.50s in the 1/8, foot brake, 727 with a loose 9.5" converter, Dana with 4.10 gears, 325/50 MT ET Street Radials. Consistently goes 1.38-1.39 60'on a decent track. It will pick the front tires up about 10" and carry them out about 10' before sitting them down. On a bad track I have problems hooking, it will spin at the hit.

It has Cal Tracs with Rancho 9 ways on the rear and CE 3 ways on the front, set at 90/10. The front has 5.5" of travel.

Can I expect a significant gain by going to double adjustables on all four corners? How much will they help on a bad track? What adjustments would need to be made to for a bad track?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The 16 and 13 series shocks are expressed in valve numbers.(They are fixed valve shocks)..An example is 1675 or 1375T. The last digit in this case represents the dampening. "5" is typically the mid-point in dampening from soft to stiff. The 32 series shocks are gas charged monotube shocks and are a good shock for hard road racing applications. They are designed for heavy usage and for road racing, will resist fading very well. Any valve code config can be developed in this series of shock. They are adjustable, single or double. The 38 series shocks are initially destined for drag racing...However, we can shape the graph to what is needed. Normally, the series of shocks you list are built with a digressive code for shelf stock...(There are some exceptions though-mostly circle track applications)

..Looking at your dyno graphs, those shocks will be significantly stiffer than OE. Also, they will provide an improvment in performance...I don't think we can determine which end these shocks were built for...Probably built to an application-what someone had some success with for the car they were working on...If you were replacing stock type shocks, these will be a ton better.

Have you ran them? If so, what results did you see?

---

No, I haven't ran them. The lengths are not right for the front. But probably ok for the rear in terms of physical fit.

When you mentioned 600#s before, is that rebound?

What #'s at 6 IPS would a rear shock starting point be?

With the 32 and 38 series, is there an extra cost associated with custom valving; to make them linear and in the 600# range of adjustability?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The 16 and 13 series shocks are expressed in valve numbers.(They are fixed valve shocks)..An example is 1675 or 1375T. The last digit in this case represents the dampening. "5" is typically the mid-point in dampening from soft to stiff. The 32 series shocks are gas charged monotube shocks and are a good shock for hard road racing applications. They are designed for heavy usage and for road racing, will resist fading very well. Any valve code config can be developed in this series of shock. They are adjustable, single or double. The 38 series shocks are initially destined for drag racing...However, we can shape the graph to what is needed. Normally, the series of shocks you list are built with a digressive code for shelf stock...(There are some exceptions though-mostly circle track applications)

..Looking at your dyno graphs, those shocks will be significantly stiffer than OE. Also, they will provide an improvment in performance...I don't think we can determine which end these shocks were built for...Probably built to an application-what someone had some success with for the car they were working on...If you were replacing stock type shocks, these will be a ton better.

Have you ran them? If so, what results did you see?

---

No, I haven't ran them. The lengths are not right for the front. But probably ok for the rear in terms of physical fit.

When you mentioned 600#s before, is that rebound?

What #'s at 6 IPS would a rear shock starting point be?

With the 32 and 38 series, is there an extra cost associated with custom valving; to make them linear and in the 600# range of adjustability?

---

Yes, good catch (sorry about this), 600# on the rebound side of the shock.....

Rear shock settings could start at 300#. Again depends on how brave you are??? If you plan to get the most out of it, you may want more control.

Regarding revalve expense, if we have a code established already,(we have many), the charge is modest at $55.00/shock. (Linear would be in this range)...The piston is a different configuration with it's appropriate shim stack.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Eric

Thanks for coming here and helping out . Shocks seem to be one of those subjects that almost everyone has an opinion on but in reality only a few actually know much about.

I've asked this question in a PM to one of the "experts" here and all I got a smart a$$ pm reply. So I'll try again.

My car is a 3260# 69 Dart, 54%F/46%R weight distribution, street/strip, pump gas 408 that runs high 6.50s in the 1/8, foot brake, 727 with a loose 9.5" converter, Dana with 4.10 gears, 325/50 MT ET Street Radials. Consistently goes 1.38-1.39 60'on a decent track. It will pick the front tires up about 10" and carry them out about 10' before sitting them down. On a bad track I have problems hooking, it will spin at the hit.

It has Cal Tracs with Rancho 9 ways on the rear and CE 3 ways on the front, set at 90/10. The front has 5.5" of travel.

Can I expect a significant gain by going to double adjustables on all four corners? How much will they help on a bad track? What adjustments would need to be made to for a bad track?

---

Justin, I'm not Eric, but I do have a lot of experience with radial tired cars. Your car obviously works well, but radials are extremely surface sensitive, if you have power. They just won't work on a bad track. The problem is, you can't just "smack" a radial, like you can a slick, so on a bad track, all the things you do with slicks to hit them harder, don't help the radial. About the only recourse is calm the car down. Sure 60fts suffer, but that is what it takes to get a radial down a crappy track.

As far as the good shocks. I think they help tremendously and will make the car much more "repeatable", but while they may help, they won't fix a truly bad track, not for radials anyway.

I tune on a lot of radial cars, some tracks we go teens in 60ft, some tracks we can only go .30s in 60ft and I have had to back off to .40s at certain tracks.

Monte

Monte

---

Quote:

---

And while we are talking about front shocks, let me just say that every car out there, does NOT need 7" of travel and loosey goosey shocks in the front. In these days of power, good tires, good tracks and good suspension, a ton of pitch rotation, like was needed in the past, is just not a requirement these days. Most will work with a relatively stiff front setup.

---

Quote:

---

We must of scared him off......I called him 65 times today, sent him 103 emails....no response.

---

Quote:

---

We must of scared him off......I called him 65 times today, sent him 103 emails....no response.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

We must of scared him off......I called him 65 times today, sent him 103 emails....no response.

---

Hey Dude, when we talked yesterday, I asked you to contribute something positive....After 63 calls from you and 102 emails yesterday, I was positively NOT going to answer!!!! LOL.

---

Quote:

---

Eric my question is in regards to knowing when to try lower rate springs. We have a 3150lb bracket car that makes about 550HP. It has a ladder bar rears suspension with single adjustable coil over shocks and we are currently using a 150rate spring as that is what the chart suggested based on rear end weight. The car leaves pretty good and has averaged low 1.40 60fts. I believe it should be about 5 hundredths or so faster on average but its something that we are trying to get better with while not moving too fast. I've wondered though if our car would benefit from a softer spring in the rear. I've personally called two well known chassis builders and have received two very different thoughts on what spring to use. One said to stay with the 150 and they other said to use a 95 rate spring. I've seen both of there cars run and they both leave good and are fast(one def leaves better though). So with all that said, What are your thoughts on the matter?

---

Quote:

---

Actually gents, I have know Eric and the guys at Afco for some time now.

Eric is a good guy and has helped me in every way he can. He is also going to be re-valving my shocks for me to help slow down the violent seperation that is happening in the car.

Once Eric gets his feet wet here, and everyone gets to know him and his product, Im sure we will see more "blue" shocks at the track....


Jason, you get the "A"!!!!!
Im actually suprised wild bill doesnt have a set already, just based on the fact that they are blue!

---

Quote:

---

Eric... on a single adjustable shock is the control
valve controlling JUST the extension or does it also
control the compression.... I have a old set of QA-1s
and was told it is only controlling the extension
but they are old.... now I hear a lot of shocks are
controlling both on a single adjustable shock

---

also on afco shocks that have the single adjustment "window" where you move the adjustment side to side. is this only adjusting extension?

what would be any advantage of replacing the "window" shock with a new double adjustable?

thanks for coming aboard

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The 16 and 13 series shocks are expressed in valve numbers.(They are fixed valve shocks)..An example is 1675 or 1375T. The last digit in this case represents the dampening. "5" is typically the mid-point in dampening from soft to stiff. The 32 series shocks are gas charged monotube shocks and are a good shock for hard road racing applications. They are designed for heavy usage and for road racing, will resist fading very well. Any valve code config can be developed in this series of shock. They are adjustable, single or double. The 38 series shocks are initially destined for drag racing...However, we can shape the graph to what is needed. Normally, the series of shocks you list are built with a digressive code for shelf stock...(There are some exceptions though-mostly circle track applications)

..Looking at your dyno graphs, those shocks will be significantly stiffer than OE. Also, they will provide an improvment in performance...I don't think we can determine which end these shocks were built for...Probably built to an application-what someone had some success with for the car they were working on...If you were replacing stock type shocks, these will be a ton better.

Have you ran them? If so, what results did you see?

---

No, I haven't ran them. The lengths are not right for the front. But probably ok for the rear in terms of physical fit.

When you mentioned 600#s before, is that rebound?

What #'s at 6 IPS would a rear shock starting point be?

With the 32 and 38 series, is there an extra cost associated with custom valving; to make them linear and in the 600# range of adjustability?

---

Yes, good catch (sorry about this), 600# on the rebound side of the shock.....

Rear shock settings could start at 300#. Again depends on how brave you are??? If you plan to get the most out of it, you may want more control.

Regarding revalve expense, if we have a code established already,(we have many), the charge is modest at $55.00/shock. (Linear would be in this range)...The piston is a different configuration with it's appropriate shim stack.

---

What #lbs shock would you suggest for a rear shock starting point to go with a 600# front?

Is their a percentage of split general rule of thumb for front to rear shock # for road race applications? Is driving experiance a factor?

I'm no pro driver, I'm on the learning curve.

Does the afco website show the off the shelf adjustment ranges and valving types for the 32 and 38 series pro touring shocks? Or in your catalog?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Eric... on a single adjustable shock is the control
valve controlling JUST the extension or does it also
control the compression.... I have a old set of QA-1s
and was told it is only controlling the extension
but they are old.... now I hear a lot of shocks are
controlling both on a single adjustable shock

---

also on afco shocks that have the single adjustment "window" where you move the adjustment side to side. is this only adjusting extension?

what would be any advantage of replacing the "window" shock with a new double adjustable?

thanks for coming aboard

---