Eliminating Quad shocks

[Chrispbrown36]

I have read a few times on here that people recommend going from quad shocks to duals up front because of ride quality. I would like to change over simply for economical reasons.....shocks aren't cheap and 4 is better than 6! I searched the posts but couldn't find anything specifically about doing it. Is there anything special that needs to be done or can I just take off the four and use the existing mounts to put two new ones on?

['63GENIII]

Originally Posted by Chrispbrown36

I have read a few times on here that people recommend going from quad shocks to duals up front because of ride quality. I would like to change over simply for economical reasons.....shocks aren't cheap and 4 is better than 6! I searched the posts but couldn't find anything specifically about doing it. Is there anything special that needs to be done or can I just take off the four and use the existing mounts to put two new ones on?

What kind of truck? Im guessing it's lifted?

[Chrispbrown36]

1987 Chevy V10. It is stock height.

[slotard]

I'm surprised that someone went with quad shocks at stock ride height. It's hard to know what they did to fit them but I suspect you can just put one set on. Go with good shocks, not cheap crap... I like Bilstein 4600s for stock height.

[Chrispbrown36]

I thought it was a standard thing on 87's but from what I could gather it was an option. I don't believe it is an aftermarket setup but I could be wrong.

[Chrispbrown36]

I do have the original dealership invoice with all the options on it somewhere. I will have to try to dig it up and see if it is listed.

[Keith Seymore]

They were a factory option: RPO Z75.

https://www.gmheritagecenter.com/doc...olet-Truck.pdf

Available on 1/2 ton and 3/4 ton 4wd.

K

[jjzepplin]

Well who knew that? Keith did.

[Chrispbrown36]

Ok, now that we have determined that....how do I go about getting it back down to one?

[jjzepplin]

Maybe post a pic of what you have and we can go from there. Sometimes you need to either move the outer bracket if you have one and maybe cut it to fit or you may need to scavenge some parts from the local you pull.

[kwmech]

Just put one shock on. Nothing to change on the upper, just not using the bracket riveted to the frame. Get a shorter lower bolt. Done. I had quad shocks on the front of my 90 suburban. I put singles on for a short while then went back to the 4 shocks... with the 4 shocks I had less rebound on the front end.

[Chrispbrown36]

Ok, these aren't the best pictures but it's the best I could do at the time.

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by kwmech

Just put one shock on. Nothing to change on the upper, just not using the bracket riveted to the frame. Get a shorter lower bolt. Done. I had quad shocks on the front of my 90 suburban. I put singles on for a short while then went back to the 4 shocks... with the 4 shocks I had less rebound on the front end.

This.

K

[Chrispbrown36]

Does it matter which upper mount I use?

[kwmech]

Use the back mount on the frame, that way the lower mount will have a support on both sides of the mount

[slotard]

What shocks did you use that you didn't like singles?

[kwmech]

Originally Posted by slotard

What shocks did you use that you didn't like singles?

Rancho 5000s. Had to double them up with the suburban. I guess the factory engineer knew what he was doing afterall

[patrickk1]

Shock engineering and technology has come along way since your truck was new. There is no real reason to have 4 shocks any longer. You cannot just remove two shocks either. When running two shocks per side or one per side, the valving is completely different. Buy a quality shock that is valved correctly for your truck and you will be solid.

[andrewmp6]

Its not just a gm thing ford ran optional quad shocks in the front tell 96 on 1/2 tons and broncos.I guess they thought more shocks the better the ride?

[mike16]

its in the valving of the shocks. 4 standard shocks will give it a very "firm" ride. Isn't there a separate part number when 4 shocks are used? many people who have this option either them selves or thier mechanic make that mistake

Not a bad option to have. Yes its more expensive. Hey thats the game we are in

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by mike16

its in the valving of the shocks. 4 standard shocks will give it a very "firm" ride. Isn't there a separate part number when 4 shocks are used? many people who have this option either them selves or thier mechanic make that mistake

Not a bad option to have. Yes its more expensive. Hey thats the game we are in

Mike - you will hate be for saying this but I know the guy that tuned the shocks for the C/K/R/V trucks, from when I was a development engineer at the Milford Proving Ground in the late 1980s. His name was Bob Taylor.

K

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by patrickk1

Shock engineering and technology has come along way since your truck was new. There is no real reason to have 4 shocks any longer. You cannot just remove two shocks either. When running two shocks per side or one per side, the valving is completely different. Buy a quality shock that is valved correctly for your truck and you will be solid.

Back then the evaluation process was very "subjective". Today we use acceleration data and "head toss" numbers to try to bring some objectivity to the process, but back then it was like rating women (on a "1" to "10" scale).

Bob was very indecisive. He wouldn't buy off on a valving until he had driven it home overnight. We suspected it was his wife Judy that was really the one rating the shock tuning.

He got so bad that the engineering technicians began to revolt. Bob would come out a few minutes before quitting time wanting "just one more ride". So the techs would put the truck on the hoist and put it up in the air. After a little while they would lower it halfway, and then right before quitting they would set it on the ground - all without having done anything to it.

Bob would drive it home that night and report back the next morning "...I think it was a little better; don't you?".



K

[mike16]

Originally Posted by Keith Seymore

Mike - you will hate be for saying this but I know the guy that tuned the shocks for the C/K/R/V trucks, from when I was a development engineer at the Milford Proving Ground in the late 1980s. His name was Bob Taylor.

K

keith, up to your old antics I see, You make statements that are untrue inaccurate or incorrect, you then attribute them to people whom you dislike and then attack those people for saying them. Youve done it hereand on previous occasions and on other web sites too. How origonal. It hurt your own credability if that matters. It hurts the website too if that matters.

Hate is a strong word and a strong emmotion. I have never expressed that emotion to you or about you to anyone at all. Ever.Dont know where you get that impression from. But its funny you mentioned that.I just dont feel that with you or your contributions. I just dont give that much creadence to your contributions to elicite squander and waste emotions on. Its just as easy to read anything written by Lutz, Wangers, Delorean or Sloan . or any other author who writes credibly about Gm. as for your technical contributions same same . I can get as much from other authors and SAE papers with out the conflicting attitude. where you feel threatened by others and thier contributions and resort to the antics stated above. You just dont do it for me.

What i do object to is that you behave like this here on this web site when you feel threatened and like over on the pontiac website. That web site is a pontiac web site about pontiacs, and pontiac cars owned by us members. If it was about you and your sensitive fragile ego then it would be called Keith Seymours fragile ego website, Same here, Its about the trucks, 1967 to 72 chevy and GMC trucks, Thats why its called that. If it were also called Keith Seymours fragile threatened ego web site they your behaviour would be justified.

Take away fron your contributions anything that can be sought out elsewhere with out the conflicting attitude and what else do you have? antics and a feuding behaviors. oh! and bs. Something we dont need here. You know the harm it does over on the pontiac website. Lets not go there here. Allow others to make contributions too and even if you dont agree with them may be respect the forum and the website. Try to see the bigger picture when it comes to others and ther contributions.

And another thing along the same lines. You speak in unflattering terms of several people (you name names!) you worked with and departments you claimed to be employed in. Thats pretty consistant with the somewhat offensive behavior youexibit here. You must be retired, I hope those people you speak so unflatteringly of are at least retired. Give it a rest, try to establish a positive mindset befor coming on these websites. You cannot control the outcome of every and all events.

I think I've said enough.

[jjzepplin]

EASY tiger...

[Keith Seymore]

Well – here I was so careful to not put words in your mouth and I went and did it anyway. For that I apologize.

Alas – I am not retired but start my 38th year with GM this month and plan on being around as long as they will keep me - It's all I know how to do.

I’m afraid the Bob Taylors of the world are long gone; he was retirement age when I started. If I ever do happen to run into Bob I will make sure to tell him how vehemently you defended his honor. Knowing Bob I’m sure he would be amused. I think he (and my other victims) would understand the spirit of good natured ribbing in which these stories are intended to be shared.

As far as technical contributions: those flow out of two generations of cumulative projects and GM factory and engineering experiences. That’s not something that can be turned off and turned on. For that I do not apologize.

My original offer still stands: if you ever make it back here, say for Woodward Dream Cruise, I would be delighted to show you all the places I’ve worked (and a few of the places I haven’t). I have an “abandoned factory tour” that seems to be well received by out of town guests.

K