I did my own front conversion in addition to the rear, I will send you
pics if you are interested. I was almost sent to hell for mentioning it
before but I did it anyway and I love them.
Chad Cooper '72B
John.Hed@faa.gov wrote:
>WOW! I didn't expect to start such a heated debate on the topic. I agree
>with one responder that the rear kit (I'm looking at) bolts on to the same
>mounts as the existing, after you remove the originals, so the loads should
>be the same. Correct me if I'm wrong, but probably the genesis of the tube
>shock conversions were:
>
>1) the tube shocks were more widely available for replacement;
>2) easier to replace (and cheaper).
>3) wide variety of tube shocks so makes it very 'tunable' (i.e. adjustable
>gas shocks)
>4) due to the more common design, they probably last longer.
>
>If the above items were not at least mostly true, there would not be the
>number of kits out there being successfully sold.
>
>If I were the type that put only a few hundred miles on my car every year,
>the refurbished Armstrongs would probably do me for life, but I use mine as
>an (almost) daily driver. I have heard stories of the poor life of the
>Armstrongs. Maybe true or not, but replacing a couple of tube shocks takes
>a couple hours. Pulling a couple of the Armstrongs is a big pain and puts
>the car out of action for a good while. I agree that when it comes to the
>ride, the average driver probably couldn't tell between the tube or
>Armstrong when in good working order. It's the above listed advantages I
>was after.
>
>John Hed
>80 MGB LE
>john.hed@faa.gov
|