Honda Car Forum

Hi All. I have a 1991 Accord EX. I live in NYC and the roads aren't great.
But sometimes, I feel the ride is kinda rough when I hit uneven pavement,
like those with bumps and stuff. I've sat in other cars and I get this
feeling that mine is extra-rough. I have 97K miles. Bought the car used at
71K and haven't changed the shocks and springs. The ride feels fine on the
high-way unless I hit a pothole or something. When I do the test where you
push down on the corners, it feels fine to me. But I don't know what's
"bad", so how can I tell? How much would it cost approximately, to change
the shocks? Do I need to change the springs too? Thanks!

Deric...

I find that the Tockico & Pro-Kit combo works great against pot-holes.

Pars

Deric4eyes wrote:

> Hi All. I have a 1991 Accord EX. I live in NYC and the roads aren't great.
> But sometimes, I feel the ride is kinda rough when I hit uneven pavement,
> like those with bumps and stuff. I've sat in other cars and I get this
> feeling that mine is extra-rough. I have 97K miles. Bought the car used at
> 71K and haven't changed the shocks and springs. The ride feels fine on the
> high-way unless I hit a pothole or something. When I do the test where you
> push down on the corners, it feels fine to me. But I don't know what's
> "bad", so how can I tell? How much would it cost approximately, to change
> the shocks? Do I need to change the springs too? Thanks!
>
> Deric...

> "When I do the test where you push down on the corners, it feels fine to
me. "

It's not supposed to 'feel fine.' The test is: push down hard and release,
if the car rebounds (bounces) more than once, the shock absorber needs
replacing. The cost can vary, depending on the brand of shock obsorber you
use... I'd say anywhere from $350 up (plus labor if you don't wanna do it
yourself) for all 4.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 03:38:46 GMT, "Deric4eyes" <deric4eyes@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Hi All. I have a 1991 Accord EX. I live in NYC and the roads aren't great.
>But sometimes, I feel the ride is kinda rough when I hit uneven pavement,
>like those with bumps and stuff. I've sat in other cars and I get this
>feeling that mine is extra-rough. I have 97K miles. Bought the car used at
>71K and haven't changed the shocks and springs. The ride feels fine on the
>high-way unless I hit a pothole or something. When I do the test where you
>push down on the corners, it feels fine to me. But I don't know what's
>"bad", so how can I tell? How much would it cost approximately, to change
>the shocks? Do I need to change the springs too? Thanks!

No doink sounds from the suspension when you get in or out of the car? In
the frost belt broken springs is a common complaint so if you do replace
the shocks also replace the springs. I don't think the push on the corner
test tells much about the condition of the shocks. When you drive on a
road with distinct undulations do you get a feeling that the car is
bouncing afer each undulation?

Another good test for worn shocks is to brake moderately hard on a rippled
surface - shouldn't be hard to find approaching many traffic lights in NYC
and NJ.:-) If you feel that the tires are skipping over the tops of the
ripples and increasing your stopping distance badly compared with a smooth
road, that's a good sign of worn shocks.

Note also that Hondas tend to have a firmer ride than many competitive
models in the same category, e.g. Camry is a much cushier ride than an
Accord.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

Sadly, shocks seem to start losing their cushioning effect at around 20 K
mi, and are ready for replacement at 60 K, if you can afford it.

The push-the-bumper-down test is bogus, as you can easily verify with a new
car :-)

"JoeBeets" <misterbeets@removehotmail.com> wrote in message
news:S4a1b.5953$rc5.3551@nntp-post.primus.ca...
> Sadly, shocks seem to start losing their cushioning effect at around 20 K
> mi, and are ready for replacement at 60 K, if you can afford it.
>
> The push-the-bumper-down test is bogus, as you can easily verify with a
new
> car :-)
>
>

No, the test is not bogus... do you actually know what the test is?

Push hard; see if the corner rebounds more than once. If so, the shock
absorbers are worn and could use replacing. IF you see a new car that
rebounds more than once, there is a problem. If pushing on the car causes
multiple rebounds, then just think what driving it would be like (really
bouncy).

I hear ya, but what I'm saying is, an old car will pass the bumper test,
will in fact be indistinguishable from a new car in this respect, but will
have a much worse ride over a pothole filled road. It is plausible though.
You *want* to believe it. I used to believe it until I actually tried it,
then I realized it likely sprang from some car advice column, providing
"helpful" advice for an unsophisticated readership. It got passed along like
an Urban Legend.

BTW, not surprising, since shocks have very little damping effect at "bumper
pushing" speeds, at least compared to the total damping that occurs from all
other components--springs, bushings, etc. I'm fairly certain this test would
not even detect a missing shock. Someone please try this and let us know :-)

Rant follows: Furthermore, since their resistance, and hence ability to
absorb energy, increases with velocity, the "shock" in shock absorber is
*not* a misnomer, not inferior to "damper", as is sometimes claimed, but a
very apt term.

And I especially don't believe the high dollar shocks last any longer; at
least not long enough to justify the money, compared to OEM quality. But
neither am I surpised that they sell so well. Better to spend half as much
and change them twice as often :-)
--

Misterbeets wrote:

> I hear ya, but what I'm saying is, an old car will pass the bumper test,
> will in fact be indistinguishable from a new car in this respect, but will
> have a much worse ride over a pothole filled road. It is plausible though.
> You *want* to believe it. I used to believe it until I actually tried it,
> then I realized it likely sprang from some car advice column, providing
> "helpful" advice for an unsophisticated readership. It got passed along like
> an Urban Legend.
>
> BTW, not surprising, since shocks have very little damping effect at "bumper
> pushing" speeds, at least compared to the total damping that occurs from all
> other components--springs, bushings, etc. I'm fairly certain this test would
> not even detect a missing shock. Someone please try this and let us know :-)

Ummm, I don't think springs have damping. Bushings might have a little
if they are soft.

>
> Rant follows: Furthermore, since their resistance, and hence ability to
> absorb energy, increases with velocity, the "shock" in shock absorber is
> *not* a misnomer, not inferior to "damper", as is sometimes claimed, but a
> very apt term.
>
> And I especially don't believe the high dollar shocks last any longer; at
> least not long enough to justify the money, compared to OEM quality. But
> neither am I surpised that they sell so well. Better to spend half as much
> and change them twice as often :-)

The other thing I might want to mention is that if you try to push just
one corner of the car, the motion is going to couple into the other
shocks as well. So I wonder if you can really tell if just that one
shock is bad. I suppose if both front or both rear are bad, you can
press down in the middle of the bumper and it won't couple into the
other wheels.

So if the bounce test is no good, how are you suppose to tell if your
shocks went bad? My bro sez that my shocks feel under-damped, but the
car does fine on the bounce test.