I have a 91 GTA that is approaching 100K miles. I think it still has the original shocks on it. I don't know if the GTA's got better shocks than the other model Firebird's. Does anyone know?

But anyway I was wondering is there an average life expectancy of shocks? I know about the "bounce test" and my car doesn't seem to bounce excessively. Is this a good test to go by to tell if the shocks are still in good condition?

My car is street driven so I am mainly looking for a nice ride that can still perform when needed.

Thanks,
Rob

 

There a probably worth a replacing now. They might have been better factory but after that many miles, I doubt it.

 

heh.. I just replaced the rear shocks/springs on my 91 GTA with 148K on the suspension. I was surprised to see delco shocks in the back (I think they're original in the front too! ). They were worn out, but not as bad as I'd expect from almost 150K miles of service!! Now its time to do the front suspension..

 

I have heard the GTA's got the Delco shocks which are supposed to be very good. Not sure if other Firebird models got the same shocks though.

thirdgen88... How could you tell your shocks were actually worn out? Could you tell when they were off the car or are you going by how your new shocks feel when you are driving? What brand of shocks did you buy?

 

A good way to test shocks is to take it out for a drive and feel the shocks afterwards. If theyre cold theyre not dampening at all and if theyre hot theyre bound up. The bounce test works on some vehicles and not on others.

 

Yeah, the bounce test didn't really work for me.. I could tell after I took the old ones off and felt them (I had to remove the whole rear axle assembly to transfer my welded edelbrock catback exhaust over, so I wanted to put in new shocks/springs while I was there).. The back does feel a little better now driving.. Infact, now they show that the fronts need to be replaced..

 

Lif expectancy of factory shocks is between 5,000 and 10,000 miles. If your standards for what "life" consists of aren't too stringent. If your standards are like mine, then they were worn out before they were originally installed.

Aftermarket shocks, which tend to be of much higher quality (well some do anyway), typically make it 40,000 or so before you can get a MASSIVE improvement by replacing them.

Again, it kind of depends on what your standards for "worn out" and "working" are.

You ever see those cars going down the freeway where every time they come to a dip or something, one end of the car, or both, just kind of go "boing boing boing boing" a bunch of times before the car comes to a rest? Or, you ever see one (look at ANY Chrysler minivan rear, they're all EVERY ONE so dead it's almost humorous, even nearly brand new ones) where they hit a bump, and it looks like the tires stutter on the pavement about 10 or 12 times before they settle back down? Those behaviors are what functional shocks will prevent.

Your car needs shocks.

 

Thanks everyone for your input!!

Well I figure that if my shocks are original they probably are dead at 14 years old and almosts 100K. My standards aren't too stringent I would say. Basically looking to improve ride quality if possible. I do know what you mean about the "boing boing boing" when you see a car with shocks totally gone. My car is not even close to that, that is why I was questioning if the shocks are actually still good considering their age.

Well if I do decide to replace them I was thinking KYB's. I did a little research on these boards and people say they are a really good shock for the money, especially for a street car. I'll just have to read up more on which models people liked for their car.

 

Watch cars after they hit a step in the pavement or something like that, on the freeway going onto or coming off of a bridge is a good place to look.

Watch how most cars will bounce a couple of times, at a rate of about one bounce a second more or less (typical stock land-barge suspension tuning), maybe 2 or 3 bounces before they quit. Custom vans have got to be the worst. Chrysler cars are next. I've seen cars where they come off a bridge and they're still bouncing a quarter mile later. Boing...... boing..... boing.....

If your car does that, you need shocks in the rear, or struts in the front, depending on which end of the car is doing it. Seems like the fronts of these cars get worse faster. The rears give up on the suspension-rate and tire-rate events, more so than the body rate. So you'll typically experience the rapid-fire "pow-pow-pow-pow" kind of effect from bad rears in these cars, about 7 to 10 "pows" a second, when you hit a bump; more noticeable than the rear waving up and down like the front will do.