Replacing Just The Rear Shocks

[Ed Mellinger <meed@xxxxxxxxx>]

Whew.  I just signed back on to the list after a year away.  Somebody
please tell me that decorum reigned here, until Michel mentioned in his
Roundel column last month how well things were going under Richard's
stewardship.

Anyway, Jack Bransfield wrote:

>my 95 318ti with 80k is due to have the rear shocks replaced, and I'm
>planning to upgrade to Bilstein HD shocks for a slightly stiffer ride.
>My question is whether it's ok to replace the rear shocks with >Bilsteins
>without touching the front shocks (I eventually plan to replace those >as
>well).  My mechanic says this doesn't present a problem.  But, as
>ignorant as I still am about my car (though trying to learn more) it
>seems that this wouldn't be very good for handling.  Is it wise to
>upgrade front and rear shocks independently, or should I just go ahead
>and replace them all at once?  Any advice would be appreciated.

I don't know how twitchy the ti is, but I'd say your hunch is right and
your mechanic's advice was, um, not fully considered.  If you replace
just the rear shocks with something stiffer, you'll increase the
transient rear roll stiffness.  This will have a similar effect to
increasing the rear spring or roll bar stiffness... ie, less understeer
or more oversteer... though the effect will be felt only during
transitions, and won't be as dramatic as a roll bar change.  Still,
it'll change the handling of your car... maybe better, maybe worse, but
why not just do them all at once?  A related argument applies to tires.

My only experience with this was having adjustable Konis on the rear of
a 911, and Bilsteins in front.  BIG changes in the car's transient
handling with just a one-click change in the setting of the Konis.  Of
course, that was the car that practically defined "twitchy"...

Ed Mellinger
Monterey CA

------------------------------

End of bmw-digest V9 #888
*************************