As members may know I use the Black oem Tokicos on the front with Eibach springs and Blue tokico on the rear on my 90 Q.
Noticed that the front was swaying badly [again] [just changed the shocks 3 years ago next week]- 53,000miles].
Changed them again today, problems immediately disappeared.
They were changed previously at: 60k Blues, 125k Blues, 200k Blacks and now 253k Blacks............it appears that with my driving style the Blues out last the Blacks by only 15k at most, but one must assume the Eibach springs accelerate the wear!.......never had the Q lowered with Blues on the front.
Point is it is even hard for me to remember or accept the fast wear rates I always spend some time checking bushings and upper links and tires.
Including FSB removal I did both in 45 minutes once the car was on the rack.........much easier with Eibachs.
Changed the rear Blues last December after 55k [about 13k ago]......they were flat also offering very very slow expansion [Nitrogen gone ].
I know this may seem excessive but you just can't feel the slow pregressive decline till after the replacement!
Front shocks
-
sijoko
- Posts: 961
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 6:54 am
- Car: Black 1994 Infiniti Q45 Turbo, Pearl White 2014 Maxima Sport
- Contact:
I noticed that the Tokico Blues on my car are starting to go as well. I have put about 50k miles on them with Eibachs.
I wish that there was another brand that we could try. But I can't really complain since the struts aren't that expensive.
I saw all 4 struts on Ebay for $260. Not too bad.
Sometimes I get this crazy idea to put in air struts with an onboard controller. But I have no experience with them and don't know how the Q would handle with that type of setup.
I wish that there was another brand that we could try. But I can't really complain since the struts aren't that expensive.
I saw all 4 struts on Ebay for $260. Not too bad.
Sometimes I get this crazy idea to put in air struts with an onboard controller. But I have no experience with them and don't know how the Q would handle with that type of setup.
-
Q45tech
- Moderator
- Posts: 14296
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 3:19 am
- Car: 1990 Q45 342,400 miles 22 years ownership with original engine
1995 G20t 5 speed 334,000 miles 16" 2002 wheels - 205/50/16 Sr20ve vvl
Nobody said it was easy or cheap to maintain old cars to performance standards.
When you add up all the wear and tear items every 50,000 miles: shocks, rotors, pads, tires, upper links, tension rods, all the rubber bushiings, engine and transmission and diff mounts, belts, idler pulleys, and the prorated portions of major components [what replacement wear has occured over the 50k]...........one is lucky to get by with only $5,000 in parts per 50,000 miles............after all the new car dropped 50% in value over that period.......where did that $25,000 go in 3 years.
4000 pound V8 lux cars [with cutting edge power or handling] are not for everyone.
When you add up all the wear and tear items every 50,000 miles: shocks, rotors, pads, tires, upper links, tension rods, all the rubber bushiings, engine and transmission and diff mounts, belts, idler pulleys, and the prorated portions of major components [what replacement wear has occured over the 50k]...........one is lucky to get by with only $5,000 in parts per 50,000 miles............after all the new car dropped 50% in value over that period.......where did that $25,000 go in 3 years.
4000 pound V8 lux cars [with cutting edge power or handling] are not for everyone.
-
s13sr20chris
- Posts: 4148
- Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 9:32 am
- Car: '89 Nissan S13 w/redtop running 13psi and not leaking fuel anymore
- Contact:
-
Q45tech
- Moderator
- Posts: 14296
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 3:19 am
- Car: 1990 Q45 342,400 miles 22 years ownership with original engine
1995 G20t 5 speed 334,000 miles 16" 2002 wheels - 205/50/16 Sr20ve vvl
Am I missing something $300 worth of shocks every 50,000 miles is such a small amount compared to the other $5700 in prorated parts.
Tires should cost over $1,000 every 50kTranny wear cost over $700 {based on parts cost to replace}Engine wear is $600 {based on parts cost to replace}
Why do you think Q depreciate $3,000 per year when the prices drop to $18,000.
Air shocks booster bags really?
Tires should cost over $1,000 every 50kTranny wear cost over $700 {based on parts cost to replace}Engine wear is $600 {based on parts cost to replace}
Why do you think Q depreciate $3,000 per year when the prices drop to $18,000.
Air shocks booster bags really?
Q45 Tech,
Did you realize that Carrera is located in the Atlanta area? I bet they would be willing to build a set of shocks for you that exactly meet your specs. You could have up rated shocks to sell through T3.
Bigger shock tubes with adjustable compression and rebound valves? Better attenuation with a smaller input motion for your Eibachs.
That and the specs for the aluminum radiator.
Did you realize that Carrera is located in the Atlanta area? I bet they would be willing to build a set of shocks for you that exactly meet your specs. You could have up rated shocks to sell through T3.
Bigger shock tubes with adjustable compression and rebound valves? Better attenuation with a smaller input motion for your Eibachs.
That and the specs for the aluminum radiator.
-
diamondj30
- Posts: 830
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2002 10:49 am
- Car: Not to low , not to high , just right .
- Location: 3rd world seattle
- Contact:
imho,tokico-bad.probubly the fastest wearing shock on the market.seems to me i remember saying this years ago now.eibach purfect match.weak springs for weak shocks.kinda a drag to learn the hard way.i can see high school kids buying this stuff.as a matter of fact i know one,he now runs h&r and koni.i dont no who is sucking you all into the tokico trap.but definetely bad karma.
-
Q45tech
- Moderator
- Posts: 14296
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 3:19 am
- Car: 1990 Q45 342,400 miles 22 years ownership with original engine
1995 G20t 5 speed 334,000 miles 16" 2002 wheels - 205/50/16 Sr20ve vvl
Even every 30k for those inclined to perfection.
I agree the combo is not perfect, just good for the price.Actually for a year I experimented with combinations of oem and Eibachs on differing ends and differing shock rates with differing springs that how I arrived at my mixture. I had 3 different rate rear sway bars plus none plus two different rate front bars mixed and matched with the springs and shocks.
How many have tried 8 combinations on front [2 spings x 2 shocks, times 2 sway bars] plus 16 combinations on rear.
I feel some justification in offering my version of the CORRECT modification and component selection.
I agree the combo is not perfect, just good for the price.Actually for a year I experimented with combinations of oem and Eibachs on differing ends and differing shock rates with differing springs that how I arrived at my mixture. I had 3 different rate rear sway bars plus none plus two different rate front bars mixed and matched with the springs and shocks.
How many have tried 8 combinations on front [2 spings x 2 shocks, times 2 sway bars] plus 16 combinations on rear.
I feel some justification in offering my version of the CORRECT modification and component selection.
-
diamondj30
- Posts: 830
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2002 10:49 am
- Car: Not to low , not to high , just right .
- Location: 3rd world seattle
- Contact:
if you cant find it.make them.id like to know what was tried by tech.save me from the seach buttons.so i take it you ran bilsteens.why doesnt anyone take dimensions and have manufaturer,whoever,have them match them up.thats what i did.explain your pain to them in finding parts and that there will be alot of people using the mod.or that you will pass it on.or post them,and i will call koni,since im going to be talking to them soon.personallky i prefer a 35% springs over stock.i paid 110 a coil to have made. is this out of reach price wise for custom springs.not to me.
-
sijoko
- Posts: 961
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 6:54 am
- Car: Black 1994 Infiniti Q45 Turbo, Pearl White 2014 Maxima Sport
- Contact:
Are there any other brands of struts that can fit the Q?
I remember on the site for B.A.D. that they mentioned something about Bilsteins for the Q. But the site and the company is gone.
I have no complaints with the Tokico Blues and Eibachs. They bring out the sporting side of the car without being too harsh.
My question about the air struts was not about saving money, but rather to explore different options. If I wanted to save money, I would not drive a luxury car.
I remember on the site for B.A.D. that they mentioned something about Bilsteins for the Q. But the site and the company is gone.
I have no complaints with the Tokico Blues and Eibachs. They bring out the sporting side of the car without being too harsh.
My question about the air struts was not about saving money, but rather to explore different options. If I wanted to save money, I would not drive a luxury car.
-
Q45tech
- Moderator
- Posts: 14296
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 3:19 am
- Car: 1990 Q45 342,400 miles 22 years ownership with original engine
1995 G20t 5 speed 334,000 miles 16" 2002 wheels - 205/50/16 Sr20ve vvl
Nissan had choices when they designed the suspension BUT the legacy of Tokico relationship and the need to standardize [240,300, J30, Q45] rear suspension concept and design forced compromises.
Back in the mid 80's FFT [fast fourier transform] computer time was expensive and they probably dropped $10,000,000 just tweaking the rear system........so with slight mods [length of swing arms and bushings and coil shock stiffness] the design was used across the line.
After all the purpose of springs is just to hold the body up and make sure tires are force down to the road and don't lose contact over bumps.
Because owners can't redesign the swing arms or attachment points they focus on springs and shocks .........which by themselves have little to do with handling!The body weight , its distribution, and tires control 90% of what's possible. Varying choices of springs and shocks make up 5% at most and the remainder is the static alignment settings.
Transitional feel and response to directional changes are affected by spring/shock relationships but whether one equiweight car corners at 0.8G and another at 0.75G is mostly tires.
Lowering a car just lowers the center of gravivity which must be divide by the track width to arrive at a percentage of weight transfer. 22/61=0.3606557 vs 21/61=0.3442622. With 1200 pounds the difference will be a MASSIVE 16 pounds difference.
On the rear as the roll center and center of gravity is higher the difference would be double to 30-35 pounds variation on the tires.Obviously a 2" lowering would be double a 1" lowering.
Not sure lab equipment is precise enough to measure the minute slip angle changes that +- 16 pounds makes on a 1500 pound loaded tire ........usually the relationship tracks: thus +-1%.
Tire Rack testing of lowering springs tends to confirm that at most and differing brands yields a 1-1.5-maybe 1.75% change in handling. They do however show double this or more in braking, which is logical, since 40% of rear weight is shifted due to high rear roll center/CofG............[rear shock rebound stiffness is very important in braking to slow the weight transfer]. [Why I use the blues on the rear].
From worst to best tires in the SAME SIZE probably have a 6-8% variation and in the same performance category [V/Z/W] probably only 3% at most..........whether you do the slalom test in 31 or 32 seconds or 33 second on all season or 34 seconds on the cheapest of cheap. Spring/shock differences would be measure in less than a second variation.
Same with sway bars and any combination would be less than 2% from none to best.
A Q with the softest tires [like oem 170 treadwear] and no mods [just new oem shocks] could easily go faster [slalom/ lane change/brake test, etc] than a Q with every suspension mod available on HARD[300-400] all season tires.....even one lowered 2"..............a soft 15" tired Q could easily out do a harder 17" tired Q.......EVEN ones on lighter wheels [so the tire/wheel weights were identical!
Back in the mid 80's FFT [fast fourier transform] computer time was expensive and they probably dropped $10,000,000 just tweaking the rear system........so with slight mods [length of swing arms and bushings and coil shock stiffness] the design was used across the line.
After all the purpose of springs is just to hold the body up and make sure tires are force down to the road and don't lose contact over bumps.
Because owners can't redesign the swing arms or attachment points they focus on springs and shocks .........which by themselves have little to do with handling!The body weight , its distribution, and tires control 90% of what's possible. Varying choices of springs and shocks make up 5% at most and the remainder is the static alignment settings.
Transitional feel and response to directional changes are affected by spring/shock relationships but whether one equiweight car corners at 0.8G and another at 0.75G is mostly tires.
Lowering a car just lowers the center of gravivity which must be divide by the track width to arrive at a percentage of weight transfer. 22/61=0.3606557 vs 21/61=0.3442622. With 1200 pounds the difference will be a MASSIVE 16 pounds difference.
On the rear as the roll center and center of gravity is higher the difference would be double to 30-35 pounds variation on the tires.Obviously a 2" lowering would be double a 1" lowering.
Not sure lab equipment is precise enough to measure the minute slip angle changes that +- 16 pounds makes on a 1500 pound loaded tire ........usually the relationship tracks: thus +-1%.
Tire Rack testing of lowering springs tends to confirm that at most and differing brands yields a 1-1.5-maybe 1.75% change in handling. They do however show double this or more in braking, which is logical, since 40% of rear weight is shifted due to high rear roll center/CofG............[rear shock rebound stiffness is very important in braking to slow the weight transfer]. [Why I use the blues on the rear].
From worst to best tires in the SAME SIZE probably have a 6-8% variation and in the same performance category [V/Z/W] probably only 3% at most..........whether you do the slalom test in 31 or 32 seconds or 33 second on all season or 34 seconds on the cheapest of cheap. Spring/shock differences would be measure in less than a second variation.
Same with sway bars and any combination would be less than 2% from none to best.
A Q with the softest tires [like oem 170 treadwear] and no mods [just new oem shocks] could easily go faster [slalom/ lane change/brake test, etc] than a Q with every suspension mod available on HARD[300-400] all season tires.....even one lowered 2"..............a soft 15" tired Q could easily out do a harder 17" tired Q.......EVEN ones on lighter wheels [so the tire/wheel weights were identical!