dodge rt shocks

[RT-NY]

I don't think they ever used those on stock vans. Those are commonly used to add capacity and height to compensate for weak springs. I think it is more common to see leaf additions to rear springs, new higher rate springs, or air bags to do that extra capacity now days. Those use to be very common in the "good old days" of muscle cars to lift the rear to improve appearance (perceived) or clear bigger tires.

So, I am wondering now if it would be better/safer to replace them with the same type rather than with the Bilsteins (the Bilsteins were recommended by several forum members here). What do you think?

 

[booster]

So, I am wondering now if it would be better/safer to replace them with the same type rather than with the Bilsteins (the Bilsteins were recommended by several forum members here). What do you think?

If you replace with something else, it is likely that you will need to do some other way to increase the capacity of the rear springs like airbags or spring changes of some sort.

If you have the part numbers for the current shocks it would be a good idea to look them up to try to determine how much load they were picking up. That would make doing another change instead easier as you would know about how much capacity you would need to put back in.

 

[RT-NY]

If you replace with something else, it is likely that you will need to do some other way to increase the capacity of the rear springs like airbags or spring changes of some sort.

If you have the part numbers for the current shocks it would be a good idea to look them up to try to determine how much load they were picking up. That would make doing another change instead easier as you would know about how much capacity you would need to put back in.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding how these shocks are rated -- my impression was that the Bilstein shocks recommended here were much heavier capacity. The shocks on there now may be the Monroe shocks that I posted the picture of, though I am not certain, but those mention a 1,200 lb capacity. Is the idea that the coil spring on the shocks adds an additonal 1,200 lbs capacity above the capacity of the rear springs? Is it really possible that the Bilstein shocks would be insufficient for the vehicle?

 

[booster]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding how these shocks are rated -- my impression was that the Bilstein shocks recommended here were much heavier capacity. The shocks on there now may be the Monroe shocks that I posted the picture of, though I am not certain, but those mention a 1,200 lb capacity. Is the idea that the coil spring on the shocks adds an additonal 1,200 lbs capacity above the capacity of the rear springs? Is it really possible that the Bilstein shocks would have insufficient capacity to support the vehicle?

The misunderstanding is in what shocks do. They aren't springs, they are dampers. Springs hold stuff up like a van, and shocks resist motion of the van in relation to the axle so when you hit a dip in the road the vehicle doesn't porpoise down the road for a long ways.

Springs are rated in # per inch of travel in the normal callout, but in vehicle you would normally see just a weight which is what the manufacture feels is where the spring works the best (simplified).

Shocks are normally rated for damping rate or just soft, firm, strong, or maybe an application like offroad or highway. They are related to the weight of the vehicle though, by axle. Bilsteins have been shown to handle the Doges and Chevies just fine with any or all of the different styles of spring improvements.

 

[RT-NY]

The misunderstanding is in what shocks do. They aren't springs, they are dampers. Springs hold stuff up like a van, and shocks resist motion of the van in relation to the axle so when you hit a dip in the road the vehicle doesn't porpoise down the road for a long ways.

Well, that I knew, to be sure -- it is after all, pretty basic information. What I am misunderstanding is these Monroe shocks, which seem do both (dampen and support), at least to some extent. I suppose I would have to know why they were put on in the first place to be sure if replacing them with something else would be a problem -- from what I see online people do use them, not uncommonly, on these Dodge vans without any specificly expressed intention to make up for weak springs.

 

[booster]

Well, that I knew, to be sure -- it is after all, pretty basic information. What I am misunderstanding is these Monroe shocks, which seem do both (dampen and support), at least to some extent. I suppose I would have to know why they were put on in the first place to be sure if replacing them with something else would be a problem -- from what I see online people do use them, not uncommonly, on these Dodge vans without any specificly expressed intention to make up for weak springs.

Nothing odd at all about doing both support and damping in one assembly, but it is now done as an OEM in every strut based vehicle produced, including the Promaster RVs. Coilover suspension in race cars, street rods, and other modification vehicles have been use for decades. But the addon for extra capacity is just that, an addon to be be able to handle more weight or raise the rear.

If you were doing a coilover front suspension for your street rod or race car you would be selecting the spring rate and damping rate separately based on the axle weight and the intended use. You normally don't get that choice in the addon ones like you have, but you do often get a small amount of spring force adjustment with them.

 

[RT-NY]

I replaced the rear shocks. I decided to use the same Monroe "load adjusting" shocks that were already there. They did have to be compressed. I had it jacked up at the rear axle, but even if I used the frame rails, I think that they still would have needed to be compressed at least a few inches. I used a floor jack and ratcheting strap to compress them. Another issue is that the lowered floor leaves only a small space for the upper mounting bolt -- the stock bolt is too long to fit so I reused the existing bolt, which had been cut shorter.

Also, there is, as I mentioned in another post, a plastic shield that covers the driver's side upper mounting bolt. I assume Roadtrek put it on to protect something that runs along the frame rail there, I was thinking the fuel fill line, but I think there are also some plumbing lines there. But that was easy to get out of the way.

Anyway, it makes a whole world of difference. The old shocks were entirely worn out.

One other thing: the shocks came with a thick metal washer along with the new bolts as can be seen in the pic. I did not need them, and I am not sure what they are intended for.

 

[RT-NY]

The rear are very straight forward.
For the front, you will need this tool:

Lisle 20400 Universal Shock Absorber Tool​

​

So, this tool is supposed to hold the shock shaft in place so it doesn't spin while you remove the nut that secures the shock at the top. But the tool isn't working for me -- the place in the silver center piece that is suppose to fit on the shaft looks to be a bit too big and not machined very precisely, and, also, perhaps, the squared off top of the shaft on my shock is a bit rounded. Does anyone have any tips for getting this top nut off?

 

[youngnretired]

A mechanic friend said (maybe only for chevy's) that you tighten the nut until the shaft breaks. Never did it but he said for some reason the shaft doesn't spin going tighter on the nut.

Most shops will use an oxy-acetylene torch and cut them off. Another idea is if toy can get at the shaft either a sawzall.

 

[booster]

If you are going to change the shock anyway, just grab the shaft with a vise grip.

 

[RT-NY]

If Eyesore got crappy upper joints in the arms, he probably got the "new" version of the old arms that they now sell under the same old numbers except that the problem solver line has gone away.

This is accurate. However, the new arms themselves, appear to be of OEM quality, but the balljoints were generic AF. The only thing that scared me was the problem solver balljoints that I purchased separately, were able to be threaded into the UCA bores BY HAND all the way until seated. Blew my mind. However, I torqued them to spec and so far, 8k miles later, they're doing fine.

Having said that... I kept the original arms and installed problem solvers into them, just in case these fail.

This is an old thread already, but I am curious about these threaded ball joints in the stock upper control arms of Dodge Ram vans from around 2000. As far as I can tell, the Dorman replacements use press in ball joints. Do the Moog control arms use threaded ball joints? I didn't even see an upper ball joint available on the Dorman website for the 4,000 lb axle at all, so I guess they intend these control arms for just swapping out when the ball joint goes bad (which I would guess they do often).

Also, regarding the Moog problem solver line of ball joints: these are still available, correct? They are just not being used in the complete Moog control arms that include the ball joints already installed?

And one other question: as far as I can tell, the upper control arm for the 4,000lb axle and the lighter duty axle have the same dimensions and they use the same bushings. Is it only the ball joint that differs or are there other differences?

 

[The Eyesore]

Do the Moog control arms use threaded ball joints?

Also, regarding the Moog problem solver line of ball joints: these are still available, correct? They are just not being used in the complete Moog control arms that include the ball joints already installed?

Yes, the Moog arms use threaded upper ball joints.

The Moog completes come with cheapo ball joints installed. I personally unthreaded them and replaced with Moog Problem Solvers. This was about two years ago and the Problem Solvers were becoming difficult to find.

 

[RT-NY]

Is Moog no longer manufacturing the Problem Solvers? It's website shows them as available (though very expensive!).

 

[RT-NY]

This is an old thread already, but I am curious about these threaded ball joints in the stock upper control arms of Dodge Ram vans from around 2000. As far as I can tell, the Dorman replacements use press in ball joints.

On further checking, I think I might be wrong about this also -- it looks from the pictures of the Dorman control arms that the head of the ball joint is squared off, which I believe means a screw-in ball joint. But, on the other hand, the part on the URL below specifically says "Pressed In Attachment; Threaded Ball Joint Stud Type." I am not sure what to make of this. Any insight would be appreciated!

https://www.carparts.com/details/control-arm/dorman/rb520318

 

[RT-NY]

Yes, the Moog arms use threaded upper ball joints.

The Moog completes come with cheapo ball joints installed. I personally unthreaded them and replaced with Moog Problem Solvers. This was about two years ago and the Problem Solvers were becoming difficult to find.

The Eyesore -- I found that thread from two years ago that answered most of my questions (unfortunately, one of the answers is that the specs for these parts, even on the manufacturer's websites, are not reliable). But, am I correct in my understanding that you bought the Moog upper controls arms, put them in a vice, unscrewed the ball joint with a ball joint socket, then threaded in the Problem Solvers, torqued them to spec, and you have been good since? No loctite or anything else to secure them? One of the things mentioned in that thread is that a guy in a you tube video replaced his ball joints (on the stock original control arms in the van) and had them pop out later!!

 

[The Eyesore]

The Eyesore -- I found that thread from two years ago that answered most of my questions (unfortunately, one of the answers is that the specs for these parts, even on the manufacturer's websites, are not reliable). But, am I correct in my understanding that you bought the Moog upper controls arms, put them in a vice, unscrewed the ball joint with a ball joint socket, then threaded in the Problem Solvers, torqued them to spec, and you have been good since? No loctite or anything else to secure them? One of the things mentioned in that thread is that a guy in a you tube video replaced his ball joints (on the stock original control arms in the van) and had them pop out later!!

Yes, you are correct. They threaded in so loosely (I was able to seat them threading by hand) that I was unsure if they'd hold. However, I was able to torque them to spec and they haven't fallen out. I've driven about 7,000 miles since the install.

I chose not to use loctite, because unscrewing wasn't my worry, popping out completly was my worry and I just couldn't imagine loctite being the make it or break it in this situation.
I figured, either the threads are gonna hold, or they aren't.

 

[RT-NY]

Yes, you are correct. They threaded in so loosely (I was able to seat them threading by hand) that I was unsure if they'd hold. However, I was able to torque them to spec and they haven't fallen out. I've driven about 7,000 miles since the install.

I chose not to use loctite, because unscrewing wasn't my worry, popping out completly was my worry and I just couldn't imagine loctite being the make it or break it in this situation.
I figured, either the threads are gonna hold, or they aren't.

Thanks! One other question. Regarding the the nuts that connect the "pivot bar" to the control arm (through the bushings -- #2 in the picture below; #1 are the bolts that connect the "pivot bar" to the frame): From what I can see the control arm assembly comes with these nuts loose. Did you tighten them down before or after install? Did you do the final torquing with the wheels on the ground to "preload" the bushings? And what toque did you use, the factory service manual does not say.