I know this video is 'old' but just got around to fixing my suspension on a Morris Minor and was considering rep[lacing the original shocks. After seeing this, I am convinced that there is nothing better than retaining the original Armstrong Shocks. Thank you for sharing this information.
John, let me start by saying that I get an enormous amount of pleasure from watching your videos. As a brit who believes that all MGs should be kept as original as possible, as I have done with my 1961 MGA MKII, I think it a salutary lesson to all those who seek to improve on what is already the best engineering of its time.
With MGBs theres a whole industry wispering in your ear, the cars slow, the steering is heavy just fit this or that gadget. Ignore all this keep the car orginal, well maintained with good parts and you will find the path to true happiness.
Yeah I was looking at the Spax conversion kit, as my front Armstrong shocks are dead - no damping at all but they could be originals from '72. But even before I saw this video, I've decided to go with the Armstrong shocks. Why? They're reliable, available, proven, safe, and easy to replace.
I had the Armstrong shock on my 1959 MGA had the mounting studs back out and break off. The right front wheel folded under on a left turn. I was traveling under 20 mph. I Also had the Armstrong mounting studs get loose on a bugeye sprite.
As we learned from studying WWll Navy Aircraft, short landing gear is stronger than long landing gear.Same is true of any structural part! Any long part that is constantly loaded and unloaded is going to stretch out very fast.
Very good advice to be wary of those after-market designs. Looking at the way in which those brackets are mounted would worry me even if the fixings were not loose. I disagree slightly about doing them up 'really tight' because it would be easy to over-tighten and risk over-stressing the bolts/studs leading to a sudden failure on a rough road. But I fully agree that lock-tabs, loc-tite and/or wiring are all sensible once the bolts are torqued to spec. Trouble is, I doubt the suppliers of the kit actually tell people what the correct torque is. A good video as always Universitymotorsltd John.
Thanks for the heads up in advance John! Just finally got a BGT, would hate to wreck it or hurt somebody. Thanks mucho amigo! Dave The old guy in the Adirondacks
I was thinking this, and surprised an American mechanic would admit to it, in case the owner decided to sue them for something they previously worked on!
The prior owner of my 1960 MGA replaced the Armstrong lever shocks with telescopic tube shocks. I went back to Armstrongs that have been resealed and permanantly lubed (no topping up of oil). A bit pricey but definitely the way to go.
My '77 has the original Armstrong shocks. I read years ago how reliable they were, so I had no desire to switch over to the Spax shocks from my supplier.
I dunno much about MGBs but on midgets at least you have two other strikes against this kind of system. 1. Most kits still retain the original shock as the upper control arm. This means that the original worn out leaky shock is retained for this purpose. It was designed to have oil in it. Without lubrication all the bushings wear out and I would imagine the thing can fall apart. On midgets especially that have just a one sided arm I've seen pictures where the arm works its way all the way out of the shock. Any conversion worth its salt will include a replacement upper control arm that eliminates the original shock. 2. On midgets the lower control arm is not designed to take the extra stresses associated with having a shock absorber bolting to it and they will crack if you attempt this conversion. The Frontline developments kit offers both a replacement upper control arm as well as a lower shock mount designed to reinforce the lower control arm but I'm still skeptical. The main reason why I considered doing this some years ago to my car was I didn't know of a good shock rebuilder and the ones my dad bought from apple leaked out every 6 months (that was back in the 80s). He gave up. Took me a while before I learned enough about where to get the good stuff with no leaks and a lifetime warranty.
Armstrong lever shocks were never fitted to the front suspension of a TR6. It was hard to see the setup because of the lighting but it looked pretty goofy. I don't have any idea the reason behind some one would use that installation since TR6s used TUBE shocks mounted within the road spring anyway. There are many different after market tube shocks available for the TR6 front suspension. Koni and Spax adjustable included. The front suspension has never been much of a debate. In fact surprisingly that complete suspension is used on several other cars including TVRs. The rear suspension with Armstrong lever shocks has always been a debate. Many say tube shocks destroy the shock mounts. I've run tube shocks there for 35 years and never had an issue. The problem arises when Spax shocks are used that are too long and bottom out before the bump stops. That will hammer the mounts and destroy them. Again it's the length of the shock not the tube shock it's self that causes structural damage. I've had the notorious plates bolted to the side of the wheel well as well as the bracket arm type that bolts to the original mounts on two different cars for years between them and neither have moved or distorted because I used shocks that worked within the limits of the suspension travel. Many people say that arms being shorter and the geometry and bla bla bla that cause damages but let's face it, it's the same forces being applied to the same places. I sat down once and did some vector analysis and they came out the same. Both systems are controlling the same bounce of the same wheel with the same stresses.
So the problem is someone didn't tighten the bolts and did not use Locktite. It does not mean that tube shock conversions are necessarily bad thing. I just converted my Sprite rear levers to tube shocks and the ride quality is vastly improved. It is hard to argue that Armstrong levers can even approach a modern, gas filled shock with variable valving. Technology moves on. Don't be a Luddite.
If kits are available to rebuild these shocks, the best way is to rebuild them as tubular shocks are for most of them throw away type and with the original armstrong, it,s possible to fine tune the valving to your driving style
John, I want to coat the inside of a 66 Midget fuel tank as preventative maintenance. I can see a small strainer located in the tank. Can this be removed?
I think I should say it for John the design is rubbish, we had over here in GB, came out about 82. I never liked the design of the brackets and they impart a torsional load. The system tries to get round the fact that the mgb suspension is too short for telescopic shocks. I would never fit this system or one like it, if the cars could do the Monty and Le Manns on levers that will do me fine.
Thanks John...what a horrible aftermarket piece of nonsense those are.....frankly the standard Lever Arm Shocks works really well on these....why mess 'em up???
Tube shock conversions suck. The Armstrong shocks with the three-quarter valving is a better setup. On TR6 I run the Armstrong shocks with 3/4 valving in the back to reduce independent rear end squat. I run adjustable Koni shocks on the front, on the number two setting. I run Michelin 205 70 R15. The tube shock conversion takes up too much space in the wheel well and limits your choice of tires. You want a setup that is responsive to the road. If it's too stiff it beats up the driver and the car. Roads aren't perfect. Fly It Don't Force It.
I respect and appreciate Mr. John Twist, that’s is until I saw this video and the utter ridiculous nonsense of painting octagon MG symbols on roofs..What a great waste of time, money and engergy to promote. With this kind of notion ,it is no wonder at one point he couldn’t keep his shop going from lack of business to pay for bull crap stuff.. Sorry John...but that’s the most idiotic thing to push , from what I thought to be a level headed guy,
Funny then, that half the world copied them (i.e., Morris Minors, Oxford, etc.), particularly India with its rough roads, yet they survived well enough out there!
@@FMFGUF The brits sold the Indians the tooling and dies cheap and also convinced them that theirs was the best. This was in the 1950's, just after WW2 and the Germans and Japanese still had not brought their industries up.
@@mohabatkhanmalak1161 Yes, but even the Japanese copied some of our designs, e.g. Datsun A & B-series engine, and don't forget, the British Army helped re-establish the VW Beetle factory. Fact remains, there are still a good many British classic cars still in regular use worldwide, despite all the naysayers! I myself have a 1970 Morris Minor Traveller, which still runs good with its A-series engine and Armstrong dampers.
I know this video is 'old' but just got around to fixing my suspension on a Morris Minor and was considering rep[lacing the original shocks. After seeing this, I am convinced that there is nothing better than retaining the original Armstrong Shocks. Thank you for sharing this information.
John, let me start by saying that I get an enormous amount of pleasure from watching your videos. As a brit who believes that all MGs should be kept as original as possible, as I have done with my 1961 MGA MKII, I think it a salutary lesson to all those who seek to improve on what is already the best engineering of its time.
I've had all four Amrstong shocks rebuilt on my '77 B and they work great.
With MGBs theres a whole industry wispering in your ear, the cars slow, the steering is heavy just fit this or that gadget. Ignore all this keep the car orginal, well maintained with good parts and you will find the path to true happiness.
Yeah I was looking at the Spax conversion kit, as my front Armstrong shocks are dead - no damping at all but they could be originals from '72. But even before I saw this video, I've decided to go with the Armstrong shocks. Why? They're reliable, available, proven, safe, and easy to replace.
I had the Armstrong shock on my 1959 MGA had the mounting studs back out and break off. The right front wheel folded under on a left turn. I was traveling under 20 mph. I Also had the Armstrong mounting studs get loose on a bugeye sprite.
As we learned from studying WWll Navy Aircraft, short landing gear is stronger than long landing gear.Same is true of any structural part! Any long part that is constantly loaded and unloaded is going to stretch out very fast.
Very good advice to be wary of those after-market designs. Looking at the way in which those brackets are mounted would worry me even if the fixings were not loose. I disagree slightly about doing them up 'really tight' because it would be easy to over-tighten and risk over-stressing the bolts/studs leading to a sudden failure on a rough road. But I fully agree that lock-tabs, loc-tite and/or wiring are all sensible once the bolts are torqued to spec. Trouble is, I doubt the suppliers of the kit actually tell people what the correct torque is. A good video as always Universitymotorsltd John.
Thanks for the heads up in advance John! Just finally got a BGT, would hate to wreck it or hurt somebody.
Thanks mucho amigo!
Dave
The old guy in the Adirondacks
I was always leery of those gadgets, although I had no experience with them. Thanks for the warning. That's a real horror scenario.
You tightened em up a year ago. So why didn't you fit tabs/Loctite/wire em as you say ? And you've seen it happen before !!!!!
my thoughts exactly
I was thinking this, and surprised an American mechanic would admit to it, in case the owner decided to sue them for something they previously worked on!
The prior owner of my 1960 MGA replaced the Armstrong lever shocks with telescopic tube shocks. I went back to Armstrongs that have been resealed and permanantly lubed (no topping up of oil). A bit pricey but definitely the way to go.
My '77 has the original Armstrong shocks. I read years ago how reliable they were, so I had no desire to switch over to the Spax shocks from my supplier.
Sometimes it’s not always about improving on the original
I dunno much about MGBs but on midgets at least you have two other strikes against this kind of system.
1. Most kits still retain the original shock as the upper control arm. This means that the original worn out leaky shock is retained for this purpose. It was designed to have oil in it. Without lubrication all the bushings wear out and I would imagine the thing can fall apart. On midgets especially that have just a one sided arm I've seen pictures where the arm works its way all the way out of the shock. Any conversion worth its salt will include a replacement upper control arm that eliminates the original shock.
2. On midgets the lower control arm is not designed to take the extra stresses associated with having a shock absorber bolting to it and they will crack if you attempt this conversion. The Frontline developments kit offers both a replacement upper control arm as well as a lower shock mount designed to reinforce the lower control arm but I'm still skeptical.
The main reason why I considered doing this some years ago to my car was I didn't know of a good shock rebuilder and the ones my dad bought from apple leaked out every 6 months (that was back in the 80s). He gave up. Took me a while before I learned enough about where to get the good stuff with no leaks and a lifetime warranty.
well..tell us?
+Susan Keener lol
WHOOPS, I thought he was talking about a TR6! I was searching "tr6 suspension" and caught this and skipped part of the intro.
You answered my question. Thank you...!
Armstrong lever shocks were never fitted to the front suspension of a TR6. It was hard to see the setup because of the lighting but it looked pretty goofy. I don't have any idea the reason behind some one would use that installation since TR6s used TUBE shocks mounted within the road spring anyway. There are many different after market tube shocks available for the TR6 front suspension. Koni and Spax adjustable included. The front suspension has never been much of a debate. In fact surprisingly that complete suspension is used on several other cars including TVRs. The rear suspension with Armstrong lever shocks has always been a debate. Many say tube shocks destroy the shock mounts. I've run tube shocks there for 35 years and never had an issue. The problem arises when Spax shocks are used that are too long and bottom out before the bump stops. That will hammer the mounts and destroy them. Again it's the length of the shock not the tube shock it's self that causes structural damage. I've had the notorious plates bolted to the side of the wheel well as well as the bracket arm type that bolts to the original mounts on two different cars for years between them and neither have moved or distorted because I used shocks that worked within the limits of the suspension travel. Many people say that arms being shorter and the geometry and bla bla bla that cause damages but let's face it, it's the same forces being applied to the same places. I sat down once and did some vector analysis and they came out the same. Both systems are controlling the same bounce of the same wheel with the same stresses.
Some lighting would be a good idea when making a video like this.
There can't be lightning indoors and without a storm dumbass...
-n
So the problem is someone didn't tighten the bolts and did not use Locktite. It does not mean that tube shock conversions are necessarily bad thing.
I just converted my Sprite rear levers to tube shocks and the ride quality is vastly improved. It is hard to argue that Armstrong levers can even approach a modern, gas filled shock with variable valving. Technology moves on. Don't be a Luddite.
If kits are available to rebuild these shocks, the best way is to rebuild them as tubular shocks are for most of them throw away type and with the original armstrong, it,s possible to fine tune the valving to your driving style
Armstrong style shocks used in lots of aviation applications and Formula one...
Wouldn't you hear that or feel that way before it fell off?
Solid information.
John, I want to coat the inside of a 66 Midget fuel tank as preventative maintenance. I can see a small strainer located in the tank. Can this be removed?
on my e-type it seems like any "improvement" comes with compromises
I think I should say it for John the design is rubbish, we had over here in GB, came out about 82. I never liked the design of the brackets and they impart a torsional load. The system tries to get round the fact that the mgb suspension is too short for telescopic shocks. I would never fit this system or one like it, if the cars could do the Monty and Le Manns on levers that will do me fine.
Thanks John...what a horrible aftermarket piece of nonsense those are.....frankly the standard Lever Arm Shocks works really well on these....why mess 'em up???
Man that conversion kit is super janky.
Tube shock conversions suck.
The Armstrong shocks with the three-quarter valving is a better setup. On TR6 I run the Armstrong shocks with 3/4 valving in the back to reduce independent rear end squat. I run adjustable Koni shocks on the front, on the number two setting. I run Michelin 205 70 R15. The tube shock conversion takes up too much space in the wheel well and limits your choice of tires. You want a setup that is responsive to the road. If it's too stiff it beats up the driver and the car. Roads aren't perfect.
Fly It Don't Force It.
Good information!
How about rear tube shock replacements for a TR6? Same issues?? Thanks.........
Given the comments in the video, what is the general feeling about the MOSS Coil Over set up?
stay away...
I bet you wish you had removed them 12 months before John.
Safety wire on bolts are a good idea.
..Octagons ?...
a welder might work best
I respect and appreciate Mr. John Twist, that’s is until I saw this video and the utter ridiculous nonsense of painting octagon MG symbols on roofs..What a great waste of time, money and engergy to promote. With this kind of notion ,it is no wonder at one point he couldn’t keep his shop going from lack of business to pay for bull crap stuff.. Sorry John...but that’s the most idiotic thing to push , from what I thought to be a level headed guy,
Switched off after 4 mins because of the poor camera work.
That's an awful design.
can't see!
John twist dead now RIP.
There's always some drama with British vehicles, why? Because the designs were shonky, which explains the various upgrades.
Funny then, that half the world copied them (i.e., Morris Minors, Oxford, etc.), particularly India with its rough roads, yet they survived well enough out there!
@@FMFGUF The brits sold the Indians the tooling and dies cheap and also convinced them that theirs was the best. This was in the 1950's, just after WW2 and the Germans and Japanese still had not brought their industries up.
@@mohabatkhanmalak1161 Yes, but even the Japanese copied some of our designs, e.g. Datsun A & B-series engine, and don't forget, the British Army helped re-establish the VW Beetle factory. Fact remains, there are still a good many British classic cars still in regular use worldwide, despite all the naysayers! I myself have a 1970 Morris Minor Traveller, which still runs good with its A-series engine and Armstrong dampers.