Having the threaded cup on the bottom of the shock has to take away from the length of the interior, reducing oil volume and reducing total stroke. It might be a convenient feature to be able to set your rest position at the midpoint of the shock stroke, but I don't think it will really give you any more range of motion than a normal threaded collar setup unless you are making large changes in ride height.

 

FWIW, My tires make contact with the frame in the top of the wheel arch about 2.5"-3" before the shock will bottom out. I don't use bumpstops. If I did, they would have to be about 4"-5" long. This is apparent by observing the dirty portion of the piston rod that's not swept clean by the shock seals.

Of course, this is all shock dependent.

 

Yeah your front shock bodies are a good 2.5" shorter than stock shocks. You would have to run a really long bumpstop to be stock class legal

 

Just to reiterate what Matt said


Absolutely not. There is no way - the closest you'll get is with a Ohlins or a Koni 2812 - both of which will end up being around the same price as Motons.




The problem with the 2812 is the lack of a remote canister which add another (but large) tuning option. Still the 28 series are the best shocks for the IT classes which don't allow for canister shocks.


Penske is close to Moton - but the what your shocks end up doing is highly dependent on how they are assembled and quality control of the parts in the shock. There are many many Penske builders out there, and only one Moton builder - the factory. This leads to tighter tolerances because the parts really aren't mass produced. Penske has a good history with F1 and Nascar so they must be doing something right.


If I could afford a dyno - I'd be building shocks - there is a huge market that Koni has a stranglehold on right now and I think a large portion of that could be stolen with better valving and similar prices.

 

What? Are you saying Clubsports are not stock class legal?

 

How much suspension travel do you have with the Motons? I've talked to Renton springs about running titainium springs[lighter thinner coils with fewer turns]they will build to spec with the desired suspension travel and stadic spring weight preload of the car. Titainium springs weighing about 50 precent less that steel might give a true advantage after your best spring rates are determined.

 

I have as much as I want... or more than I'll ever need. My rear wheels droop giving about 8" between the fender and the tire and the fronts droop about 5". The wheels/tires will make contact with the body/frame before the shocks bottom out.

 

Matt, TheNick said IT, Improved Touring road racing classes, not stock SCCA Solo2 classes. I think.

whitt1, according to Moton there is 152.5 mm of travel in the front damper and 120.5 mm of travel in the rear damper.

 

If I can get the exact same damping curve out of a less expensive damper, valving design differences go out the window - unless you can argue that the Moton will be more consistent due it it's valving design.

I was just inquiring (don't want to start an argument) to see if there was proven information that the Motons:

a. have more consistent damping due to lower hysteresis and/or larger oil volume/gas pressure and/or valve design
b. have a wider range of adjustability
c. will last longer due to better seals and tighter tolerances, etc.

I can't say which is better than the other, just trying to gather information. I have a Penske damper rebuild specialist and dyno 100 feet from my desk, perhaps I should look in to Penskes and get back to you guys.

edit: one more thing, the Moton's 22 mm piston diameter is pretty small, I believe. I've seen values for Koni yellows of 25 mm, but don't quote me, I am still looking.

 

If you believe that two totally different designed shocks that happen to have very similar graphs behave or feel the same on a car in real life action, then, Houston, we have a problem. Sorry.