Moderator: volvite
rragpaoa wrote:I can add a little more info to this as well since my pathfinder was used to design and test the rear shocks, and I have used both for a while.
You guys are right about the emulsion where the nitrogen gas is mixed with the oil. The high pressure of the nitrogen prevents the oil from cavitating thus providing a consistent rate of dampening. However, during hard use (like off-road racing) there still is a tendency for the oil to cavitate causing bubbles, build up heat, and start to fade. However, the aluminum body of the Radflos help dissipate the heat better.
The remote reservoir does NOT use a nitrogen charged oil bath. The nitrogen and oil are completely separated by an internal floating piston (IPF), hence the remote reservoir contains the nitrogen and houses the IPF. This leaves the whole shock body to just contain pure oil. Radflo uses a real good racing oil in all their shocks. This completely eliminates any bubbling effect from any cavitation, and more oil volume helps in cooling. Also, the whole shock body can be used for the full stroke, hence you can get more wheel travel. This is where the cost difference is. BUT, I seriously doubt the emulsion shocks are $100/shock. I believe it's around $175/shock, so 4x4 parts may have it mislabled.
Both Radflo shocks however have excellent velocity sensing valves that is very comfortable on the highway, and handles great off-road.
All front shocks for the Pathy are IPF shocks (not emulsion). The nitrogen and oil are separated by an internal floating piston.
In terms of wheel travel, and I know this for a fact since it was my specs with Radflo, both shocks will indeed give you a bit more wheel travel. The emulsion will give you about 9" travel (from 7.5" stock) and the remote reservoir will give you just a tad bit more than 10". I don't know why Radflo has both shocks the same length. Look here for the difference:
Looks are deceiving. It may not appear to be much difference, but because of the motion ratio (the way the our shocks are angled), we get about 1.5" wheel travel to every 1" of shock travel.
One last thing though. In order to get the full wheel travel when off roading, you MUST have the aftermarket coils, preferably the OME or the Eibachs since the original one are a bit too short, AND you must disconnect the sway bars, which is an easy 3 minute job.
What kind of rear shocks would you use if you had to redo it?SimulatedZero wrote:Just to give an update for reference, I went with Rancho RS9000xl's on the rear and the quicklift up front. Cant stand it. The compression and rebound rates have decreased over time and have led to shock failure on one corner. On two other corners the damping factor is non-existent. I have uncontrolled wheel oscillations on washboard roads or successive bumps and no rebound control on the springs anymore. The result is one corner that tends to pop back up in the air too fast and looses traction and two corners that loose traction on washboard roads.
The replacement RS9000xl is excellent, but the whole setup started like that and saw less than a year of use.