My gold 960 (Sofia) is in need of front and rear shocks, so I'm seeking suggestions for replacements. While I put King springs and Monroe GTs in the front of my 740, I think that this might be a little heavy for the 960.
I'm not going racing in it and I'm not looking to beef it up. I just want good springs and shocks for smooth highway travel.
By the way the rear shocks are NOT Nivomats but maybe they should be - does anyone know which particular models had them?
No ryme or reason for nivo
Just see if the shock looks normal or is doubble the size of a normal shock
B&g/leaforge are the way to go
And billi hds for shocks
If you think Monroe shocks are stiff, just go with stock SACH Volvo shocks to replace the current ones. Springs will be fine.
Vee_Que, I'm not sure if it's the King springs, the Monroe GTs or the combination of the two that feels like it is too heavy.
I put SACH shockers in my Volvo 960 front $100 each, gen rear shocks here in oz are over $300 or you can try TASCA Volvo in the US or ROCKAUTO.com in the US you may need part numbers
Monroe shocks aren't as good as oem. The kings if stock height will be 15% firmer. They are soft and boaty stock so it should not make a negative affect for these cars imo.
I THINK 960's up to '95 came standard with Nivo's but became optional from '96. Easiest way is to check the chassis code on the data plate in the engine bay, which tells you what stock shocks/springs your car came with.
How is the suspension designated on the data plate? Do you mean the VIN?
No not the VIN, but it's on the same place.
Here is an example from my S90
My chassis code is 031JE3A, with that you can look up what shocks springs & sway bars your car was factory fitted with.
Feel free to post yours if you want me to look it up for you.
By the way, my March 1996 960 has this bit of kit on the exhaust side, some emissions rubbish no doubt:
My Feb 1996 does not have this.
Ok so it's 021E24A
02 - front spring 9127257, front shocks 6819403
1 - front anti-roll bar 9127427
E - rear shocks 9169420
2 - rear spring 6819301
4 - rear anti-roll bar 9140491 (18mm diameter)
A - bump stop / auxiliary spring 9140490
On facelift 960's with Nivo's the rear anti-roll bar is 21mm, without Nivo's it's 18mm on Sedan and 16mm on Estate.
The second photo is your air pump, basically pumps fresh air to mix with exhaust gas for complete burn when the engine is cold. Only runs on a cold start for about 45 seconds. This is also confirmed by your emission equipment code G3 on the data plate, which says you have catalytic converter, air pump (what I just mentioned), electrically controlled EVAP system and heated O2 sensor.
Many thanks for this Will.
Now I can get to and order some parts. May have to wait until I sell the green 960!
Monroe GT are a reasonable replacement for a standard shock - what you're experiencing as 'hard' or 'harsh' is more a case of them not being suitable for the vehicle weight and spring rate you've gone with.
Both of the oem Sachs replacement options are a better fit as an oem replacement for a Volvo application.
Same goes for the Bilstein B4 (even with moderate increase in spring rate)
On the 7/9 series, the King springs offering isn't a big increase in rate over stock, nor is it a significant drop in ride height. This means that you don't need a shorter shock or even one that is happier to work through a shorter stroke. The Bilstein B4 would be fine, as would a Sachs option.
The Bilstein B6 is really overkill for this spring set though.
I used the Monroe GT & king springs (stock height) in the 740 to firm up the ride and, combined with the 9 series sway bars, to make the thing handle better (which it does). I don't want to make the 960 this way as I want the comfort on long trips.
If I understand you correctly, the same combination in the 960 won't make the ride too harsh as it is a much heavier car.
Only 300 lbs more on the 960. Don't think the suspension would be different , much anyway.
The weight difference here (on a road car) isnt significant enough to much a real difference.
The feeling of hard/harsh is due to the Monroe GT gas shock not being ideally suited to the spring rate.
of course though we all have differences in perception of what 'hard' and 'harsh' mean.
The Monroe GT gas shocks are a good match with many of the shorter king springs for commodores and falcons (they're also typically well priced at their rrp price points) but my own experience is that they're not ideal in some volvo applications and aren't well suited to lighter vehicle weights and lower spring rate ranges.
The 960 like his is a fwd suspension tower too so it isn't anywhere near the same as what is used on a 940/740..
Configuration, yes, you are correct.
Rates, not so much.
Spring rate will be similar to 7/9 - vehicle has similar weight, dimensions to the 740/940 and shares the same floorpan layout (almost), despite having a longer engine, Volvo - as most manufacturers do - tune to a specific ride and feel 'DNA'.
In short, if you drive a volvo car, destined for the same market, regardless of model, marketed for sale at the same time, they'll have similar feel about them. Ford locally do this to an amazing level. The others would be the same too.
I'd be willing to bet that front spring rate would be within 15% and rear spring rate would be very close to the same.
If someone has a sample spring from each, I'll put them on the spring dyno and confirm.
The rear spring is a monoleaf chunk of fiberglass
Its nothing like the stock coils
Front is pretty much the same though for rate
The Gold 960 is a March 1996 model, so yes a big fiberglass leaf in the back.