96eb96
Explorer Addict
- Joined
- October 20, 2004
- Messages
- 3,530
- Reaction score
- 329
- City, State
- Albany, NY
- Year, Model & Trim Level
- 96 EB V6 OHV 4WD
There is no problem - they are not under inflated. The door placard calls for 26 PSI with P-metric tires. I'm happy with the way my truck rides and handles now.
And, compared to the typical 15 X 7 cast aluminum Explorer wheels, these are relatively light - I should know, I see lots of them all the time.
Jon, my point is that it is baseless to make a blanket statement that this "fifth shock" is ineffective and not needed. I contend that there are cases where it does make a positive difference, and what I'm trying to determine is under what conditions it either is or is not effective. I have a hard time believing that Ford would waste money including it if it did nothing.
From the ford manual:
The single rear lateral shock absorber resists lateral movement of the axle relative to the frame.
Just My 2c, I would not remove anything that can control or affect handling. Probably for most driving it won't make a major difference. But if you are attempting an evasive maneuver at highway speed that shocks contribution could make the margin difference between the rear end swinging out and throwing the rear into oversteer or staying still. Leaf springs on shackles probably have a lateral spring constant, and if you understand physics of springs this means there are modes of vibration. The shock acts to damp out that effect. An evasive manuver can be the step function to set the rear of the truck in lateral motion....thinking from a pure engineering standpoint. I believe these trucks need any handling advantage they can get.
The shock can be found online at discount dealers for about $55 bucks.
I'm surprised they didn't go even further than the shock & design a Watts linkage system for the ex like the Crown Victoria or this electric ranger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GSFRRearViewUnderCropped.jpg