Oil Filled Shocks vs Gas Filled

[64\/54Cadillacking]

Has anyone had the experience on using oil filled shocks that came originally for our Cadillacs and installed modern gas ones, how did the ride quality change? Was it better or worse?

Because I truly feel that the way our Cadillacs were engineered from the beginning especially the Cads that were originally supposed to used oil filled shocks, rode extremely soft and smooth over the roughest pavement.

I am not sure when Cadillacs started using gas filled shocks, but it would seem that the ride quality wasn't as compliant due to the stiff nature and higher resistance of gas shocks. Because I was thinking of purchasing some oil filled shocks from shocks2springs.com and installing them in my 64 and 54 as those cars originally came with oil shocks.

[signart]

If you only take your car out 4 or 5 times a year, and like driving on bias ply tires, you would most likely prefer oil filled shocks.
If you want to improve the ride and drivability of your Cadillac by tenfold, install radial tires and gas shocks. Gas shocks will shed a thousand pounds off your hefty Cadillac and take out the roll & sway, and limit the "boat float".
Gas shocks are double action and they are not stiff, neither are radials. The best improvement would be to combine new springs on all 4 corners with the shocks and tires.

[scotth3886]

Mine is a 66 Fleetwood.  I tried a couple of sets of air shocks, but they were too soft.  Last set were Monroe MA728s.  Entirely too boaty.  I decided to get rid of the auto leveling and go with new slightly stiffer springs from Eaton Springs and KYB Gas a just.  This is a little firmer to be sure, but much more control, and almost gives me elimination of the 'GM Jiggles' that drives me crazy.  Again, firmer, but less harsh, if that makes any sense.  Much less body roll. Jounce control is certainly firm and rebound is just about right.  Seemed to understeer a little more, but at a higher speed. 

I got an email from Jegs with a decent price for a stiffer, thicker front sway bar from ADDCO so I ordered that.  They were made to order so it took a couple of weeks to get here.  It was an easy install and brought everything back into balance. 

I can't double the advisory limit on freeway ramps but can get close.  The limit now is that 235/75x15 isn't enough tire.  Anyway, some improvement for not that much money.

[scotth3886]

Not me, but tempting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJPSX4esGDE

[Clewisiii]

[bctexas]

As part of a front suspension rebuild on my '65 CDV, I replaced all four of the old non-gas shocks with new gas shocks.  IMHO, it ruined the ride.  Transmission of small bumps into the chassis was vastly increased - more like my '05 Crown Vic.  I did not notice any improvement in handling - and as a life long sports car nut I am very sensitive to that.  I went back to the standard shocks and the ride returned to what Cadillac intended.  And the ride is one of the things about the '65 I really, really like.

If you are replacing worn out old shocks with new gas shocks, you will very likely notice an improvement in handling - but that is likely not due to the presence of the gas charge in the shock - it is worn out vs new.


Happy Motoring!

[signart]

There are many different variations of gas and oil shocks, not all are not suited for every application. I can say many "gas" shocks are combinations of oil and nitrogen such as the Monroe Sensa-Tracs on my '53. Except for the quick steering, I would compare the ride and drivability with any modern full size car.
If you drive like Granma to church on Sundays and creep over speed bumps at Kroger's, oil is best all around. For dips and curves at highway speeds, I like my self-adjusting Sensa-Tracs.

[Pghcc2006]

Please go with the oil charged shocks. That is what the car came with and that is what newer pure luxury cars like the G90 still use. I don't understand why people want to make their luxury cars uncomfortable 😣. Saying a vintage car rides like a modern car is not a complement.Most modern cars ride horribly. Also I would refresh all the other rubber components in the suspension as well and make sure tires are at 28 to 30 psi.

[scotth3886]

As part of a front suspension rebuild on my '65 CDV, I replaced all four of the old non-gas shocks with new gas shocks.  IMHO, it ruined the ride.  Transmission of small bumps into the chassis was vastly increased - more like my '05 Crown Vic.  I did not notice any improvement in handling - and as a life long sports car nut I am very sensitive to that.  I went back to the standard shocks and the ride returned to what Cadillac intended.  And the ride is one of the things about the '65 I really, really like.

If you are replacing worn out old shocks with new gas shocks, you will very likely notice an improvement in handling - but that is likely not due to the presence of the gas charge in the shock - it is worn out vs new.


Happy Motoring!

What gas shocks did you use and then what oil shocks did you go to?

[bctexas]

What gas shocks did you use and then what oil shocks did you go to?

Hi Scott!  The gas shocks are Gabriel Classic.  The non-gas shocks were on the car when I bought it.  I think the fronts are Delco - not sure what the rears are.  It is obvious they have been on there a while, but they are still working fine.

[signart]

Please go with the oil charged shocks. That is what the car came with and that is what newer pure luxury cars like the G90 still use. I don't understand why people want to make their luxury cars uncomfortable 😣. Saying a vintage car rides like a modern car is not a complement.Most modern cars ride horribly. Also I would refresh all the other rubber components in the suspension as well and make sure tires are at 28 to 30 psi.

Not saying newer cars ride good. I would consider an '05 Crown Vic or Grand Marquis to be a modern car compared to a 1953 Cadillac, not that I would ever want to own one. I have ridden in them many miles, and if you have a vintage Cadillac that rides better than a 2005 era Crown Victoria, consider that a compliment.

[64\/54Cadillacking]

I want my Cadillacs to ride as pillowy soft as possible. As the manufacturer intended, and I don't care much about handling at all. So no gas shocks for me in the future.

I don't think you achieve the same kind of road shock deflection from a stiffer gas shock compared to an oil filled one. I think the biggest test for this would be to drive over some railroad crossing and see how the car responds.

The oil based shocks are much more compliant I would assume too. The only downside to the oil shocks are the price and availability for our Cadillacs, they are very expensive.

Currently I have Gabriel Classics up front on my 64 and some cheapo Monroe-Matics in the rears. The Monroe's are extremely soft that sometimes I wonder if they're completely gas filled or not.

My 54 needs the front and rears to be replaced, so I think I'm going to have to bite the bullet and purchase the oil ones.

[John Cadillac]

I found some NOS Pleasurizer oil shocks from an ebay store for by '66 CDV. They were HD but retained the Cadillac ride and provide sufficient handing for freeway driving. I have been very happy.

[James Landi]

"Please go with the oil charged shocks. That is what the car came with and that is what newer pure luxury cars like the G90 still use. I don't understand why people want to make their luxury cars uncomfortable 😣. Saying a vintage car rides like a modern car is not a complement.Most modern cars ride horribly. Also I would refresh all the other rubber components in the suspension as well and make sure tires are at 28 to 30 psi."


THis is a great discussion... frankly, I don't think Cadillac did much with the full sized car suspension to provide a Cadillac ride except for the following: weight, frame to body insulation (especially on the 65's and newer) and then recommending low psi tire pressure.  Early on back in the late 60's when I purchased radials for my '56 sdv, I immediately noticed extraordinarily improvement in "tracking" as the bias "balloon" tires would track where they wanted to go, and radials kept the car going straight... but then increase in harshness and bumps were discouraging.  I recall discussing the new "challenge" with the service manager at Cadillac... he recommended applying the psi GM suggested, but warned of potential tire separation and increased tire wear might be an issue.  Since that time, when I owned many pre- 1980's models, I used the recommended GM tire pressure.  The difference in harshness over rough roads is dramatic, especially with Eldorados with torsion bar suspension.  I would always increase tire pressure for highway trips (as is suggested in the comment I quoted above), but around town, those frighteningly low pressure recommendations make a world of difference, and by the way, I never had a tire fail.                       

[bctexas]

Here is a link for gas or oil shocks:

https://www.shocks2springs.com/cadillac-hydraulic-extra-heavy-duty-shocks-50-51-52-53-54-55-56-57-58-59-60-61-62-63-64-65-66-67-68-69-70-71-72-73-74-75-76-77-78-79.html

Hi Steven!  Have you used these and if so, can you share some feedback?  I posted a while back asking if anyone had experience with these - I got no responses.

Happy Motoring!

[scotth3886]

Hi Scott!  The gas shocks are Gabriel Classic.  The non-gas shocks were on the car when I bought it.  I think the fronts are Delco - not sure what the rears are.  It is obvious they have been on there a while, but they are still working fine.

The front end on mine appears to be original except for the center link that I replaced last year.  I have no complaint with the front.  The body stays level while the suspension does what it needs to do to stay in contact with the road.  My issues have always been the rear on 65 - 70 C and B bodies and got worse on the 71-76.  Some call it the 'GM jiggles'.   It's the high frequency lateral movement felt mostly in the rear suspension over sharp low amplitude bumps such as tar strips, surfaces changes, etc.  It seemed that the softer the suspension the more noticeable it was. 

I was very aware of it back then when I worked for a local, Cadillac dealer and then later an Olds dealer.   I was quite disappointed when the new 71 B and C bodies came out that the issue had gotten worse.  It was issue that I never felt in a Mercrudes Benz due to much more rigid platform in spite of the much stiffer suspension.  What Mercrudes does in addition to a super rigid platform is very soft spring rates with very firm damoing.   Although, I thought the 61 - 64s full size GMs were better, I had some of it in my 63 GM brand 'P' until I went to Bilsteins on it.  Although I had a far stiffer suspension, I had almost a total elimination of the GM jiggles in the rear end.  You don't want so much roll stiffness that you get 'head toss' on pie crust pavement.   This level of firmness would just be inappropriate in a Cadillac so I'm trying to experiment to end up someplace in the middle.   Or to get to where the cars I bought back then with the FE2, FE3 or F41 would get me.  Or some brands would name it the 'level ride and handling package'.  These were generally very cheap option packages in the range of $40 or $50, but in IMO, brought huge improvements.  I'm trying to duplicate that in my 66 Fleetwood and have gotten closer.  If I found a firm enough hydraulic shock, I would be willing to further experiment.

Even the enthusiast magazines back then such as Car and Driver mentioned the issues with damping:

https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/six-luxury-cars-a-car-and-driver-test-from-1965-with-some-cc-pictures/

Rigidity (separate and apart from using the term 'strong') or the lack thereof is the reason the B and C bodies are so sensitive to tire pressures.  The structure just isn't there so we just can't completely fix it aftermarket.  With my 66, I still have some impact harshness at low speeds, but it's much better at freeway speeds where the car just feels level and planted instead of wallowing and porpoising up and down all of the time.   I still would like to find more of a solution that ameliorates the ride harshness at low speeds, but it's better than it was with the super soft Monroes MA728s, but not where I'd like to see it. 

[64\/54Cadillacking]

I've read up on a Curbside Classics
article how a perimeter frame is actually less rigid than the heavier X-frame that Cadillac used from 57-64.

It was also very expensive for Cadillac to build the X-frame as the center box section is extremely solid and hefty.

Regardless of frame/body design, I think oil filled shock's compensated for Cadillacs extra flexing of the perimeter frame Cads.

I also agree that the 71-73 or 74 cars had terrible squeaks and rattles and weren't as solid or quiet as the previous years.

A whole re-rationalization of GM big cars made them even more similar than before and cost cutting measures took place at this time as well.

I remember how solid, smooth and rigid a 69 Cadillac SDV I test drove many years ago was compared to my previous 72 Cadillac SDV that I owned at the very same time. The 72 was a rattle trap and the interior felt very cheap.

My 64 compared to those cars rides even softer and has more of that floaty disconnected feel that I've always loved about our cars even wit the gas charged shocks.