Strut vs Shock Resurrected

[wx4caster]

In light of the information I read in previous posts regarding subject, I have a delima.

My left front strut/shock is bad. Carmax extended warranty is still in effect but shocks are not covered. The warranty covers struts and the documentation lays this out very plainly.
When I initially took the car to the dealer, Carmax denied the claim and supported this by stating our cars have shocks, not struts.
As I am typing this, my car is in the shop for replacement of OEMs with KNYs and alignment. The guy doing the install says by definition it is a strut, not a shock.
So, do you think I should dispute the denial with Carmax and try to get re-imbursed? Others may not feel the same way, but I have always had good experiences with Carmax paying claims but this one seems to be a gray area......opinions please. TKS!

[fastblackmerc]

In light of the information I read in previous posts regarding subject, I have a delima.

My left front strut/shock is bad. Carmax extended is still in effect but shocks are not covered. The warranty covers struts and the documentation lays this out very plainly.
When I initially took the car to the dealer, Carmax denied the claim and supported this by stating our cars have shocks, not struts.
As I am typing this, my car is in the shop for replacement of OEMs with KNYs and alignment. The guy doing the install says by definition it is a strut, not a shock.
So, do you think I should dispute the denial with Carmax and try to get re-imbursed? Others may not feel the same way, but I have always had good experiences with Carmax paying claims but this one seems to be a gray area......opinions please. TKS!

As posted ion the other thread:

Probably not what you want to hear but......

The Ford Service manual refers to them as the "shock & spring assembly".


Most of theses are considered struts:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cars+...ed=0CEsQ_AUoAQ

[BirchMarauder]

I tried the same thing with my esp...didn't work

[Phrog_gunner]

^^^ +1


A shock with a spring on it does not make it a strut. Ours are simply "coil over" shocks. A strut has the ability to support sideways loads not along its axis of compression and eliminates the need for an upper suspension arm. This means that a strut must have a more rugged design, with mounting points near its middle for attachment of such loads. The dead give away is that it doesn't connect to the steering "knuckle" and the MM has an upper control arm.

My '91 Camaro has front struts, and they are separate from the front springs. Just to show there are different designs that add to the confusion.

[SC Cheesehead]

^^^ +1


A shock with a spring on it does not make it a strut. Ours are simply "coil over" shocks. A strut has the ability to support sideways loads not along its axis of compression and eliminates the need for an upper suspension arm. This means that a strut must have a more rugged design, with mounting points near its middle for attachment of such loads. The dead give away is that it doesn't connect to the steering "knuckle" and the MM has an upper control arm.

My '91 Camaro has front struts, and they are separate from the front springs. Just to show there are different designs that add to the confusion.

^^^^^ What he said. ^^^^^

I think alot of us have tossed around the term "strut" for the front suspension components given the fact that they're a different configuration than the rears, but you're correct, they're not true struts.

[RF Overlord]

Carmax is wrong.

While both shocks and struts are "dampers", it is how they're mounted that makes the difference. One has the damper and spring assembled as a single unit and is a integral structural part of the suspension while the other has the damper and spring mounted independently of each other. If you remove the strut, the car will not support itself, while it WILL do so without shocks.

This has been the commonly-accepted definition of a "strut" for decades, although it may not be a legally enforceable one.

[bolsen]

Have the shop that is working on your car talk to the warranty comapny.

[EMAS]

Carmax is wrong.

While both shocks and struts are "dampers", it is how they're mounted that makes the difference. One has the damper and spring assembled as a single unit and is a integral structural part of the suspension while the other has the damper and spring mounted independently of each other. If you remove the strut, the car will not support itself, while it WILL do so without shocks.

This has been the commonly-accepted definition of a "strut" for decades, although it may not be a legally enforceable one.

No what we have are coil over shocks or sometimes called spring seat shocks. Yes they carry the weight of the car through the spring seat, but they are not part of the suspension linkage. So while if you remove them the car won't be able to support its weight and will drop to the stops the wheel will still be full located by the control arms. You could drive the car and steer it if you had too with them removed assuming tires no larger than stock. Wouldn't really be safe at any speed but you could certainly move it around the driveway/shop.

Just because the McPherson style of strut front suspension has it's spring concentric with and its seat is an integral part of the strut does not mean that having a spring around the dampener constitutes a suspension strut.

You can remove the struts from a Fox body and the suspension will still hold the weight of the car, but you'll be at the max camber the lower ball joint can handle, or tires mashed into the body as there will be nothing locating the upper end of the spindle/steering knuckle. If you tried to drive or steer the car like that the wheels would flop all over. Its springs are mounted on the lower control arm yet it is a strut suspension system because the dampener forms part of the system that locates the wheel.

[wx4caster]

I appreciate the replies. I'll not pursue the warranty. Besides I like the feel of the KNYs over OEMs. Just glad to have the driveability back.

[RF Overlord]

No what we have are coil over shocks or sometimes called spring seat shocks. Yes they carry the weight of the car through the spring seat, but they are not part of the suspension linkage. So while if you remove them the car won't be able to support its weight and will drop to the stops the wheel will still be full located by the control arms. You could drive the car and steer it if you had too with them removed assuming tires no larger than stock. Wouldn't really be safe at any speed but you could certainly move it around the driveway/shop.

I didn't realise there were different flavours of suspensions using a strut configuration. I thought it was either "spring & shock" or "strut". Thanks for the clarification EMAS.

[GreekGod]

link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacPherson_strut

[SpartaPerformance]

I read the first couple of replies not all but here is the real deal. Marauder up front has a McPherson style SHOCK assembly and rear a standard shock assembly. A strut is the upper suspension mounting point and turning/pivot point, being the Marauder has an upper control arm (which is the upper mounting point) with a ball joint (upper turning/pivot point) then it is a shock because it's only function is damper. In fact it's not a "coil over" as was stated either, a shock or strut with the spring mounted too it is called McPherson style. McPherson was a race car driver waaaaaaaay back in the day (a driver for Ford) and he designed that style to save space. A good example of a real coil over is a 60's Mustang where the spring sits on top of the upper arm.

[GreekGod]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earle_S._MacPherson