Cadillac Owners Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
2000 STS in Poland
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Gentlemen.

What shock absorbers should you choose? I noticed RockAuto has two types of shock absorbers that I could use:

Monroe 90007 and MA 822. The first of them is probably a full conversion of rear shock absorbers, and MA 822 does not allow the use of original electrical connections and pneumatics.

Please answer my questions:

1.If 90007 is used, how do I modify the system so that the system does not notice the change?

2. Will the MA 822 work like a factory shock absorber? I understand that its installation does not require interference with the factory installation.

3. Please take a look, is the MA822 on RockAuto sold as a pair? (2 pcs). This is not entirely clear to me.

Thank you greetings. Jack
 

·
-Administrator- 2002.5 F55 STS 2014 FWD Explorer
Joined
·
66,582 Posts
The MA822 is probably the pair you want. They are passive, in that they do not interact with the original rear level control system, so you install the Monroe AK29 manual fill/vent air line and valve kit (adjacent separate air line listing).

Your rear suspension active control systems are monitored so you need to install a 4.7K Ohm 1/2 Watt resistor across the 2-wire shock wiring pigtail connector when you delete the expensive CVRSS active shocks.

I believe the MA822 is sold in pairs.

The listed AC Delco "adjustable" shock absorbers are actually Gabriel shocks and they tend to give a harsh rear end ride quality.

Maybe basscatt will chime in - he's the resident expert on these (2000 STS F45) suspension replacements.

Notice that the RPO sticker under the spare tire cover lists codes FE3 F45 - that's sport springs, active sport variable rate suspension. CVRSS.

 

·
2000 STS in Poland
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Thank you for your answer.

I understand that MA822 is filled with air from source sources - e.g. a compressor depending on the needs. There is probably a classic air valve on the shock absorber housing, but I can be wrong ... The electric cable modifies the way you described, what about the air duct? Block outflow with him? You do not need to - each of the shock absorbers is powered by the car's sulfur individually (I think). Maybe someone from the esteemed group will still speak - I will oblige.
 

·
-Administrator- 2002.5 F55 STS 2014 FWD Explorer
Joined
·
66,582 Posts
The MA822 will adapt to the AK29 remote fill air lines. You install the shocks and bypass resistors, then install the air line kit and run the lines - T them together - up into the trunk. The kit uses a Schrader (tire) valve for manual fill and vent operation. You do the raise and lower suspension height work, not a compressor and sensors.

AK29__ra_p.jpg
 

·
2000 STS in Poland
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Now I understand ... Only from what I see in the store I buy - there is no set with air ducts and the rest of the elements needed. But this is not a problem - I doubt it I bought the car in the hobby range - most of the time stands in the garage, every day I move about the common use of the car. It does not change in the content that Cadillac has a complete coverage - and I want to focus on that. Thank you for clarifying the topic - again. Best regards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
382 Posts
The MA822 monroes will work perfectly with the ELC rear level compressor, providing that the compressor itself is functioning properly. You will only need the AK29 manual fill kit if the compressor is not functioning properly.
The MA822's are a passive shock, if you have the F45 suspension you will need to use resistors to fool the car's active suspension controls. Using the resistors will keep the car car from being governed to 90mph.
One mere thing about the rear suspension that I have learned.
If the rear shocks are worn out, the rear coil springs are also needing replaced.
If you don't replace the rear coil springs the rear ride height will be achieved by more air pressure than necessary in the shocks. This will make it bouncier than it should be.
Do yourself a favor and replace the rear coil springs along with the shocks.
 

·
Master of the Dark Art of Diagnostics
Joined
·
18,795 Posts
RVMAN is spot-on -

stick with the MA822 - air assist shocks -

the Monror 90007 are coil-over shocks - and they SUCK in every way possible -
they have a VERY stiff spring wrapped around the shock -
they WILL make the car ride like a 1-ton truck -
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
  • So am I understanding correctly that the MA822 will work with the ELC compressor and the resistors just fool the car so that you arent stuck with a governed speed limit due to the car thinking your suspension is compromised? Or am I wrong and you must fill manually? I'm guessing this still bypasses the CVRSS though correct?
 

·
-Administrator- 2002.5 F55 STS 2014 FWD Explorer
Joined
·
66,582 Posts
MA822 deletes the CVRSS and keeps the ELC system. Yes, the resistors simulate the electrical load of the shock/strut solenoid control in the CVRSS suspension. MA822 still works in conjunction with the ELC height sensors - if the ELC system is intact and fully functional
 

·
Master of the Dark Art of Diagnostics
Joined
·
18,795 Posts
  • So am I understanding correctly that the MA822 will work with the ELC compressor and the resistors just fool the car so that you arent stuck with a governed speed limit due to the car thinking your suspension is compromised? Or am I wrong and you must fill manually? I'm guessing this still bypasses the CVRSS though correct?
==================
correct -
the MA822 uses the same air lines as the originals - Plug-N-Play -
to maintain the function of the ELC system -

the resistors fool the CVRSS computer -
 

·
2000 STS in Poland
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
I checked the ELC system today. After turning the key, the air pump started and the rear of the car rose slightly. But I understand that system efficiency and shock absorption efficiency are two different concepts. Can a shock absorber be functional in terms of pneumatic functions and inefficient in terms of shock absorption? After entering the uneven road stabilizes for a long time - the left shows a noticeable leak - traces of oil on the housing. It seems that I don't need the AK29 set. Please, dispel my doubts. You are great. Thank you.
 

·
-Administrator- 2002.5 F55 STS 2014 FWD Explorer
Joined
·
66,582 Posts
Yes, the suspension control (shock absorber function) and height control (air system function) are two different systems built into the shock absorbers themselves.

The suspension control depends on internal hydraulic oil, piston damping rates, and oil seal wear..

The height control depends on the integrity of the air bladder/compressor system.
 

·
Master of the Dark Art of Diagnostics
Joined
·
18,795 Posts
I checked the ELC system today. After turning the key, the air pump started and the rear of the car rose slightly. But I understand that system efficiency and shock absorption efficiency are two different concepts. Can a shock absorber be functional in terms of pneumatic functions and inefficient in terms of shock absorption? After entering the uneven road stabilizes for a long time - the left shows a noticeable leak - traces of oil on the housing. It seems that I don't need the AK29 set. Please, dispel my doubts. You are great. Thank you.
====================
Can a shock absorber be functional in terms of pneumatic functions
and inefficient in terms of shock absorption?

YES -
and the other way too - that the air bladders leak - but the shock absorber still works perfectly -
 

·
2000 STS in Poland
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Hello

MA822 finally reached me. Gentlemen - during the conversion on the monroe device the electric cable of the original shock absorbers should I cut just before entering their place of choice marked in the picture)? I put a resistor there? Please take me in this. Is the 4.7 K ohm 0.6 Watt resistor suitable (0.5 Watt was just not available)?

Thank you.
 

Attachments

·
Master of the Dark Art of Diagnostics
Joined
·
18,795 Posts
Hello

MA822 finally reached me. Gentlemen - during the conversion on the monroe device the electric cable of the original shock absorbers should I cut just before entering their place of choice marked in the picture)? I put a resistor there? Please take me in this. Is the 4.7 K ohm 0.6 Watt resistor suitable (0.5 Watt was just not available)?

Thank you.
==============================
Is the 4.7 K ohm 0.6 Watt resistor suitable (0.5 Watt was just not available)?
YES -

we usually describe TWO methods of installing the resistors -

the "DIRTY" method
unplug the harness from the shock -
bend the two wires of the resistor into a "U" shape -
push the wires into the plug -
use electrical tape - or similar - wrap it securely -

the "CLEAN" method -
unplug the harness from the shock -
cut the plug off of the shock -
bare the two wires -
solder the resistor to the wires -
cover the soldered connections with shrink-tubing - or similar -
plug the newly made resistor assembly into the harness -
 

·
-Administrator- 2002.5 F55 STS 2014 FWD Explorer
Joined
·
66,582 Posts
The resistance value (Ohms) is the target - power handling (Watts) makes no difference whatsoever - except for size.

Approximate sizing for some resistors ........

resistor sizing.jpg
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top