mateozzz

I was checking current prices for shock assemblies on my 06 TL and found that the rear shocks are twice the price of the fronts for 2005 and 2006. The spring price was ridiculous, too, so that may be the part actually mis-priced and the assembly just goes up with it.

I contacted acuraautomotiveparts.org and they confirmed the pricing was correct, but I wonder if they just confirmed that it matched some master list which is where the real problem.

Does anyone have any insight into why the pricing would be so unusual? Maybe a warehouse full of 2005/6 springs got washed out with the tsunami?

Here are the prices from their web site:

2005
52441-SEP-A02 SPRING, RR. 002 2005 TL 300.55
52610-SEP-A05 SHOCK ABSORBER ASSY., RR. 002 2005 TL 415.24

2006
52441-SEP-A02 SPRING, RR. 002 2006 TL 300.55
52610-SEP-A06 SHOCK ABSORBER ASSY., RR. 002 2006 TL 414.61

2007
52441-SEP-A03 SPRING, RR. 002 2007 TL 47.80
52610-SEP-A08 SHOCK ABSORBER ASSY., RR. 002 2007 TL 194.53

For comparison, the front shocks. It is interesting that they list 2 springs at 2 different prices and don't mention if one is left or right, and there is $65 difference on the price.

2006
51401-SEP-A06 SPRING, FR. 001 2006 TL 77.60
51401-SEP-A21 SPRING, FR. 001 2006 TL 140.52
51601-SEP-A08 SHOCK ABSORBER ASSY., R. FR. 001 2006 TL
200.23
51602-SEP-A08 SHOCK ABSORBER ASSY., L. FR. 001 2006 TL 201.75

ravenjim

BUMP
I am in need of rear shocks and was wondering if the cheaper 2007-08 rear spring assembly fits the 2006 tl.
Can anyone clarify that the assemblies are interchangeable with little affect on handling?

thoiboi

will fit fine

horseshoez

iTrader: (2)

I just checked Acura OEM Parts and Acessories Online - Bernardi Parts and they show the rear shocks for my 2006 as costing only $100.73 and the full assembly for only $179.77; significantly cheaper than the prices quoted above.

ravenjim

Thanks, great they will fit fine, but what is the difference if any in the spring and shock for ride/handling?

ravenjim

Yeah, I checked that site and that price is for a manual transmission, I have an automatic $343.30
Not sure why the auto is so much more expensive.

horseshoez

iTrader: (2)

Hmmm, with the exception of the swaybar, I don't think I've ever heard the suspension of the 2004-2006 TLs was different between the Automatic and the Manual cars. That said, when I look at the individual components for the rear shock assembly, I see everything is identical between the two EXCEPT the spring (see below):

• PartNo: 52441-SEP-A02 -- $248.86
• PartNo: 52441-SEP-A12 -- $152.93

Note, the prices shown appear to be per axle, not per shock.

So, is there really a difference in the suspension between the manual cars and the automatic cars?

ravenjim

I don't get it. acuraoemparts.com shows those prices as per side.
Just thought I could swap out the complete assembly with new parts and no spring compression.
If I'm paying that much for oem, I might as well go with koni sport and different springs.

horseshoez

iTrader: (2)

I suppose the other option could be to go with the 6MT shock assembly which I suspect would mean a firmer ride.

Edit:

ravenjim

I appreciate it. I like the stock ride and want to keep it as close as possible without breaking the bank.

thoiboi

I believe spring rate is different to account for heavier auto tranny

horseshoez

iTrader: (2)

Just a thought; why are you endeavoring to replace your rear shocks? As a general rule these things should last a very long time; the shocks on my 2001 V6 Accord are nearing the 200,000 mile mark and still perform as they should.

horseshoez

iTrader: (2)

Hmmm, the Automatic version of my 2006 weighs an additional 97 pounds. I'm having a difficult time figuring out why the rear spring rates would be different when, in theory at least, the front suspension of our cars should take 97% of the weight difference.

thoiboi

I'm just the messenger

horseshoez

iTrader: (2)

No worries, I'm just a psycho engineer who likes everything to make sense.

ravenjim

I'm getting a thump noise when braking and accelerating in the rear and was told it was one of the shocks making the noise.
Checked and everything else is tight.

horseshoez

iTrader: (2)

How many miles on the car?

FWIW, I've worked on a lot of cars and I've never seen a relationship between braking-thumping noises and shocks. I'm thinking time for a second opinion; might save you hundreds of dollars.

ravenjim

It has 135000 miles. ​​​​​It only makes the noise in very hot weather conditions.
It can happen going over small bumps and even getting in and out of the car as the shocks load and unload.

BROlando

Shocks that are loud enough to make audible thumping noise would be so blown that you'd have trouble keeping control of the car over bumps.

You probably want a second opinion. Though, at 135K, new shocks will make the car feel much nicer to drive.

To answer your shock part number question....If the shocks are the same, it might be that Acura maybe revised the spring slightly. Acura is very eager to change shock valving for minute changes in spring rate for functional changes.

So... I would assume that the 07+ shock assemblies work without much difference in the case you're exploring if the shocks are the same PN.

BROlando

Pushing the front down may raise the rear.

And/or maybe the springs were softer to give the rear shocks a rebound damping advantage to account for more front dive on braking or bumps.

ravenjim

The 07 shocks as well as the springs have a different part number than the 06.
The car doesn't handle all that bad but the thumping is very annoying.
2nd opinion might be the ​​​​best way to go.

horseshoez

iTrader: (2)

While that may well have been true at one time, in this day and age you really won't feel the difference in old, but still operational shocks (i.e. shocks which aren't leaking), and new shocks with say, 5,000 miles on them (enough miles to get them to loosen up).

BROlando

It is a fairly obvious difference *for me*. I can tell when a shock(s) has gone past its prime.

I think if you took a person out of a 135K mile car with original (not leaking) shocks, and installed new (or 5K mile old) shocks, and then had them drive the same car again (as close to back-to-back as possible), they'd note a difference.

You're right in that the ride delta per mileage in semi modern shocks is greatly minimized compared to cars built as recently as the 90's.

Its still there, though.

truonghthe

04-06 MT TL does have different shock and than AT (MT being firmer than AT counterpart) , they came with thicker rear anti roll bar as well hence why they called "unofficial" type S or Sport model.


OP you can get the 07-08 Base for soaking up bump or buying a Type S shock for firmer ride (both spring rate might be different a little but not too much).

horseshoez

iTrader: (2)

I have to disagree; not too long ago I replaced the rear shocks on a vehicle from the late 1990s; the shocks hadn't leaked and were otherwise operating properly. So why did I replace them? The dust shield has rusted away to jagged edges and they were seriously fugly. Even after fifteen years and 200,000 miles there was literally zero difference in the ride, handling, and shock damping properties of the rear suspension. I know a lot of folks claim an improvement, but unless you replaced like for like, then the argument is moot. If you did replace like for like, then my personal feeling it is in your head.

Think about it this way, does the oil and/or gas inside the shock go through a valve at a different rate as the shock ages? No. Does the oil and/or gas change properties as the shock ages? No. If the seals are still intact and nothing is leaking, then the shock is still performing to spec.

mateozzz

They definitely fit because I put the 2007s on my 2006. The ride is definitely more comfortable so handling is down a notch, which is OK with me.

mateozzz

Most shocks are significantly deteriorated at 50k even if they aren't leaking. The internal valving is usually worn out which can result in a rough ride and lack of control. Maybe "most people" can't tell, but anyone who is sensitive to handling will notice right away.

The only exception would be the magnetorheological type that use computer controlled valves with accelerometers, they should be immune to aging until they spring a leak.

ravenjim

Thanks!
I didn't want to change the handling too much, but a softer ride and the fact we don't race around with this car sounds like a good way to go. I will still get a second opinion if mine are bad before switching out the shocks.

Did you change all corners with 2007 shocks or just the rear?

horseshoez

iTrader: (2)

Sounds like you're quoting either urban legend or the marketing rhetoric from aftermarket shock companies. I've worked as a consulting engineer for three auto manufacturers, I've seen a lot of shocks and struts tested, and the test results don't support your claims. Unless you can show some proof positive (remember, in engineering circles you cannot prove a positive with a negative), I stand by my claims.

mateozzz

Changed all four. Unfortunately you have to take out the rear shelf to change the rears.

mateozzz

I may be pickier than most but I always change my shocks between 50-80k and the ride always goes from decent to "Wow, it is like a new car again!" For what it is worth, I have a MS in Mechanical Engineering.

horseshoez

iTrader: (2)

Cool, please describe the process whereby a non-leaking older shock is unable to dampen the ride as well as a newly broken in shock.

pierceman90

I noticed quite a bit of difference when I went stock to stock a few years ago, but that is also because I had 2 blown out shocks.

ravenjim

If you replace the springs along with shocks, that might bring back some life to the suspension as well.

mateozzz

Sure, most modern shocks have 1 or more internal valves to regulate the fluid flow. For example, a check valve allows fluid to only move in one direction so you could have different damping rates on compression vs rebound. And if that valve is held down by a spring then it acts like a pop-off valve, which is useful for allowing more fluid flow under high pressure so the shock could be really stiff normally but when you hit a bump the valve opens to soften the impact. These are all moving parts with springs and seats and so they can wear out and change the ride quality. Plus most of the time you replace the shock as an assembly with the spring so the new spring can help restore the ride, too.

MrLeadFoot

The shock Bushings in the rear top hat can prematurely fail when put in upside down, which even professional mechanics apparently tend to do. I had a clunking in the rear only when someone was riding in the back, and even then only sometimes. I didn't want to deal with taking out the rear interior, so I took it to a reputable shop. Sure enough, the Bushings were bad, so I had the shop replace the shocks while they were in there. About 1 year later the sound came back. This time, I took it apart myself, to find that the bushings were put in upside down. Because of the way they are shaped, at first glance they look like they should go in following the shape of the bushing seat, when in fact they are meant to go in NOT following the shape of the bushing seat, because they require quite a bit of compression load to function as designed. The shock retaining nut is designed to travel only so much, so if the Bushings are in upside down, they don't have enough height, therefore the shock retaining nut cannot put the necessary compression load on the Bushings, thus the shock will move excessively and make all kinds of noise. Take a close look at the factory schematic breakdown and you'll see what I mean.

I printed out the page from the service manual, and took it down to the shop just to show them where they erred, not to complain, or demand anything. They got all defensive and started arguing about there being no difference as to how the bushing is installed, when it is clear that there is. As you might expect, I won't be doing business with them anymore, but it got me to realize that anybody can make that mistake.

Long story short, a shock can indeed cause the symptoms you describe. Now that I know what I know, if I were you, I would remove the back shelf, which will expose the top of the shock mounts. Ride in the back while someone else drives. You'll be amazed at how much the rear shocks move up and down in their mounts, and you will understand why if the Bushings are worn out or or not put in right, how you can easily have the symptoms you describe. Once I saw how everything works, and realized the shop put the bushings in wrong, i put a few big washers on top of the worn bushings to compensate for the lack of height and give them more compression, and it worked fine. Once I hunted down some bushings, I replaced the bushings,and put them in the right way, and my noise problems went away.

FWIW, I notice no difference in ride when those rear shocks were initially replaced by the shop at 70k miles. On the other hand, when I replaced the fronts due to a leaking shock, it was a world of difference.

guitarplayer16

iTrader: (8)

Again, a shock doesn't have to be leaking to be worn.

As explained by mateozzz, there is wear occurring internally.

Also for what it's worth, Mechanical Engineer who doesn't need to use mechanical engineering knowledge to know this.

BROlando

If we're talking about modern shocks, stock springs, and street use on a japanese passenger car....50K is early.

They likely won't leak til 200K or so (depending on use). I've seen lots of Chicago/midwest shocks last 200K before leaking.

But, damper oil, internal/external components, and valving do break down over time. And shocks do "sweat" fluid even when they're in good shape.

If you took a shock off a car with 100-150K miles, it wouldn't dyno out like a new (broken in) shock.

Cars do start to "float" before the shock completely blows and leaks its guts out.

There's certainly a grey area between "good" and "leaking".

horseshoez

iTrader: (2)

Then clearly you don't know this.

horseshoez

iTrader: (2)

References/links?