Need Feedback on 400ex shocks on 300ex

[Cody_300ex]

Alright guys dont tell me to do a search beacause im making this to show my dad. I want to put 400ex works triple rates w/o cans on my 300ex with the shock adaptor, I'm pretty sure this adds travel, and a better overall ride. Well my dad was talkin to a local pro riders about it and he told my dad it was a bad idea. I think he thought my dad was talkin about the whole entire 400ex front end set-up. Jeff@thequadshop I know your one of the suspension geniuses on this site so what do you think? Anybody thats running 400ex shock on a 300ex please give me some feedback to show my dad. Thanks

[cdalejef]

It works great as long as you stick with arms made for 300ex's. This is what we did on Dave Macarroll's 300. He said it actually handles better than his 400ex that has Axis shocks.
Now we did have the shocks built for this setup so I'm not sure how it will work with shocks that were setup for a 400ex. They are 400ex length but the valving and spring rates are different than what a 400ex setup would use.

[300exOH]

Jeff's right. Don't do the full 400ex conversion. I had mine that way and it didn't work very well. I now have mine set up like Dave Macarrols. I have Burgard 300ex +2+1's with a shockmount bracket and custom Elka's and it works awesome.

[redrunner]

:devil: :D
Just kidding 300exoh, yup we have both done similar things and it works great if, I repeat if you have them built for you application.

[Cole Trane]

That's a wierd looking conversion.:huh :huh Glad to hear it works though.

[redrunner]

Originally posted by 400exrider2002
That's a wierd looking conversion.:huh :huh Glad to hear it works though.

Oh yeah it works great, 9+"s of wheel travel!:D

[300exOH]

Here's a pic of Dave Macarrols setup which looks much better.

[Cody_300ex]

Thanks for all the responses guys! I was wanting to know if it was all right to use this set up on stock a-arms?

[cdalejef]

Originally posted by Lil_300Ex_Kid
Thanks for all the responses guys! I was wanting to know if it was all right to use this set up on stock a-arms? Yes, stock arms will be fine.

[PHIL_B54]

Originally posted by Jeff@QuadShop
It works great as long as you stick with arms made for 300ex's. This is what we did on Dave Macarroll's 300. He said it actually handles better than his 400ex that has Axis shocks.
Now we did have the shocks built for this setup so I'm not sure how it will work with shocks that were setup for a 400ex. They are 400ex length but the valving and spring rates are different than what a 400ex setup would use.

ive seen threads on this a few times now, and i am wondering... why if you move the upper shock locations like that of a 400ex and used 400ex arms, why 400ex shocks would be wrong. maybe im missing something, but it just sounds like you have changed the upper mount to mimic the location in relation to the arm pivot point, you have put 400ex arms on to keep the bottom shock mount in place in relation to the arm pivot. doesnt that make 400ex geometry, and therefore 400ex shocks would work

thank you for enlightening me

[redrunner]

We all know of the cons invovled with the 400 arm conersion, right? What happens here I believe is that the lower mounts on are indeed further outward but you are not really duplicating the upper mount width, therefore the angle of the shock is decreased. This in turn increaces the "leverage ratio". The 400 shocks are not set up for that geometry. In my case and the other two, we had the shocks specifically set up for this application through many dimesional measurments relayed to the shock builder to accomplish a perfect dial in.
Hope that helps.;)

[cdalejef]

the bracket makes the top mounts farther apart than the 300 and 400 mounts. This makes the shocks almost straight up and down. 400 arms won't work because of the difference in upper vs lower arm lenght between the bikes and tierod location. 400ex shocks will work but not the way that they should.

[PHIL_B54]

so the relocator only allows for the longer shock, it doesnt change the geometry to 400ex, because the distance between the top/bot arms are different???

[cdalejef]

Thats correct!

[bradley300]

Originally posted by PHIL_B54
ive seen threads on this a few times now, and i am wondering... why if you move the upper shock locations like that of a 400ex and used 400ex arms, why 400ex shocks would be wrong. maybe im missing something, but it just sounds like you have changed the upper mount to mimic the location in relation to the arm pivot point, you have put 400ex arms on to keep the bottom shock mount in place in relation to the arm pivot. doesnt that make 400ex geometry, and therefore 400ex shocks would work

thank you for enlightening me


the geometry would be correct if you used the 400ex a-arms, but geometry would be correct for the shocks alone, there are othere steering issues that arise with putting the 400ex a-arms on a 300, spindle design, balljoint location, inner and outer tierod end location are all different between the two machines

this is why we use 300ex a-arms with a new bracket, all the steering geomtry stays true, only down fall is that the 400ex shocks wont work b/c the 300ex shock mount on the a-arm is further in towards the quad, as well as less foward, wich is why you need shocks specificly for this set up

[cdalejef]

The upper bracket mounts the top of the shocks farther apart than the stock 400 mounting points so using 400ex arms still will not make it 400ex geometry, nothing will because the distance that the bracket moves the shocks out too. The shocks will be at a steeper angle no matter which arms you use.

[bradley300]

Originally posted by Jeff@QuadShop
The upper bracket mounts the top of the shocks farther apart than the stock 400 mounting points so using 400ex arms still will not make it 400ex geometry, nothing will because the distance that the bracket moves the shocks out too. The shocks will be at a steeper angle no matter which arms you use.

i idnt know that, i thought you guys just mimicked the 400ex style brackets that were on ebay, learn somethin new everyday!

[cdalejef]

Even the ones on Ebay are farther apart than stock 400ex.

[PHIL_B54]

so is it possible, if someone made the correct bracket, to exactly mimic 400ex geometry?

[cdalejef]

you would have to do some serious cutting and welding on the frame to be able to run the shocks inward far enough. That would only take care of the shocks angle, you still the the problem with tierod angles when putting 400ex arms on a 300ex.

[redrunner]

Rocket science 101:D :D
Wow this got complicated, bradley you should know better, than disagreeing with you mentor!

I would agree if you wanted the exact same geometry the cutting and welding would far out wheigh the end results, buy a 400.

Or just do it the way we did it works great! There really is no debate on the subject.;)

[countypark]

My 300 handles awesome with the +2 +1 a-arms made for a 300ex. I am using 400ex elka's and I am very happy with them.

We ran the same shocks last year on a 400 and they seemed a little stiffer. I think they need to be tuned-up however.

About the only problem I notice is I can bottom the frame before the shocks. When I take them apart to service them I am going to add another bumper to try to keep the frame off the ground.

http://pictureposter.allbrand.nu/pictures/countypark/967%20tom%20bobrowicz%207th.jpg

[300exOH]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by countypark
[B]My 300 handles awesome with the +2 +1 a-arms made for a 300ex. I am using 400ex elka's and I am very happy with them.

We ran the same shocks last year on a 400 and they seemed a little stiffer. I think they need to be tuned-up however.

About the only problem I notice is I can bottom the frame before the shocks. When I take them apart to service them I am going to add another bumper to try to keep the frame off the ground.



If you add another bumper wouldn't that kind of defeat the purpose of adding suspension travel?:huh

[PHIL_B54]

i dont want to sound like im questioning your knowledge/experience or anything, it's just interesting to me

thanks for the info