Nytrogen Vs Hydrogen Shocks
Thread Starter
JK Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
From: Queretaro
Nytrogen Vs Hydrogen Shocks
I try to find old post on this but could find any, can someone guide me on whats the difference between Hydrogen Shocks and Nytrogen Shocks? other that price... i am about to buy a set but cant decide, my 2dr is also my DD so i would say its like 90% on road.
Thanks,
Thanks,
Thread Starter
JK Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
From: Queretaro
I meant Hydraulic
Terrible mistake on my part, however, the bright side is that i found some good info on this subject for anyone to use, i hope i get it right this time.
The weight of the vehicle has nothing to do with selecting between hydraulic and nitrogen (gas) charged shocks. In fact, it's the springs that must be properly selected to support the anticipated weight, not the shocks since the shocks themselves don't actually support the vehicle's weight. All shocks do is dampen the up-and-down motion of the springs so you don't continue bouncing after an impact, or prevent fast jolts from bottoming out or damaging suspension components.
The heaviest and lightest of vehicles use either type within the correct application (racing and high-speed needs vs. non-high speed/racing needs). Heavy duty trucks use hydraulic shocks because gas-charged shocks are, generally speaking, not designed for that type of use.
Nitrogen shocks were designed to combat and fix a problem that is unique to hydraulic shocks that are subjected to high-speed shock action that can cause foaming of the hydraulic fluid. Install a hydraulic shock on a race vehicle that has extended high-speed use and the hydraulic shock will eventually foam and fail. This is what happens if you do high speed driving (like racing or sports cars may experience) where the shocks must quickly react without causing the fluid to foam through cavitation. Nitrogen-charged shock systems cured that by eliminating the hydraulic fluid that was foaming. This is not to say a hydraulic shock has that problem on a Jeep or even in a regular car. The foaming and cavitation problems I described only occurred in high-speed extended racing (like the Baja 500) applications, not exactly what Jeeps are commonly involved in.
Lightweight Porsches and sportscars typically use nitrogen-charged which generally ride stiffer. Jeeps and most non-performance cars usually use hydraulic shocks because nitrogen-charged shocks ride more stiffly, too stiffly for Jeeps (generally speaking). In fact, most people that have installed gas-charged shocks like ProComp's ES-3000 quickly grow to hate the stiff ride and convert back to hydraulic shocks like Doetsch Tech's DT-3000. Owners of leaf-spring Jeeps are generally the first ones to want to stay away from stiffer riding gas-charged shocks. My short-lived use of gas-charged shocks (ProComp ES-3000) in my TJ only lasted 3-4 months before I trashed them and converted back to hydraulic shocks.
It's just a general rule-of-thumb that gas-charged shocks are designed for higher speed applications (with exceptions of course) and ride more stiffly than desireable in a Jeep. Hydraulic shocks, generally speaking, don't ride as stiffly as nitrogen (gas-charged) shocks do.
The weight of the vehicle has nothing to do with selecting between hydraulic and nitrogen (gas) charged shocks. In fact, it's the springs that must be properly selected to support the anticipated weight, not the shocks since the shocks themselves don't actually support the vehicle's weight. All shocks do is dampen the up-and-down motion of the springs so you don't continue bouncing after an impact, or prevent fast jolts from bottoming out or damaging suspension components.
The heaviest and lightest of vehicles use either type within the correct application (racing and high-speed needs vs. non-high speed/racing needs). Heavy duty trucks use hydraulic shocks because gas-charged shocks are, generally speaking, not designed for that type of use.
Nitrogen shocks were designed to combat and fix a problem that is unique to hydraulic shocks that are subjected to high-speed shock action that can cause foaming of the hydraulic fluid. Install a hydraulic shock on a race vehicle that has extended high-speed use and the hydraulic shock will eventually foam and fail. This is what happens if you do high speed driving (like racing or sports cars may experience) where the shocks must quickly react without causing the fluid to foam through cavitation. Nitrogen-charged shock systems cured that by eliminating the hydraulic fluid that was foaming. This is not to say a hydraulic shock has that problem on a Jeep or even in a regular car. The foaming and cavitation problems I described only occurred in high-speed extended racing (like the Baja 500) applications, not exactly what Jeeps are commonly involved in.
Lightweight Porsches and sportscars typically use nitrogen-charged which generally ride stiffer. Jeeps and most non-performance cars usually use hydraulic shocks because nitrogen-charged shocks ride more stiffly, too stiffly for Jeeps (generally speaking). In fact, most people that have installed gas-charged shocks like ProComp's ES-3000 quickly grow to hate the stiff ride and convert back to hydraulic shocks like Doetsch Tech's DT-3000. Owners of leaf-spring Jeeps are generally the first ones to want to stay away from stiffer riding gas-charged shocks. My short-lived use of gas-charged shocks (ProComp ES-3000) in my TJ only lasted 3-4 months before I trashed them and converted back to hydraulic shocks.
It's just a general rule-of-thumb that gas-charged shocks are designed for higher speed applications (with exceptions of course) and ride more stiffly than desireable in a Jeep. Hydraulic shocks, generally speaking, don't ride as stiffly as nitrogen (gas-charged) shocks do.
