Replace one strut OK?

[Gavin Allan]

Guy at work is having repair work done on his car after a crash. They are replacing only one front strut on the side that was damaged. He said he asked the shop about replacing them in pairs, but the guiy told him that was old thinking- that the current industry standard is to replace only damaged struts or obvious leaking struts with like model/manufacturer (in this case -OEM). The guy told him this is fine and he won't notice a thing, and the car will be fine.

The car is a 2010 Toyota Camry with 68,000 miles on it. Should he replace the other strut on his own?

 

[Richard L]

Gavin,

The difference is a worn out strut vs an accident damage strut. Since the vehicle was in an accident that damaged the strut and it was not worn out. Insurance usually will only pay to replace the damaged parts because it is assumed that the both struts were in good working order prior to the accident.



Now, in the case of a worn out strut, then it only makes sense to replace both struts since it is likely that the other strut is nearly worn out too.



...Rich

 

[Ed Fenwick]

I think that it is always a good idea to replace in pairs.

Ed

 

[EddieS'04]

When you get close to 40K miles. always go in pairs. The shop is either ripping off the $$ for the other side. Or the insurance company is doing it. If it is the other guys fault I would come down on them in a heart beat.



I have only had body shops say one strut or shock was good. When the car was vary low milage. The shop is full of it. Needs investigating.

 

[Richard L]

Gavin,



Again. No need to change a strut if neither are wore out. If one is worn out, then you probably should replace both...but you don't need to replace both because one was damaged in an accident.



If you damage a fender in an accident, the insurance company is not going to pay to replace both fenders?? That's why they only pay to repair accident damaged parts, not worn parts



My 2002 Toyota has 168K miles on it with the original struts and it drives and handles like new. I gave it to my daughter a few weeks ago and she had her mechanic friend (works at a Lincoln dealership) and he said everything was fine...just needed new brake pads on all 4 wheels and a front end alignment.



Yes some cars need new struts or shocks as soon as they drive off the assembly line, but Toyota's seem to last much, much longer.



...Rich

 

[Gavin Allan]

Richard's explanation seems to make sense why they do it that way. I guess it is a tossup if he wants to pay more money and have the other strut replaced. If this shop would do it now, he could save on a second alignment.



I've always been leary of replacing one side with new parts, and not the other for mechanical, active parts. I can understand not replacing cosmetic parts. I have always been thinking like the two Ed's that you replace both sides with the same part number at the same time.



If I think about it- folks replace wheel bearings and stuff like that on one side all the time.



Thanks for the discussion.

 

[EddieS'04]

Gavin,

I stand by my experiance. When It comes to certain milage on, certain suspension parts.

Wheel bearings and fenders are not a good comparison.

My 2002 Toyota has 168K miles on it with the original struts and it drives and handles like new.

If a shock or strut is not completely worn out, from high milage. I bet my butt the ride and control still wont compare to new. sometimes wear is gradual as to where, the driver wont notice. Not betting any $$ cause I dont have any...:bwahaha:



I have replace shocks and struts with the exact model because of milage. I alway felt the difference. Even when compariosion testing, off the car.



Gavin,

At 68K replace both and get one alignment. Damn insurance companies:angry:

 

[Richard L]

Eddie,

I agree with you that in most cases things like struts should be replaced in pairs. Since only one strut was damaged in the accident, that's all the insurance company is required to pay. If you feel unsafe with that you can pay to replace the other side as well, at your option.



My point is that it is not necessary as long as the other strut is still working and you don't feel the handling is out of balance. If the handling is out of balance, then both struts probably needed to be replaced before the accident. If you can't feel any difference, then it did not need to be replaced...at least not immediately.



...Rich

 

[scott degroot]

The ins co is under no obligation to replace something that isn't damaged. You have 60k on the originals, they are worn out even though you may not notice. You will have to pay to have the other side replaced but it is going to cost you more money by not doing it now.



Richard



Let me put a set of struts on that car with 168k and I dare you to tell me that the old ones wern't worn out once you drive it.

 

[Richard L]

l1tech,

Ok, how soon can you be here with the new struts and your tools? :bwahaha: I never said that you could not feel a difference in a firmer ride and handling with new shocks or struts?



My point was not to argue that the struts will not show signs of wear after 150K, 100K or even 50K miles. I was only pointing out that mileage is not necessarily a valid justification for replacement as long as they are doing their job to dampen the springs and they are not creating a dangerous handling condition. Realistically, it is not practical or cost effective to replace some parts on the car just because they have a lot a miles on them but continue to perform



I agreed that shocks and struts should be replaced in pairs if one of them is worn out to the point that it no longer is dampening the spring or show signs or leaking. If one is bad, the other is probably not too far from failing.



In the case of a damaged shock or strut due to an accident, does not suddenly make the other undamaged shock or strut bad? Yes, if the shock or strut had a lot of mileage on it, you might feel a difference in ride and handling with one new strut, but that does not mean the vehicle is unsafe to drive. That's why I said that if he did not notice an imbalance in handling, there was no reason to change the other strut...unless it just made him feel more comfortable knowing that both struts were new?



Of course we can all feel the difference with new shocks or struts, but that does not mean the old ones were not functioning and doing an adequate job to dampen the suspension.



Unless there is obvious physical leaks or damage, most mechanics cannot tell you if the strut is worn out except using the bounce test...and as long as they are doing their job, mileage does not matter. Most mechanics will simply ask the owner, or assume how many miles are on the struts, and they then use some imaginary chart in their head or their bank balance, to determine if you need new struts or shocks?



That is very subjective and not based on facts, only a biased opinion based on the honesty and integrity of the mechanic. I don't believe in just changing parts that are serviceable and functioning normally, despite some wear or mileage....especially if the part is safety related and not going to break and leave you stranded on the side of the road. Shocks and struts wear out slowly and you will feel an increasing lack of confidence in the vehicle's handling. I have never heard of a catastrophic failure of a strut or shock that caused someone to lose control of the vehicle and wreck.



...Rich