Okay, but if the car drives fine it doesn't have to be replaced. They can suggest it, but it's wrong to suggest it's urgent or necessary. I can also put a new and a 30,000 mile tire next to each other and they don't look the same either.

 

It’s wrong to do preventative maintenance because it’s “fine”. Sorry man, but that’s a silly thought process, why do oil changes then, the car still has oil in it. Just because you don’t FEEL that the car has lost any ability to handle, doesn’t mean it hasn’t.

 

That is not preventive maintenance. And your oil change analogy is beyond nuts to the point of insulting.

But I get your point that just because you don't notice that it handles differently doesn't mean it doesn't. Can you show me data or studies or something beyond 'we have always done it that way'?

 

It isn’t? It’s a comment on the fact that you should know that oil deteriorates in its effectiveness to do its job. You know that running on the same dirty oil longer, is a bad idea. Just as struts do. Over time they wear out. Just because it’s not to the point where all the fluid has left the strut, doesn’t equate to “its fine” just like how with oil, you don’t only replace it when it’s lost all effectiveness. It has nothing to do with being insulting.

At the end of the day, struts are a wear item, any wear item will start to wane in effectiveness, and as I’m sure you know, all wear items, have a life span. There’s no defined lifespan for any of these wear items, because people have different results. You know that any wear item will wear faster or slower based on how it’s used. Again, please go take an old shock, that’s not completely destroyed, and test it yourself with a new one. You can easily ascertain the difference.

 

Again, not a fair comparison. We have tons and tons of analysis of oil. We know that oil after 10,000 miles is vastly different from new oil. And that it's not only mileage but other factors that matter. That's why Honda has a computer that at least in theory takes this into account and tells you when to change the oil. But even if we didn't have that, they would say something like Change the oil every 6000 miles.

They aren't doing that with struts. Nowhere in the manual does it mention struts. With brakes they may not mention it but there are noise indicators and documents that tell you to replace the brake pads when they're worn down to a certain thickness. Same with tires.

In the old days with shock absorbers they would say to push down on the fender a few times and see how the car bounced. Are they doing that with struts?

I do understand what you're saying about wear items. But you're even saying that it depends on how the car is driven- that it can't just be based in mileage. So where is the science, the data, the objective standard as to when to replace struts?

There isn't. So for the dealer to say it's necessary is wrong. If they said 'well, on average we notice a change in driving at 60,000 miles, and you're there, and while you might not notice, a professional driver would' may or may not be reasonable.

 

I never said we said it’s necessary. I said we typically replaced them at this mileage because we would see performance taper off. Hence the usual recommendation at 60k, especially because it’s already in for service around then.

 

That's fine but that's not what the OP's dealer said. Also a question- when you say you saw performance taper off: If the driver didn't notice, does it matter? It's not like worn tires affect stopping distance. Would there be much difference to the average driver?

 

Well, bear in mind, in the specifics of a hard stopping situation. The front struts take all the weight of a car that’s braking. So can if affect stopping distance? Possibly, if it distributes the weight poorly and just makes the front sag hard.

As per the concept of it affecting what a person would do normally, I doubt it would make much of a difference in a normal driving setting, considering most drivers are scared of turning at speed, and slow down to an acceptable area where worn struts wouldn’t really be pushed to any sort of limit.

 

Yes they do.

They extremely do.

 

No, I meant in comparison. Struts may only barely affect stopping distance, whereas worn tires absolutely do.

 

Interesting. Just picked up a '09 Sport with 176k and it still has the original struts. Haven't driven it enough to know how it rides but I'll probably replace.

A side note - several years ago I had my G35 at NTB for an alignment and the service advisor comes out to the (full) waiting room and tells me that my shocks are leaking and need replacing. I tell her that isn't possible. When she says they do need replacing I remind her that I paid them to install a new set of Bilsteins I brought to them less than a month ago. There was a lot of snickering in the room when she turned and walked off.

 

Shocks and struts have a limited lifespan. On a similar car we replaced good look struts around the 80k mile mark with OEM and noticed a big difference in smoothness and handling.

For sure, leaking struts, damaged struts, struts that rebound a lot when you press the corner of the car, or odd tire wear may require strut replacement. Shock and strut makers promote short replacement intervals but those seem aggressive.