QA1 vs Viking front coil over shocks.

Rt Jam

Apprentice
Mar 30, 2020
78
18
Ontario Canada
Let's discuss. I am doing this for spring height adjustment and shock adjustment.

Both offer the same for almost same money. QA1 has a conical spring to use the OEM upper spring pocket.

Wait for your input on pros and cons.
 

Benwa

Not-quite-so-new-guy
May 18, 2020
32
18
Winslow Illinois
I just went through this very dilemma this spring. I went with viking double adjustables, 19 rebound and 19 compression adjustments separate from each other and the car rides better than ever. I opted for the warrior valving in the shocks instead of an upgraded valving option that is available. The qa1's were 200ish dollars more for double adjustables like these. I have only put like 100 miles on it because I wanted to do the rear as soon as I finished the front...should of just bought the whole kit right away. The monte has tubular a arms upper and lower and with a big block with aluminum heads and a 4L80E trans. Ride height is higher than the old (original small block) springs and shocks with BMR arms but livable. I went with 550# springs in the front and 125# in the rear. In the picture fronts are almost all the way adjusted down and the rears are about 3/4 of the way up. The vikings mount in the original spring pockets in the front as well. I only regret the 550# springs (followed the buyer chart for spring selection and I figured I would need the big block spring but looking back maybe a 450 or 500# would be better), in the front because it is at the bottom of the adjustability for lowering it but it is also easily solved. Hopefully a person with qa1's can give you the pros and cons of that. Hope this helps.
 

Attachments

  • 20210717_063430.jpg
    20210717_063430.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 14

Rt Jam

Apprentice
Thread starter
Mar 30, 2020
78
18
Ontario Canada
Looks like you nailed the ride height, to me. I see 550 is at bottom of adjustment but you want lower. The answer here is a shorter spring. Do the BMR have a taller ball joint?

I went with UMI with a taller ball joint. This is suppose to lower it a bit.


How do you feel about the entire weight being carried by the shock mount? This is a minor concern of mine between the 2.
QA1 uses the OEM upper spring pocket.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: michmalibuman

Benwa

Not-quite-so-new-guy
May 18, 2020
32
18
Winslow Illinois
I dont believe that they are the taller ball joint a arms. I was concerned about it only being retained in the front by the bottom of the aluminum coilover but it seems to be the industry standard at this price point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: michmalibuman

307 Regal

Royal Smart Person
Oct 21, 2009
1,602
113
Northern Indiana
I used to use the Viking "hybrid" coilovers with 550lb springs. Even with drop spindles they were too tall. And there's hardly any spring left, so you'd hate to get one even shorter at that spring rate. I switched to Eibach springs and didn't look back. I do still use the Viking shock itself within them. I have 1/2 inch taller lower ball joints combined with the Eibachs. No performance complaints.
IMG_3068.JPG
 

Similar threads

G-Body Performance Upgrades

GBodyForum is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com. Amazon, the Amazon logo, AmazonSupply, and the AmazonSupply logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.

Please support GBodyForum Sponsors

Classic Truck ConsolesDixie Restoration DepotMike's MontesP-S-TSouthside Machine PerformanceUMI Performance

ContactAdmin@GBodyForum.comfor info on becoming a sponsor