So in your opinion bad struts were not a problem? Did you watch the video?
That would all be assuming that each stroke is the same on a worn strut. This is not always the case though.
Sometimes the shaft may feel somewhat fine for 3 strokes before going stupid on stroke number 4. Sometimes they develop hitches in them in which the shaft may feel normal for part of a stroke, go slack, and then tighten up again. Sometimes there is just no way of knowing short of strut disassembly. Considering the age and mileage this vehicle likely needed them.
Keith, I wished I had a copy of the OK statute on checking windshield cracks. It was incomprehensible in my opinion and apparently also unfathomable to the powers that wrote it. While I could not even begin to repeat any of it the statute was basically a Rube Goldberg thing. Three fine print pages of utter gibberish and it would not doubt have provided a lot of laughs and amazement if posted publicly.
@barkeydog - the strut in the video was bad (worn) while the OP’s strut was diagnosed bad because it supposedly was binding, preventing the car from coming back up. No binding was shown in the video, just a worn strut.
OK, let’s clear things up a bit. I’m a PA inspector. From what I’ve heard, the struts should’ve passed, and yes, the rear wiper is an option, not a required piece of equipment. Only times I’ve rejected struts were due to severe leakage, excessive bounce, or on one occasion they were extremely rusted out.
Tex, I was noticing in the video the slower rebound of the old strut. How much worse it can get I do not know.
The rebound speed of a strut without a spring means nothing as far as how fast the car will come back up after you push it down. It just indicates the gas charge (if it ever had one) is gone. The strut is not responsible for holding the car up, that’s the spring’s job.
Gentlemen, allow me to submit that none of us can see the car, at that mileage the car may very well need struts, and determining that can be largely subjectoce anyway. Npne of us knowes whether the car really needs atruts or not…and we might disagree even of we had the car in front of us.
Allow me to tell you a recent (last spring) experience of my own. I didn’t like an irregular wear pattern I was seeing developing on my rear tires. I had 165,000 miles on the car. I ordered some new OEM rear shocks and scheduled the guys to change them. When I brought them the car, everyone disagreed that I needed new shocks. They did the “bounce test” and the rear end immediately returned to it’s proper place. I had them change them anyway (my labor is free, so I can afford to do things most would not). After changing the shocks, the guys in the shop had to admit that the drive definitely felt better.
My point is that strut and shock performance is highly subjective in many cases. It’s often not “cut & dry”. My point to the OP is that at your mileage, new struts were not a waste of money, even if you felt they were unneccessary.
Thank you Texases - you understand the fine distinction that is being made. If one were to push down on a car and have ZERO rebound, then the springs would have been non-existent.
TSM - The Commonwealth is not regulating quality of ride; they are ensuring the safety of vehicles operated on highways. Vehicle Safety Inspections is a defined term in my post. It is not being used as a term of art. When a mechanic does not understand that he/she is administering provisions of a legal code and must follow those provisions as written, then that is when all the trouble begins. As soon as the mechanic starts to think outside of the code and rejects a car based on opinion, he/she is no longer carrying out the PA Vehicle Safety Inspection. And my request was for the annual Vehicle Safety Inspection (initial caps) and not for an inspection of my vehicle (lower caps).
The Vehicle Safety Inspection provisions are cut and dry and there is NO subjectivity (well maybe a tiny bit if you are an attorney). The Commonwealth vehicle code uses the term “shall” and when that term is used in regulations and codes it indicates a “mandatory action”. It specifically reads, “An external inspection SHALL be performed as follows . . . . Check the shock absorbers and REJECT IF if the vehicle continues free rocking motion greater than three cycles after release.” There is no room for interpretation on what constitutes a failed shock absorber, which PROTECTS the inspector and the customer.
The Code further reads that the vehicle owner SHALL be informed in writing on the repair order of any parts which, although in passing condition, the mechanic believes may become dangerous before the next inspection period. Here is where the mechanic writes “car is 10 year old and has 167,000 miles on it; therefore, it probably could benefit from new struts”.
Cherokeeboogieman - your comment matches those of PA inspectors that I have polled throughout my town. When I described the inspection of the suspension “push down and car did not respond” to one inspector, his response was “the guy must have been a retard. The car would have ridden like a wagon.” Another comment, “in my 30 years, I have never failed a car due to struts”. And last anecdotal comment from a mechanic in his 50s, “I don’t think I have ever replaced struts on a Subaru - they just don’t seem to fail.” (Please spare others and me stories about Subaru’s that needed struts. I do not reside where there are washboard roads or city potholes or weeks where the roads are covered with frozen compacted snow/ice, etc.)
This mechanic and shop are sleaze, and they thought they could make an extra $900 from a $75 inspection. They gave me two options to rectify it. I chose one and wrote up the terms that we agreed to over the phone and delivered the written terms to the shop on Friday. Work is to be done on Monday. Received a voice mail message today (Saturday) from owner, I don’t know if we can agree to the terms. (?!?) We’ll call you later (and did not leave a phone number and shop is not open on Saturdays) to discuss.
Evelina, your point is well made. And the subjectivity of these typea of things is one of the many things that I believe cause these type of inspection systems to be poor at best and crooked at worst. I’m not an advocate of annual safety inspections (we’ve had long debates on this before, and I know others will disagree). Many states don;t have them, and some have discontinued them. The data has shown they have no real impact in reducing accidents or injuries. I believe they’re simply revenue generators for the state, a revenue flow upon which the state has become dependent.
Is it legal in your state to get a second opinion from another inspection station?
I will agree with mountainbike along with adding a few comments. The inspector is often put between a rock and a hard place because if the inspector brushed something aside that the state technically considers a violation then the inspector and facility may face repercussions. If the inspector finds a violation and recommends a repair then they’re accused of drumming up needless work.
The safety inspection program OK used to have was a joke, nothing more. At one time the cost was 2.00 with a mechanic getting 1.00 of that. Eventually it was raised to 5.00 with a mechanic getting 2.00. This was done at the prodding of the Dept. of Public Safety, not by mechanics or shops. Why was this done? To pad the retirement fund of the state troopers, nothing more.
It was determined by the state that a proper inspection was to take over an hour. Does anyone think a mechanic is going to spend over an hour for 1.00 or even 2.00 after the fee was raised to 5.00? Not for one nano-second is this going to happen. This led to a drive it in, honk the horn, check the wipers, flash the lights on the wall to make sure they’re working, and slap a sticker on the windshield, I know because I’ve done it repeatedly.
On one of his monthly rounds the state trooper overseeing the inspections would ask how is it that we ran 90 state inspections through without one failure. Just lucky was the response.
During a statewide mandatory inspector recertfication I tried to flunk the test on purpose by deliberately scoring about 30% (didn’t want to make it too obvious) and they passed me anyway. Go figure. 
(I would add that in regards to the part about passing those 90 vehicles with a 0 failure rate that random inspections by the state troopers showed that 15% of the vehicles on the road had one or more violations that would cause them to fail an inspection. That’s a pretty sizeable percentage.)