My Dad and I installed 4 Monroe Quik-struts on his '97 4-cyl over two
afternoons. It was about 8 hours of labour all-told but that included a
couple of trips to the hardware store. Someone with experience changing
shocks could probably do it in half-3/4 the time.

He's happy with the struts, although he thinks they're slightly "harder"
than the OEM ones, even when the OEMs were new.

He got a pretty good price from the Shock Warehouse in Florida.  The
shipping to Canada was no hassle and he paid no duty since they are
American-made car parts, exempt under NAFTA.  I think he paid about
C$1300 all told.

I guess you could do it cheaper if you're willing to use a spring
compressor, but we figured we'd pay a little more to avoid the risk of
anything "exciting" happening.  Plus there seems to be a lot of fiddly
little parts to keep track of when you disassemble a strut.

=========
Everyone's got an opinion: here's mine.
Use genuine Toyota replacement parts.
Just my opinion, but I did not like the ride quality of the Monroe
Sensatrac installed by the prior owner - gave a jolt over a certain
bridge crossing that didn't seem right.
Orignial equipment struts are gas charged and designed to fit the
handling requirements for the 6 cylinder while preserving ride
quality.
To my view a stiffer ride is not better, a well dampened, controlled,
comfortable ride is better, with struts tuned to match the stabilizer
bar, bushings and springs.
Here's my criterion for strut replacement - sometimes Toyota parts
last a very, very long time, check first to see if they have actually
deteriorated: (not my words)
--
Best test for a shock (short of dyno-testing) is to drive it fairly
aggressively - but carefully - over rough road. If the car remains
under
control, then the shocks are, likely, okay.

If one end or the other tends to "wash out", then new shocks (or
struts)
are indicated.
==================================
The "test rig" that Jason refers to is known as a shock absorber
dynamometer.....and I own one.

Basically, it gives you a graph of the pressures produced as compared
to
the shaft velocities at which they are produced when the shock is
moved at
different speeds - ranging from a shaft velocity of one-inch-per-
second to
20 i.p.s.

Basically, a shock that creates 200 pounds of resistance pressure
while
moving at a shaft velocity of five i.p.s will  better control a car
than a
shock that only produces 100 pounds of resistance pressure at the
same
shaft velocity.

We use these graphs a bit differently in racing applications to "fine-
tune"
the suspension with shocks, but the above information is pretty much
all
you need to know for standard passenger automobiles....more shock
pressure
at a given shaft  velocity controls better than less pressure at the
same
velocity.

When internal valves and springs weaken and wear out (imagine how
many
cycles a shock valve control spring experiences in 50,000 miles of
compressing to open and close the valving each time the shaft moves in
or
out) , they allow fluid to pass more easily at lower pressures -
usually
with no external leakage to suggest that any sort of problem exists.

The so-called "bounce test" only tells you if a shock will control a
car
while negotiating "Mickey D" parking lot speed bumps at less than five
mph
with a carload of rug rats and Happy Meals.

"Hand-testing" a shock off the car moves the shaft at a velocity of
approximately one-half i.p.s.

A shock can "feel" good at slow "bounce-test" or "hand-test" speeds of
one
i.p.s. or less because it is only passing fluid through its designed,
low-speed, bleed orifices and/or bypassing the seals, but be a
complete
failure at higher shaft velocities once it gets up onto the
valving....sometimes, actually providing less resistance at five
i.p.s.
then at "bounce-test" velocities once the valves open up.

On a smooth road, the shocks will likely be working in the 2-6 i.p.s.
shaft
velocity range....which simply cannot be duplicated by bouncing on
the
bumper of the car.

Best test for a shock (short of dyno-testing) is to drive it fairly
aggressively - but carefully - over rough road. If the car remains
under
control, then the shocks are, likely, okay.

If one end or the other tends to "wash out", then new shocks (or
struts)
are indicated.

The stock Toyota struts are firm and harsh, making the driver feel the
paint stripes and pavement cracks. There are other struts out there
with lifetime parts warranty that provide more comfort for local
driving and more control on the highways.

For typical driving, modern struts should be equipped with multi-stage
inertia sensitive valving (especially if your mother drives on gravel
roads.) Top of the line Gabriel Ultra and Monroe Reflex are the common
ones. I'd recommend the Popular Mechanics 2003 Editor's Choice Award
winner, Gabriel Ultra. They work as advertised and are available at
your local Autozone. KYB (aka Keep Your Bilsteins) doesn't yet have
the technology. IMO the GR2 is back in the stone ages.

Check out the Gabriel G-Force story video:
http://www.gabriel.com/gforce1/eng/default.htm

The advantage of using Monroe's QuickStrut is that you get all new
parts. The thing about the QuickStrut is that currently it still uses
the SensaTrac. This strut is being phased out in favor of the newer
Reflex. The Reflex, opposite to the SensaTrac, is normally firm but
softens very briefly while hitting a bump (> 1.5G I think). It's cost
effective and I would have used QuickStrut if it weren't for the
SensaTrac strut with "position sensitive valving".

In your case the spring and the upper spring seat/bearing plate are
the only things you may want to keep. Most front mounts come with new
bearings. Spring seats (upper and lower), and the strut bumper should
also be replaced at this time. Monroes upper spring seats and dust
boot are more generic, but you may prefer the OEM integrated upper
spring seats/dust boot. Toyota has TSBs on noisy mounts since 97 and
even for 2006s. So I'd stay away from Toyota mounts for 97+.

And no, the excellent Bilsteins are for pre 1997 only and Autozone
also carries them.