Author Topic: Rear suspension cock-eyed (Read 23193 times)

HP2 · « **Reply #60 on:** December 07, 2009 - 05:33:15 PM »

Quote from: shadango on December 07, 2009 - 12:28:12 AM

I wonder if these "Mopar Performance" shocks are really better performing shocks or just longer than usual standard shocks? "Special drag racing applications" could mean they have poor street manners.....

Honestly, I think they originated from underneath an Imperial. They are straight up 50/50 ratios like any street shock. Manual trans shocks tend to have heavier valving to slow down the violent reaction of a manual trans car. Auto trans shock are somewhat softer more closely related to street valving because they do not launch as violently.

Quote from: shadango on December 07, 2009 - 12:28:12 AM

Summit shows some "dragracing" shocks, but they have a warning that "90/10 valved shocks should never be used on a street driven vehicle". The Mopar shocks there dont have that warning, but they DO say 'for drag racing only"......

This is more true with 90/10 than 50/50 shocks. 90/10 means that 90% of the shocks resistance is on compression and 10% is on extension. So those shocks allow the front end to come up very quickly and come down very slowly. This could get hairy for some drivers on the street because of the rapid rise. Remember, shocks only dictate how quickly or slowly the suspension reacts. They do not control its ultimate travel and resistance.

Quote from: shadango on December 07, 2009 - 12:28:12 AM

I would think the truck shock is valved more for street, but it would also be valved for a TRUCK versus the lighter car.....?

A truck shock has to be set up to be adequate for controlling an unloaded, butt end light truck or one loaded down with 1500 pounds of manure. They actually are quite versatile. Rancho RS5000 are a real popular rear shock with drag racers because it is adjustable.

Yes, any 72-92 truck shock will fit, but you might wan to stick with 1/2 ton versions.

Like the engineers posted, just spec a bilstein that is two inches longer and your set.

shadango · « **Reply #61 on:** December 08, 2009 - 05:24:17 AM »

I guess what I am having a hard time grasping is how the wheel-well lift measurement can be 4" yet the shock only needs two more inches.....I dont think my rear was sagging by two inches......then again maybe it was.....

I would have probably ordered the Mopar shocks already except they dont saywhat kind of valving is in them nor wht the lengths are.....HP2, do they list that info anywhere?

I have never noticed different listings for manual vs auto cars, probably because I have always looked for auto cars/trucks.....thats an interesting point to know.

The shocks that are on there now compressed/expended by hand really easy....so they are pretty shot I think....

I am sure that whatever I end up with it will be an improvement. (fingers crossed...LOL)

the_engineers · « **Reply #62 on:** December 08, 2009 - 10:38:55 AM »

When you compress or extend your current ones, do they try to go back, or just stay where you put them?

shadango · « **Reply #63 on:** December 08, 2009 - 12:32:46 PM »

They stay where you put them.....

the_engineers · « **Reply #64 on:** December 08, 2009 - 02:41:02 PM »

Dead.

HP2 · « **Reply #65 on:** December 08, 2009 - 04:07:36 PM »

I grabbed the chassis book to look it up. According to mother, oem shocks are only 20", the drag shocks are 24". So it looks like monroe is giving 2" extra inches over stock right out of the gate. Automatic cars should use the 1" diameter shock, manual cars the 1 3/8 shock. Standard street car valving is used in both.

shadango · « **Reply #66 on:** December 08, 2009 - 06:13:01 PM »

Thanks guys! GREAT help and info!

I took the fish out with the whole family....GUARANTEED to make the car bottom and wallow.....

NOT A PROBLEM ANYMORE!

I also think it has settled a little...

So far, I really like it!

wally426ci · « **Reply #67 on:** December 13, 2009 - 08:32:16 AM »

I knew it would settle down a little. Glad its working out!

shadango · « **Reply #68 on:** December 26, 2009 - 01:53:45 PM »

Ok, so I am still looking into shocks.

My shocks right now sit at about 20.75 inches, with the spare in the tire and gas in the tank. They are 21.25" total extended and that is the noise I am hearing when the back end drops over bumps....the shocks bottoming out...fully collapsed they are 13 1/8" long.

I contacted Bilstein , both in the US and overseas.

I was contacted soon after by Steve from RCD, who asked me some questions.

From what I can tell the Bilsteins that RCD/Bilstein make for the E bodies are 22.7 inches totally extended.

Steve (RCD) says that he thinks the standard shocks for the ebody (with 22.7 inches) will work, having 2" of "droop". He wanted me to measure how much "total droop" I have in the rear end....lifting the frame up and letting the rear drop. But I can tell just by LOOKING at that , that it is more than 2".

Seems like having only 2" of length left for the shock to extend isnt enough. The ones Steve is suggesting would have only 1.5" more of drop than what I have now.....seems like it would be awefully close.

I was looking at the truck shock Bullit posted about and while the price is right, I am concerned about how a truck shock would ride. I would like to get the Bilsteins because I found I loved them on my 2003 Durango.....

So I am waiting until the guy from Bilstein, who also contacted me, gets back on January 4th so I can see if they can custom build me the rear shocks.

I dunno......not sure of any better alternatives.

Buillit, have you actually used a truck shock on your e body? What kind of results did you get?

Bullitt- · « **Reply #69 on:** December 28, 2009 - 09:02:59 AM »

Shandango, I have "truck shocks" on my car BUT it is not on the road yet so I can't give you an answer. I do have some insight however that made me comfortable with my choice.
Back in the early 80's my buddy that worked at a parts house, researched better shocks for his 73 Charger...Ended up with "truck shocks" & that car handled like it was on rails compared to my car.
Also the truck shock has to handle empty & loaded beds... And the model I chose proports to be self adjusting to load & conditions... For the price I paid (about 20 per) vs even the lowest end "performance" shock out there I could not justify the extra expense.
Here is what I have p/n G63353

Gabriel ULTRA� Shock Absorbers
Computer-designed to Match the Needs of Light Trucks, Vans, RVs, and 4x4�s

* Precision engineered for the ultimate in safety and performance
* Comes equipped with G-Force� Technology including:
o StableSteer� Valving - Provides consistent response from all four shocks, giving you the most stable, safest ride
o G-Force� Piston - Bonded iron construction for durability and longer life
o Leak-Proof Piston Seal - Eliminates oil bypass for maximum shock effectiveness and performance

http://www.glsautoparts.com/storefrontprofiles/processfeed.aspx?sfid=139287&i=13150750&dfid=1

shadango · « **Reply #70 on:** December 28, 2009 - 10:03:57 AM »

Gotta admit, $27 plus shipping for two shocks is waaaaay better than $225 I am looking at for two Bilsteins.

I am not comfortable with having only 2" of length available for droop in the standard ebody Bilsteins.....seems like that just wouldn't be enough....my suspension will droop another 2" beyond the shock.

The truck listed earlier has 24" of length which seems to be much more appropriate. Does the ones you got have the same length I guess?

Thing is, the shocks you got are valved for a certain weight range....IE trucks and SUVs....yeah the valving says it is responsive, but if the shock is designed for a higher weight range wont that mean that the shock will be responsive in a certain wight range, making it too stuff for the ebody?

I dunno. I guess I could always go this route until I get more definite answers on the Bilsteins.

I was thinking that if I end up getting extra long Bilsteins and I decide I hate the jacked up rear end, it would be a lot of money lost versus the $40 total for the truck shocks.

What are you doing for front shocks?

Bullitt- · « **Reply #71 on:** December 28, 2009 - 11:17:39 AM »

Empty P/U is lighter in the rear than a car so the car will be like having a modestly loaded truck....

Front, kinda the same thing..but I did have to modify the shocks lower mount to match the car, or I could have swapped the rubber & bushing but I did not think of it at the time....
If I remember correctly they were for a mid 80s ford suv...I've lost the #s but can research if you need me to. Just kept looking till I found #s that were very close to the same with the right kind of mounts.

Looked like these.. but I would have to research
http://www.glsautoparts.com/storefrontprofiles/DeluxeSFItemDetail.aspx?sid=1&sfid=139287&c=7732&i=13105842

shadango · « **Reply #72 on:** December 28, 2009 - 12:17:36 PM »

So you didnt just use the standard shock for the front?

Looking at the NAPA site again I see they screwed up the "top mount" for both the truck and the ebody cars...listed as "stem"....thats wrong for both. Is the loop measurements they give for the lower correct?

Since we are talking about using truck shocks, i assume then that the top and bottom mounts for the rears are exactly the same sizes? Cant seem to locate that info online anyway reliable.

Bullitt- · « **Reply #73 on:** December 28, 2009 - 05:45:34 PM »

Rears mounted the same... re-read the post re-shock specks... see/ Lower Mount :Loop Type 11/16" x 1 9/16" & Upper Mount : Stem 3/8" x 24 listed under both shocks.

Fronts I found the lengths to be the issue, Dodge truck is actually too short.

Shock - NAPA Response - Front
Product Line: NAPA Response
Part Number:       RR 94102
Price:
Price
Unit
    :
:
   16.99
Each
Features & Benefits       Response Shock Absorbers Are Nitrogen Gas Charged & Feature Velocity Sensitive Valving & All Weather Fluid, Which Offers Improved Comfort At An Economical Price.
Warranty       2 Years
Attributes       Lower Mount : Loop Type 7/16" x 1 1/4"
Shock Compressed Length : 9.875"
Shock Dust Shield : Yes
Shock Extended Length : 15.75"
Shock Parts Pack Part # : P1134
Shock Travel Length : 5.875"
Upper Mount : Stem 3/8" x 16
Material Safety Data Sheet       Monroe� Shock Absorber Oil -- All Grades
Application Information:       1970 Dodge Challenger

Here's the specs I used to zero in on the make/model to fit, notice that everything looks good except the lower mount...that's what I had to modify (read grind down the inner metal sleeve the bolt goes through)
I've got heavier than stock torsion bars, .96, & will keep the front end lower than stock so extended length was not as big an issue as compressed length.
When I compared them side by side with the old monroes that were on my car there was virtually no difference other than the cover over the rod.

Shock - NAPA Response - Front
Product Line: NAPA Response
Part Number:       RR 94075
Price:
Price
Unit
    :
:
   29.99
Each
Features & Benefits       Response Shock Absorbers Are Nitrogen Gas Charged & Feature Velocity Sensitive Valving & All Weather Fluid, Which Offers Improved Comfort At An Economical Price.
Warranty       2 Years
Attributes       Lower Mount : Loop Type 12 mm x 1 1/2"
Shock Compressed Length : 9.625"
Shock Dust Shield : Yes
Shock Extended Length : 14.75"
Shock Parts Pack Part # : P1135
Shock Travel Length : 5.125"
Upper Mount : Stem 3/8" x 16
Material Safety Data Sheet       Monroe� Shock Absorber Oil -- All Grades
Application Information:       1986 Ford Truck Bronco

http://www.glsautoparts.com/storefrontprofiles/DeluxeSFItemDetail.aspx?sid=1&sfid=139287&c=7732&i=13105842
Check them out at Autozone
http://www.autozone.com/autozone/catalog/parts/partsProduct.jsp?displayName=Shock%2FStrut+-+Front&itemId=660-0&navValue=14600660&parentId=46-0&productId=92395&fromString=search&itemIdentifier=92395_0_7413_2149,20981,27575&filterByKeyWord=shocks&categoryNValue=14699999&isSearchByPartNumber=false&categoryDisplayName=Suspension&store=31&skuDescription=GabrielUltra/Shock/Strut-Front&fromWhere=&searchText=shocks&_requestid=984334

shadango · « **Reply #74 on:** December 28, 2009 - 07:50:47 PM »

Quote from: Bullitt

Rears mounted the same... re-read the post re-shock specks... see/ Lower Mount :Loop Type 11/16" x 1 9/16" & Upper Mount : Stem 3/8" x 24 listed under both shocks.

Ok, well that is where I am confused! The upper mounts on my rear shocks are not stems, they are loops.

Are yours stems?

Quote from: Bullitt

Fronts I found the lengths to be the issue, Dodge truck is actually too short.

Shock - NAPA Response - Front
Product Line: NAPA Response

Here's the specs I used to zero in on the make/model to fit, notice that everything looks good except the lower mount...that's what I had to modify (read grind down the inner metal sleeve the bolt goes through)
I've got heavier than stock torsion bars, .96, & will keep the front end lower than stock so extended length was not as big an issue as compressed length.
When I compared them side by side with the old monroes that were on my car there was virtually no difference other than the cover over the rod.

It sounds like you went with different fronts soley because you needed SHORTER shocks, right?

I think I can go with standard shocks then as I have the original t-bars right now.

I was more wondering about the valving issues.....they dont make an "ultra" for the front of my car (72)...just a standard Gabriel shock. Not sure if mixing the ultra rears with standard fronts would be good?

So I guess I would have to go looking for another Ultra shock that would fit the stock sizes for my shock.....but then I am wondering if the Ultras are valved different from model to model?

Aye aye aye...my head is spinning...LOL

Author Topic: Rear suspension cock-eyed (Read 23193 times)

HP2

Re: Rear suspension cock-eyed

shadango

Re: Rear suspension cock-eyed

the_engineers

Re: Rear suspension cock-eyed

shadango

Re: Rear suspension cock-eyed

the_engineers

Re: Rear suspension cock-eyed

HP2

Re: Rear suspension cock-eyed

shadango

Re: Rear suspension cock-eyed

wally426ci

Re: Rear suspension cock-eyed

shadango

Re: Rear suspension cock-eyed

Bullitt-

Re: Rear suspension cock-eyed

shadango

Re: Rear suspension cock-eyed

Bullitt-

Re: Rear suspension cock-eyed

shadango

Re: Rear suspension cock-eyed

Bullitt-

Re: Rear suspension cock-eyed

shadango

Re: Rear suspension cock-eyed