Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
shorter, softer than normal shocks avail?
shorter, softer than normal shocks avail?
I have a street rod that is using rear shocks that are from a 66
mustang -- this is a bayonett style unit with specs that are pretty
typical....a lot of cars use this. the ride is way, way too harsh on
poorly maintained roads. the springs are quite soft...so soft that
they compress the shocks about 2" down...however the shocks are not
bottoming out. they can't bottom out because they're just to stiff
for the light car (it's a fiberglass model t).
anyone know offhand if there is a shock absorber that is about 2/3 the
height and 2/3 the firmness of the shock? i have the koni adjustable
versions on another car...but when I set them to the appropriate
softness and try them on the steet rod, they're still a little too
tall (compress a little too much at a stand still).
i'd prefer to keep it bayonet-style, so the rear suspension/mounts
don't need redesign and/or welding.
I have a street rod that is using rear shocks that are from a 66
mustang -- this is a bayonett style unit with specs that are pretty
typical....a lot of cars use this. the ride is way, way too harsh on
poorly maintained roads. the springs are quite soft...so soft that
they compress the shocks about 2" down...however the shocks are not
bottoming out. they can't bottom out because they're just to stiff
for the light car (it's a fiberglass model t).
anyone know offhand if there is a shock absorber that is about 2/3 the
height and 2/3 the firmness of the shock? i have the koni adjustable
versions on another car...but when I set them to the appropriate
softness and try them on the steet rod, they're still a little too
tall (compress a little too much at a stand still).
i'd prefer to keep it bayonet-style, so the rear suspension/mounts
don't need redesign and/or welding.
Re: shorter, softer than normal shocks avail?
socal.penguin@gmail . com wrote:
> I have a street rod that is using rear shocks that are from a 66
> mustang -- this is a bayonett style unit with specs that are pretty
> typical....a lot of cars use this. the ride is way, way too harsh on
> poorly maintained roads. the springs are quite soft...so soft that
> they compress the shocks about 2" down...however the shocks are not
> bottoming out. they can't bottom out because they're just to stiff
> for the light car (it's a fiberglass model t).
>
> anyone know offhand if there is a shock absorber that is about 2/3 the
> height and 2/3 the firmness of the shock? i have the koni adjustable
> versions on another car...but when I set them to the appropriate
> softness and try them on the steet rod, they're still a little too
> tall (compress a little too much at a stand still).
>
> i'd prefer to keep it bayonet-style, so the rear suspension/mounts
> don't need redesign and/or welding.
just so you know the shocks are meant to be partially compressed at
normal ride height. Not clear if you understood this from your message.
Monroe has a good online catalog of fitments, although for damping
you're kind of on your own.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
* members.cox . net /njnagel
socal.penguin@gmail . com wrote:
> I have a street rod that is using rear shocks that are from a 66
> mustang -- this is a bayonett style unit with specs that are pretty
> typical....a lot of cars use this. the ride is way, way too harsh on
> poorly maintained roads. the springs are quite soft...so soft that
> they compress the shocks about 2" down...however the shocks are not
> bottoming out. they can't bottom out because they're just to stiff
> for the light car (it's a fiberglass model t).
>
> anyone know offhand if there is a shock absorber that is about 2/3 the
> height and 2/3 the firmness of the shock? i have the koni adjustable
> versions on another car...but when I set them to the appropriate
> softness and try them on the steet rod, they're still a little too
> tall (compress a little too much at a stand still).
>
> i'd prefer to keep it bayonet-style, so the rear suspension/mounts
> don't need redesign and/or welding.
just so you know the shocks are meant to be partially compressed at
normal ride height. Not clear if you understood this from your message.
Monroe has a good online catalog of fitments, although for damping
you're kind of on your own.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
* members.cox . net /njnagel
Re: shorter, softer than normal shocks avail?
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 08:07:28 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters . net >
wrote:
>socal.penguin@gmail . com wrote:
>> I have a street rod that is using rear shocks that are from a 66
>> mustang -- this is a bayonett style unit with specs that are pretty
>> typical....a lot of cars use this. the ride is way, way too harsh on
>> poorly maintained roads. the springs are quite soft...so soft that
>> they compress the shocks about 2" down...however the shocks are not
>> bottoming out. they can't bottom out because they're just to stiff
>> for the light car (it's a fiberglass model t).
>>
>> anyone know offhand if there is a shock absorber that is about 2/3 the
>> height and 2/3 the firmness of the shock? i have the koni adjustable
>> versions on another car...but when I set them to the appropriate
>> softness and try them on the steet rod, they're still a little too
>> tall (compress a little too much at a stand still).
>>
>> i'd prefer to keep it bayonet-style, so the rear suspension/mounts
>> don't need redesign and/or welding.
>
>just so you know the shocks are meant to be partially compressed at
>normal ride height. Not clear if you understood this from your message.
>
>Monroe has a good online catalog of fitments, although for damping
>you're kind of on your own.
>
>nate
Monroe-matics, their cheapest shock, if a fairly soft shock.
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 08:07:28 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters . net >
wrote:
>socal.penguin@gmail . com wrote:
>> I have a street rod that is using rear shocks that are from a 66
>> mustang -- this is a bayonett style unit with specs that are pretty
>> typical....a lot of cars use this. the ride is way, way too harsh on
>> poorly maintained roads. the springs are quite soft...so soft that
>> they compress the shocks about 2" down...however the shocks are not
>> bottoming out. they can't bottom out because they're just to stiff
>> for the light car (it's a fiberglass model t).
>>
>> anyone know offhand if there is a shock absorber that is about 2/3 the
>> height and 2/3 the firmness of the shock? i have the koni adjustable
>> versions on another car...but when I set them to the appropriate
>> softness and try them on the steet rod, they're still a little too
>> tall (compress a little too much at a stand still).
>>
>> i'd prefer to keep it bayonet-style, so the rear suspension/mounts
>> don't need redesign and/or welding.
>
>just so you know the shocks are meant to be partially compressed at
>normal ride height. Not clear if you understood this from your message.
>
>Monroe has a good online catalog of fitments, although for damping
>you're kind of on your own.
>
>nate
Monroe-matics, their cheapest shock, if a fairly soft shock.
Re: shorter, softer than normal shocks avail?
Ashton Crusher <demi@moore . net > wrote in article
<5q1n04labbu334i695ot15069kh15pgcds@4ax . com >...
>
> Monroe-matics, their cheapest shock, if a fairly soft shock.
>
Actually, the cheaper shocks are stiffer in comparison to the
same-application more-expensive shocks.
This is due to the cheaper shocks having only two or three valving stages
while the more expensive shocks can have up to ten.
This is why the more expensive shocks offer that "boulevard ride"....
I didn't believe the shock engineer from Monroe when he told me this, but I
have since run different price-levels of same-application shocks across my
shock dynamometer, and the cheaper shock is ALWAYS the stiffest of the
bunch - especially in the 3-6 i.p.s. range that we are concerned with - and
it is what we recommend to our oval-track customers when they are required
by their rulebook to run stock shock absorbers.
Ashton Crusher <demi@moore . net > wrote in article
<5q1n04labbu334i695ot15069kh15pgcds@4ax . com >...
>
> Monroe-matics, their cheapest shock, if a fairly soft shock.
>
Actually, the cheaper shocks are stiffer in comparison to the
same-application more-expensive shocks.
This is due to the cheaper shocks having only two or three valving stages
while the more expensive shocks can have up to ten.
This is why the more expensive shocks offer that "boulevard ride"....
I didn't believe the shock engineer from Monroe when he told me this, but I
have since run different price-levels of same-application shocks across my
shock dynamometer, and the cheaper shock is ALWAYS the stiffest of the
bunch - especially in the 3-6 i.p.s. range that we are concerned with - and
it is what we recommend to our oval-track customers when they are required
by their rulebook to run stock shock absorbers.
Re: shorter, softer than normal shocks avail?
On Apr 20, 5:07 am, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters . net > wrote:
> socal.peng...@gmail . com wrote:
> > I have a street rod that is using rear shocks that are from a 66
> > mustang -- this is a bayonett style unit with specs that are pretty
> > typical....a lot of cars use this. the ride is way, way too harsh on
> > poorly maintained roads. the springs are quite soft...so soft that
> > they compress the shocks about 2" down...however the shocks are not
> > bottoming out. they can't bottom out because they're just to stiff
> > for the light car (it's a fiberglass model t).
>
> > anyone know offhand if there is a shock absorber that is about 2/3 the
> > height and 2/3 the firmness of the shock? i have the koni adjustable
> > versions on another car...but when I set them to the appropriate
> > softness and try them on the steet rod, they're still a little too
> > tall (compress a little too much at a stand still).
>
> > i'd prefer to keep it bayonet-style, so the rear suspension/mounts
> > don't need redesign and/or welding.
>
> just so you know the shocks are meant to be partially compressed at
> normal ride height. Not clear if you understood this from your message.=
>
> Monroe has a good online catalog of fitments, although for damping
> you're kind of on your own.
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. * members.cox . net /njnagel- Hid=
e quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, I'm looking for shocks that are 2/3rds the height of what i have
because at rest, the car is using about 75% of the shock compression.
not ideal, if you know what i mean.
On Apr 20, 5:07 am, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters . net > wrote:
> socal.peng...@gmail . com wrote:
> > I have a street rod that is using rear shocks that are from a 66
> > mustang -- this is a bayonett style unit with specs that are pretty
> > typical....a lot of cars use this. the ride is way, way too harsh on
> > poorly maintained roads. the springs are quite soft...so soft that
> > they compress the shocks about 2" down...however the shocks are not
> > bottoming out. they can't bottom out because they're just to stiff
> > for the light car (it's a fiberglass model t).
>
> > anyone know offhand if there is a shock absorber that is about 2/3 the
> > height and 2/3 the firmness of the shock? i have the koni adjustable
> > versions on another car...but when I set them to the appropriate
> > softness and try them on the steet rod, they're still a little too
> > tall (compress a little too much at a stand still).
>
> > i'd prefer to keep it bayonet-style, so the rear suspension/mounts
> > don't need redesign and/or welding.
>
> just so you know the shocks are meant to be partially compressed at
> normal ride height. Not clear if you understood this from your message.=
>
> Monroe has a good online catalog of fitments, although for damping
> you're kind of on your own.
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. * members.cox . net /njnagel- Hid=
e quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, I'm looking for shocks that are 2/3rds the height of what i have
because at rest, the car is using about 75% of the shock compression.
not ideal, if you know what i mean.
Re: shorter, softer than normal shocks avail?
On Apr 20, 9:42 pm, "socal.peng...@gmail . com "
<socal.peng...@gmail . com > wrote:
> On Apr 20, 5:07 am, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters . net > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > socal.peng...@gmail . com wrote:
> > > I have a street rod that is using rear shocks that are from a 66
> > > mustang -- this is a bayonett style unit with specs that are pretty
> > > typical....a lot of cars use this. the ride is way, way too harsh o=
n
> > > poorly maintained roads. the springs are quite soft...so soft that
> > > they compress the shocks about 2" down...however the shocks are not
> > > bottoming out. they can't bottom out because they're just to stiff
> > > for the light car (it's a fiberglass model t).
>
> > > anyone know offhand if there is a shock absorber that is about 2/3 the=
> > > height and 2/3 the firmness of the shock? i have the koni adjustabl=
e
> > > versions on another car...but when I set them to the appropriate
> > > softness and try them on the steet rod, they're still a little too
> > > tall (compress a little too much at a stand still).
>
> > > i'd prefer to keep it bayonet-style, so the rear suspension/mounts
> > > don't need redesign and/or welding.
>
> > just so you know the shocks are meant to be partially compressed at
> > normal ride height. Not clear if you understood this from your messag=
e.
>
> > Monroe has a good online catalog of fitments, although for damping
> > you're kind of on your own.
>
> > nate
>
> > --
> > replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. * members.cox . net /njnagel-Hi=
de quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yeah, I'm looking for shocks that are 2/3rds the height of what i have
> because at rest, the car is using about 75% of the shock compression.
> not ideal, if you know what i mean.- Hide quoted text -
Absolutely I do. I'd suggest poking around Monroe's web site,
determine the length and mounting configuration of the shocks you have
now, and look for a part number that fits your needs. then you can
cross that back to an application, but I don't recall if Monroe's web
site has a "where used" feature or not. If it doesn't cross it back
to a gabriel application and check their web site to find the app.
then you should be able to take that info. and get whatever brand
shock you want at your FLAPS.
Here's where I started:
* w w w .monroe . com /catalog lookup/misc app docs/08 MountingLengthSheet.pd=
f
I had to do this for some Studebaker shock apps. a while back; I found
that a Jeep CJ rear shock was exactly identical to the stock 51-56
Stude rear shocks except for a 1/2" longer extended length, allowing
me to buy a full set of Bilsteins. (the fronts are Volvo 1800 or C1
Corvette, if you care.) Now I just need to come up with the $$$ for
the Bilsteins :)
good luck,
nate
On Apr 20, 9:42 pm, "socal.peng...@gmail . com "
<socal.peng...@gmail . com > wrote:
> On Apr 20, 5:07 am, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters . net > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > socal.peng...@gmail . com wrote:
> > > I have a street rod that is using rear shocks that are from a 66
> > > mustang -- this is a bayonett style unit with specs that are pretty
> > > typical....a lot of cars use this. the ride is way, way too harsh o=
n
> > > poorly maintained roads. the springs are quite soft...so soft that
> > > they compress the shocks about 2" down...however the shocks are not
> > > bottoming out. they can't bottom out because they're just to stiff
> > > for the light car (it's a fiberglass model t).
>
> > > anyone know offhand if there is a shock absorber that is about 2/3 the=
> > > height and 2/3 the firmness of the shock? i have the koni adjustabl=
e
> > > versions on another car...but when I set them to the appropriate
> > > softness and try them on the steet rod, they're still a little too
> > > tall (compress a little too much at a stand still).
>
> > > i'd prefer to keep it bayonet-style, so the rear suspension/mounts
> > > don't need redesign and/or welding.
>
> > just so you know the shocks are meant to be partially compressed at
> > normal ride height. Not clear if you understood this from your messag=
e.
>
> > Monroe has a good online catalog of fitments, although for damping
> > you're kind of on your own.
>
> > nate
>
> > --
> > replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. * members.cox . net /njnagel-Hi=
de quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yeah, I'm looking for shocks that are 2/3rds the height of what i have
> because at rest, the car is using about 75% of the shock compression.
> not ideal, if you know what i mean.- Hide quoted text -
Absolutely I do. I'd suggest poking around Monroe's web site,
determine the length and mounting configuration of the shocks you have
now, and look for a part number that fits your needs. then you can
cross that back to an application, but I don't recall if Monroe's web
site has a "where used" feature or not. If it doesn't cross it back
to a gabriel application and check their web site to find the app.
then you should be able to take that info. and get whatever brand
shock you want at your FLAPS.
Here's where I started:
* w w w .monroe . com /catalog lookup/misc app docs/08 MountingLengthSheet.pd=
f
I had to do this for some Studebaker shock apps. a while back; I found
that a Jeep CJ rear shock was exactly identical to the stock 51-56
Stude rear shocks except for a 1/2" longer extended length, allowing
me to buy a full set of Bilsteins. (the fronts are Volvo 1800 or C1
Corvette, if you care.) Now I just need to come up with the $$$ for
the Bilsteins :)
good luck,
nate
