1973 Imperial shocks.

[Boydsdodge]

Hello all. Just want to confirm 73 Imperial shock absorbers.
They were the same size externally as a 73 Newyorker shock? Maybe valved differently? Or is there an actual external length width on the shocks from a C-body to an Imperial?
I would like to put an order in and just want some confirmation.
Thanks.

 

[Boydsdodge]

Original part numbers.
Front: Chrysler 3683994. Imperial 3622000
Rear: Chrysler 3722382. Imperial 3402168

 

[CBODY67]

At this time in history, I suspect that you might find the OEM-Production Imperial shocks from an obsolete parts supplier as @mobileparts or possibly an eBay seller. I find it interesting that a '73 Imperial shock might have a different part number than a similar C-body shock. But considering that the particular part number would also include the related upper mount bushing, perhaps it was a different one than the normal C-body shock used, although the shocks would be the same, otherwise.

On the replacement side of things, Monroe lists their current OESpectrum shock for "1973 Chrysler, Imperial" as the "5811" part number. Seems like that was the same part number that also went with their prior "RadialMatic" front shock? The RadialMatic replaced the prior Super 500" as their HD shock, when all shocks had to be "radial tuned" for best results?

End result is that what might have been two different OEM part numbers have been combined into one replacement shock number in the aftermarket. In the "Buyers Guide" section at www.rockauto.com , those Monroe front shocks are C-body '65-'73 and Imperial from '657-'73, which seems appropriate to me. Putting in the model and year at www.monroe.com yields the 5811 OESpectrum front shocks and MonroeMatic rear shocks. OR rear Load-Leveler or air shocks at the rear, too. So that's the current state of affairs, it seems, with resoect to Monroe.

In another forum, a few decades ago, several posters back then lauded the KYBs are being the only real alternative on C-body shocks. They claimed that other C-body shocks seemed to have B-body valving in them, which was felt to be weaker than the OEM C-body valving (which might have been fueled by the fact the rear shocks from Monroe also include '75-'78 Cordobas in the buyers' guide listing?). They claimed the KYBs were stiff enough to handle the front end weight, fwiw. Or perhaps they were stiffer, which is what the poster desired in the first place? That was the first time I'd ever heard of using KYB shocks on a C-body.

Just some thoughts,
CBODY67

 

[ayilar]

I am a big fan of the KYB and have been enjoying them for four years and over 15k miles in total on Poppy (my 1970 Polara 'vert) and Medina (my 1971 Monaco coupe). However, @Ripinator found out, when changing shocks on his 1973 Navajo, that the KYB rear shock that works on most C-bodies does not work on 1973 Chryslers. He went with Gabriel shocks instead.

 

[Mntac]

Installed KYBs's on my 78 Eldorado and very happy with the ride. Great shocks for large cars.

 

[Boydsdodge]

Great reply, thank you.
My concern was that after dropping a ball joint to install new shocks that the c-body might be a bit longer and may bottom out.
I have had great returns with ride using the Bilstiens on plenty of Mopars, but no experience with shocks on an Imperial. RCD lists 73 New Yorker Bilsteins. I may just order a set of KYB shocks since much easier to buy and get good reviews.
The shocks in my Imperial look and test as they should, but that's 50 year old tech.(Not that that's a bad thing) On highway drives when hitting a dip the front to back Porpusing is unsettling.
Shock extension feels weak, compression might be fine but not on the extension.
Thanks again guys.

 

[Ripinator]

Great reply, thank you.
My concern was that after dropping a ball joint to install new shocks that the c-body might be a bit longer and may bottom out.
I have had great returns with ride using the Bilstiens on plenty of Mopars, but no experience with shocks on an Imperial. RCD lists 73 New Yorker Bilsteins. I may just order a set of KYB shocks since much easier to buy and get good reviews.
The shocks in my Imperial look and test as they should, but that's 50 year old tech.(Not that that's a bad thing) On highway drives when hitting a dip the front to back Porpusing is unsettling.
Shock extension feels weak, compression might be fine but not on the extension.
Thanks again guys.

When I replaced the shocks on my '73 Newport Navajo, I had a helluva time finding shocks for the rear. KYB has them for the front, but not the rear. That is how I ended up with the Gabriels. During my quest for shocks that fit, I also found NAPA had their own brand of gas shock, but I had already acquired the Gabriels. Didn't look at the Bilsteins. . .

 

[CBODY67]

If y'all think the gas pressure in the KYBs is too much for an easy install, the Bilsteins will VERY probably be higher pressure and all that might mean.

From what I've seen, not much "new tech" in normal shock absorbers in the last 50 years. Main addition was the "gas" added to help minimize fluid foaming in more rough times. Maybe syn shock fluid, too, although I believe the Chrysler shocks had a multi-vis fluid in them? Almost every major brand of normal shocks mentions something about "velocity-related valving", but this could well be nothing more than the 3-stage valving that's been around for 50 years or more. New fancier name for the same old stuff, it looks like to me.

Enjoy!
CBODY67

 

[Wile E Coyote]

Just to ask a dumb question: can a shock length change the ride height of a vehicle? Can a wrong shock length shock affect ride height by? 1/2-inch, 1-inch, or more? Curious....

 

[CBODY67]

Just to ask a dumb question: can a shock length change the ride height of a vehicle? Can a wrong shock length shock affect ride height by? 1/2-inch, 1-inch, or more? Curious....

View attachment 521803

NO, not unless the compressed length is too long and the shock bottoms out,\ before the normal rubber bumpers come into play. High pressure gas shocks, due to their high internal gas pressure charge, can increase ride height about 1'4" or so, though, due to their internal gas pressure. Why do you ask?

CBODY67

 

[sixpkrt]

When I replaced the shocks on my '73 Newport Navajo, I had a helluva time finding shocks for the rear. KYB has them for the front, but not the rear.

Jegs had them when I placed the order for the 71 NYer.
575-KG4509 (fronts)
575-KG5521 (rears)

 

[CBODY67]

A few decades ago when I was researching C-body shocks (when the cars were just "used" rather than "ancient"), with several brands of shock catalogs (i.e., Monroe), I noticed that some of the C-body station rear shocks were not the same as the corresponding sedans, they had a shorter overall length. I was always curious about that as the extended length would mean how much extension they didn't have on the wagons, but did on the sedans. Some brands, as I recall, just put them all together with the shorter extended length. Seems like the shorter extended length shocks also fit B-body wagons, too?

I believed that Monroe would have the correct information as they were the OEM supplier to Chrysler back then. No need for them to combine applications or delete them at that time.

Just some recollections,
CBODY67

 

[Ripinator]

Jegs had them when I placed the order for the 71 NYer.
575-KG4509 (fronts)
575-KG5521 (rears)

Tim:

The 575-KG5521 (rears) may fit your '71, but they don't fit my '73. Have you installed them yet?

 

[sixpkrt]

Hey Rip, yes, they have been installed. I would think they will fit your 73 fuselage, as the mounting points can't be much different from my 71.
Here's a pic. (I painted them to look like old school shocks)

 

[Ripinator]

Hey Rip, yes, they have been installed. I would think they will fit your 73 fuselage, as the mounting points can't be much different from my 71.
Here's a pic. (I painted them to look like old school shocks)

View attachment 522046

Very interesting. . .

 

[64Imperial]

I had a guy make original hydraulic shocks for my 64 Imperial. You can even order heavy duty shocks with a larger piston and more oil. Classic Car & Pickups, Shocks and Springs

 

[Wile E Coyote]

NO, not unless the compressed length is too long and the shock bottoms out,\ before the normal rubber bumpers come into play. High pressure gas shocks, due to their high internal gas pressure charge, can increase ride height about 1'4" or so, though, due to their internal gas pressure. Why do you ask?

CBODY67

I didn't know that if when I put on new shocks, it increased my ride height. Thanks CBODY67!

 

[CBODY67]

1'4" should have been 1/4"

 

[Boydsdodge]

I did some digging around on shock lengths today. I had a new set of KYB KG5512 rear shocks from a B-body here, looked up the specs then compared to the stock shocks on my Imperial.
KG5512 Ext 22.64" Comp 13.98" travel 8.6"
Imperial shocks Ext 24.5" Comp 16" Travel 8.5".
Not too far off in length, but thought maybe why in another post about not able to remove rear wheel. This maybe the reason.
My Imperial needs full drop to get wheels off easy.

I looked through other heavy Chrysler products and fount that the rear Ramcharger shocks KG5413 are very close to my Imperial shocks.
KG5413 Ext 24.45" Comp 15" Travel 9.45"
The shock on my Imperial is a Monroe 32128, supersedes to Monroe 34854 or KYB 344086 Dodge W series truck 70s/80s.
I ordered the KG5413 with a pair of KG4507

 

[Boydsdodge]

I just did a test fit of the KG5412 shocks on my Imperial. They don't allow enough drop for wheel to be reinstalled.
I will wait to see what the KG5413 give me for clearance.
The Online Imperial club has a listing from KYB of KG5423. I thought it to be a bit too long, here is a link. Year Specific Shock Absorber Information For Your (Chrysler) Imperial