69 fury shocks

69mopar man

New Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
46
Reaction score
25
Location
Michigan
Hey folks, does anyone know what’s the best OE or better shocks to go with, I’m thinking kyb , getting that done and exhaust this week then finally take her for a ride.

D4E1A6E5-4B0C-4457-91FC-3709F5AB9568.jpeg


93ECBF60-9FBE-4726-AAC5-964AF230AD21.jpeg


97531A45-8507-4C69-A7CE-0986A574C44D.jpeg


3D1252C7-1F0C-4685-8391-370458624E2C.jpeg


AFB48374-A11D-4B31-88B3-9DBE693728C6.jpeg
 

1970FuryConv

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2014
Messages
3,948
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Richmond, VA
KYB Gas-a-Just Front & Rear Shock Absorbers Kit For Chrysler 300 1965-1969 Dodge Monaco 1965-1973 Plymouth Fury I Fury II Fury III https://a.co/d/dAAaS8N
I definitely agree with KYB. However, the Amazon seller in your link is wrong on one count. For 1971 through 1973, Plymouth full-size and Chrysler full size, the correct shock is significantly longer. It's out of production and KYB buyer needs to go with a D150 shock for the same period. 1988 KYB paper catalog below. Rear shocks are listed in the 2nd shaded column from the left.
Fury.jpg

Polara & Monaco.jpg

Newport & NY.jpg
 

3175375

Senior Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
2,322
Reaction score
4,102
Location
Centerville, South Dakota
I definitely agree with KYB. However, the Amazon seller in your link is wrong on one count. For 1971 through 1973, Plymouth full-size and Chrysler full size, the correct shock is significantly longer. It's out of production and KYB buyer needs to go with a D150 shock for the same period. 1988 KYB paper catalog below. Rear shocks are listed in the 2nd shaded column from the left.
View attachment 535788
View attachment 535789
View attachment 535790
Good to know!
No issues with applying it in a 69 or 70?
 

Sport Fury GT

New Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
13
Reaction score
3
Location
Mexico, MO
I had KYB shocks on my 70 GT. They were decent. Rode on and did their job. I put Bilsteins on and they are a major improvement, IMHO.
 

Turboomni

Old Man with a Hat
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
6,258
Reaction score
6,188
Location
MA
I had KYB shocks on my 70 GT. They were decent. Rode on and did their job. I put Bilsteins on and they are a major improvement, IMHO.
I have heard good things about the Bilsteins and heard they are a bit stiffer than the KYB's if I remember correctly. So it is is just a matter of taste I would think. I am very happy with my KYB gas adjust shocks but would like to ride in a C body with the Bilsteins and see what they are like.
 

Turboomni

Old Man with a Hat
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
6,258
Reaction score
6,188
Location
MA
Here are a few pics 69mopar man. I am sorry I don't have a Gallery or Showcase spot as I could never get it to take my pics. The engine was just installed a week or so ago. It is a 440 stroker bored .030 and stroked to 505 cubes. It is in the process of being installed in the pics. It has 440 source Stealth aluminum heads which look stock when painted and hence the name ,they are ported, Holley single plane aluminum intake [for carb/hood clearance] ,as well as aluminum water pump and housing ,custom ground roller [hydraulic roller] cam by Dwayne Porter to work with HP cast iron manifolds. Bla bla bla and I wanted it to look as if it came from the factory. Big thanks to @FURYGT and @MEV for their inspiration as they really influenced me to go this route. {Look them up here on this forum] With highway gears [3.23] this thing pulls hard on pump piss now and I can putts around town in traffic with power brakes and not even come close to getting a warm/hot engine and cruise the highway with ease.

20190908_163540.jpg

20190908_163551 (1).jpg


20220518_093107.jpg


20220520_140009.jpg
20220518_114218.jpg
 
Last edited:

CBODY67

Old Man with a Hat
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
7,450
Reaction score
4,577
With all due respect, MUCH of how we might feel about shock absorbers can really get down to "personal taste" an such. What some might describe as "too stiff" might not be stiff to others. OR . . . as I found out, the tires on the cars can make a difference in how a shock absorber acts, too. On Chrysler products especially, tire impact harshness can be determined to be "rough riding" when compared to a similar Ford or GM vehicle, no matter what tire or shock is on the car.

That "rough riding" complaint was thrown around toward Chrysler UniBody cars a lot, it seemed, in the middle 1960s. Due to the tire impact noise transmission into the passenger compartment, compared to the body/frame contruction of full-size Ford and GM cars. Back then, when we had our '66 Newport Town Sedan and it was "a used car", I covered my ears and felt "road items" without hearing anything. Surprisingly, our Chrysler rode pretty dang smooth, not hearing things. Then I uncovered my ears and it still rode smooth, but was a bit noisy.

Back then, we had lots of real choices in shock absorbers, with the main ones being Monroe, Gabriel, Goerlich (which did a lot of private-brand shocks). Knowing that Monroe Super 500s were the premium HD shock back then, when the stock shocks on the Newport started getting weak (to me, but were getting a bit too much "GM float" to be a Chrysler), I advocated for the Chrysler parts book HD shocks, which were most probably Monroe Super 500s anyway. They rode nicely and were also firm, like a Chrysler should be. But when the front ones started to get a bit bouncy, I put some Gabriel Striders (adjustable) on the front. One click stiffer from soft and they were perfect. Matched the rear factory HD shocks nicely, too.

Back then, I'd read that the owner of KONI drove mid-60s C-body Chryslers, so that particular application was a bit more dialed-in than for other brands. I though that was neat.

When I needed shocks for my then-newer '77 Camaro LT F41, I put some Delco Big D shocks on it, but they were just too stiff. Shook the front fenders on freeway trar strips at 65mph, BUT the one time I thought I'd bottom-out the front end, it didn't. But traded them to a friend who had a '78 Z/28 for the KONIs he had on that car, the night before he took it to trade it in. I had been in Glen's Z/28 a alot and liked the way it rode with the KONIs and BFG Radial TAs on factory aluminum wheels. So that got me into KONIs.

Another friend who had a '77 Z/28 with KONIs decided to put some Bilsteins on his car. He took me for a ride in it to show me how much softer they were than the KONIs. PLUS how much easier it was to slide the rear end around on roundabouts! He was not prepared for the softer ride and the different handling, nor would I have expected such, either. So Bilsteins came off of my "possible choices" list.

From what I've seen as things have evolved into the current time, I'm not really sure if we do have any really good choices in shock absorbers, other than KONIs (which are not really available for our applications without some rigging of non-C-body applications). KYB has always been a quality product, but not a brand we normally considered, until the oast 10-15 years or so.

About 20 years or so ago, when I couldn't afford some new KONIs for the front of the Camaro, I shopped aorund and got some Gabriel HD shocks for the front of it. By their literature, they sould have been good HD shocks, but they floated big-time. Which surprised me, especially considering that they also fit '55 Chevy fronts, too. So I drove carefully until I could scrounge together some money to get new KONIs. Mark Gabriel from any future purchse considerations, too.

About 20 years ago, in another Chryser forum, the subject of shocks came up. Many claimed that the Monroes were really valved for B-bodies, so they were too weak for the heavier C-bodies. Some mentioned KYBs as they were stiffer and handled the weight of the havier C-bodies well. And that got me to thinking about KYBs and what made them as good as they apparently were.

If you read the marketing information on the three main replacement brands (Monroe, Gabriel, ACDelco), they all have some fancy name for "speed-sensitive damping". Which ALL shocks have had since at least the 1940s, by observation. Nothing magical there. Where they might have some differences is in the resistance in the valving, as all claim to have a smoooth ride with "control" for comfort.

So, for me, it ends up being Monroe (due to the Chrysler tie-in from ages ago), KONI (only if I can find some NOS vintage C-body shocks), NOS Chrysler HD shocks, and KYBs. I know that many do not like air shocks, but the Monroe and Gabriel air shocks still have the 1 3/8 pistons as the HD shocks of old, which I consider to be good, whether or not the air function is working. BTAIM.

Now, one reason I like Chrysler products is for their firmer ride and better handling characteristics. Certainly, they do ride smooth, but once things start to get a bit bouncy, I also like to feel the shocks "catch and limit" that float, too. So, keeping it all "in character" is very important, to me.

Personally, I've been a bit surprised at the cost and complexity of QA-1 and Viking shocks. Which makes me wonder if they are coving lots of applicaitons due to their adjustability or if their basic valving is really tailored to the weight of the vehicle (as the OEM items were)? Unanswered questions, I suspect.

A good while back, I came across a '68 Buick LeSabre convertible. A deal I couldn't pass up. I did not want to make it ride too stiff, but it also needed new shocks. So after much deliberation, I put some basic ACDelco gas shocks on it. It still rode nice, but it also handled dips and such with much composure, too. I was impressed. Even made it as much fun to drive as my Chryslers were, which was even more surprising.

Back in the later 1960s, our Gulf service station guy always put Monroe Super 500s on everything his customers needed shocks for. When I questioned a '66 Olds 98 with them, he stated that it firmed-up the suspension very nicely and it handled much better. At that time, I questioned that a big Olds could ride and handle as good as a Chrysler, fwiw. But after those ACDelco gas shocks on the Buick, I understood what he meant.

So, after all of my comments and experiences, I tend to be of the orientation that one could do worse than KYBs, after process of elimination. In one respect, if you might feel that they ride rough, put on some heavy earmuffs and see if you were hearing the road more than you were feeling it. Duplicating my earlier experiment in that area, years ago. Not to forget that the shorter the sidewall height, the more impact harshness might be felt/heard, anyway.

In more modern times, we've become more accustomed to a more Euro ride and such, which is generally firmer and stiff than days of old. But not quite as soft and smooth, by comparison. Part of this is due to the shorter wheelbases of the cars, but then too the 4-dr pickup trucks are pretty good at cornering, too. Obviously, if the current state of tire tech was not what it has become, there would be LOTs more body shop business!

Perhaps I've rambled a bit through all of this, but these have been my experiences over the past 40+ years. Perhaps, it might help some to see through the fog related to shock absorber choices in our modern times?

Enjoy!
CBODY67
 

3175375

Senior Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
2,322
Reaction score
4,102
Location
Centerville, South Dakota
With all due respect, MUCH of how we might feel about shock absorbers can really get down to "personal taste" an such. What some might describe as "too stiff" might not be stiff to others. OR . . . as I found out, the tires on the cars can make a difference in how a shock absorber acts, too. On Chrysler products especially, tire impact harshness can be determined to be "rough riding" when compared to a similar Ford or GM vehicle, no matter what tire or shock is on the car.

That "rough riding" complaint was thrown around toward Chrysler UniBody cars a lot, it seemed, in the middle 1960s. Due to the tire impact noise transmission into the passenger compartment, compared to the body/frame contruction of full-size Ford and GM cars. Back then, when we had our '66 Newport Town Sedan and it was "a used car", I covered my ears and felt "road items" without hearing anything. Surprisingly, our Chrysler rode pretty dang smooth, not hearing things. Then I uncovered my ears and it still rode smooth, but was a bit noisy.

Back then, we had lots of real choices in shock absorbers, with the main ones being Monroe, Gabriel, Goerlich (which did a lot of private-brand shocks). Knowing that Monroe Super 500s were the premium HD shock back then, when the stock shocks on the Newport started getting weak (to me, but were getting a bit too much "GM float" to be a Chrysler), I advocated for the Chrysler parts book HD shocks, which were most probably Monroe Super 500s anyway. They rode nicely and were also firm, like a Chrysler should be. But when the front ones started to get a bit bouncy, I put some Gabriel Striders (adjustable) on the front. One click stiffer from soft and they were perfect. Matched the rear factory HD shocks nicely, too.

Back then, I'd read that the owner of KONI drove mid-60s C-body Chryslers, so that particular application was a bit more dialed-in than for other brands. I though that was neat.

When I needed shocks for my then-newer '77 Camaro LT F41, I put some Delco Big D shocks on it, but they were just too stiff. Shook the front fenders on freeway trar strips at 65mph, BUT the one time I thought I'd bottom-out the front end, it didn't. But traded them to a friend who had a '78 Z/28 for the KONIs he had on that car, the night before he took it to trade it in. I had been in Glen's Z/28 a alot and liked the way it rode with the KONIs and BFG Radial TAs on factory aluminum wheels. So that got me into KONIs.

Another friend who had a '77 Z/28 with KONIs decided to put some Bilsteins on his car. He took me for a ride in it to show me how much softer they were than the KONIs. PLUS how much easier it was to slide the rear end around on roundabouts! He was not prepared for the softer ride and the different handling, nor would I have expected such, either. So Bilsteins came off of my "possible choices" list.

From what I've seen as things have evolved into the current time, I'm not really sure if we do have any really good choices in shock absorbers, other than KONIs (which are not really available for our applications without some rigging of non-C-body applications). KYB has always been a quality product, but not a brand we normally considered, until the oast 10-15 years or so.

About 20 years or so ago, when I couldn't afford some new KONIs for the front of the Camaro, I shopped aorund and got some Gabriel HD shocks for the front of it. By their literature, they sould have been good HD shocks, but they floated big-time. Which surprised me, especially considering that they also fit '55 Chevy fronts, too. So I drove carefully until I could scrounge together some money to get new KONIs. Mark Gabriel from any future purchse considerations, too.

About 20 years ago, in another Chryser forum, the subject of shocks came up. Many claimed that the Monroes were really valved for B-bodies, so they were too weak for the heavier C-bodies. Some mentioned KYBs as they were stiffer and handled the weight of the havier C-bodies well. And that got me to thinking about KYBs and what made them as good as they apparently were.

If you read the marketing information on the three main replacement brands (Monroe, Gabriel, ACDelco), they all have some fancy name for "speed-sensitive damping". Which ALL shocks have had since at least the 1940s, by observation. Nothing magical there. Where they might have some differences is in the resistance in the valving, as all claim to have a smoooth ride with "control" for comfort.

So, for me, it ends up being Monroe (due to the Chrysler tie-in from ages ago), KONI (only if I can find some NOS vintage C-body shocks), NOS Chrysler HD shocks, and KYBs. I know that many do not like air shocks, but the Monroe and Gabriel air shocks still have the 1 3/8 pistons as the HD shocks of old, which I consider to be good, whether or not the air function is working. BTAIM.

Now, one reason I like Chrysler products is for their firmer ride and better handling characteristics. Certainly, they do ride smooth, but once things start to get a bit bouncy, I also like to feel the shocks "catch and limit" that float, too. So, keeping it all "in character" is very important, to me.

Personally, I've been a bit surprised at the cost and complexity of QA-1 and Viking shocks. Which makes me wonder if they are coving lots of applicaitons due to their adjustability or if their basic valving is really tailored to the weight of the vehicle (as the OEM items were)? Unanswered questions, I suspect.

A good while back, I came across a '68 Buick LeSabre convertible. A deal I couldn't pass up. I did not want to make it ride too stiff, but it also needed new shocks. So after much deliberation, I put some basic ACDelco gas shocks on it. It still rode nice, but it also handled dips and such with much composure, too. I was impressed. Even made it as much fun to drive as my Chryslers were, which was even more surprising.

Back in the later 1960s, our Gulf service station guy always put Monroe Super 500s on everything his customers needed shocks for. When I questioned a '66 Olds 98 with them, he stated that it firmed-up the suspension very nicely and it handled much better. At that time, I questioned that a big Olds could ride and handle as good as a Chrysler, fwiw. But after those ACDelco gas shocks on the Buick, I understood what he meant.

So, after all of my comments and experiences, I tend to be of the orientation that one could do worse than KYBs, after process of elimination. In one respect, if you might feel that they ride rough, put on some heavy earmuffs and see if you were hearing the road more than you were feeling it. Duplicating my earlier experiment in that area, years ago. Not to forget that the shorter the sidewall height, the more impact harshness might be felt/heard, anyway.

In more modern times, we've become more accustomed to a more Euro ride and such, which is generally firmer and stiff than days of old. But not quite as soft and smooth, by comparison. Part of this is due to the shorter wheelbases of the cars, but then too the 4-dr pickup trucks are pretty good at cornering, too. Obviously, if the current state of tire tech was not what it has become, there would be LOTs more body shop business!

Perhaps I've rambled a bit through all of this, but these have been my experiences over the past 40+ years. Perhaps, it might help some to see through the fog related to shock absorber choices in our modern times?

Enjoy!
CBODY67
Thank you for the information!

Personal experience has shown me that shock choices fall into 2 categories: 1) personal preference and 2) optimal suspension harmony.
Obviously, #1 is the abstract ‘feeling’ of how the vehicle rides over various road surfaces.
#2 is the scientific design of the complete suspension system (shocks, springs, unsprung weight of the tire, wheel, rotor/drum, hub, spindle, etc.), weight of the vehicle and the road surface.

In my 65 Mustang, I attempted to reduce the unsprung weight of the suspension. In working on that, I procured a set of Pantera magnesium wheels, Koni shocks, installed roller bearings in the upper a-arms, polyurethane swaybar and suspension bushings, heim joints in the struts that attaches to the lower control arm and even installed a roller bearing pitman arm. My goal was to reduce unsprung weight and ‘free up’ the front suspension for road racing.

If I had more gumption, I could have came up with an equation for how the suspension would react with my engineering background, but laziness won over in that idea.

Bottom line is to take in previous experiences and choose a shock based on those inputs, install and try the shocks out and make a change or accept what you bought.

Budget, reliability and availability also factor into the situation.

Clear as mud given my ramble, no?
 

69mopar man

New Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
46
Reaction score
25
Location
Michigan
Great info ! Thanks everyone for your vast knowledge and congrats turboomni on your hard work I love your car and would love to have that sweet 440 , I was just wondering if you had , or if they were even available to have a floor console in a 69? That would be the perfect car, I’m going to try the kyb shocks and came across a post about pertronix igniter I think I’ll try it , still waiting to get car in for new exhaust
 

69mopar man

New Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
46
Reaction score
25
Location
Michigan
Hey folks got the shocks coming the garage wants 366 for the front 400 for the back installed , I didn’t think it would be so much , has anybody put shocks on , how hard is it ? I think I could manage the rears but the fronts scare me
 

bnz84

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
501
Reaction score
538
Location
Maryland
I havnt put on front yet, although many have and its searchable. Some difficulty if not compressed. But as you said the rears are easy unless you have rusted bolts. This is rock auto 69 fury selection. I have the Monroe's circled. They seem OK. I'm guessing the KYBs are better.


1654878677107.png
 
Top