Rear Shocks 1970-1973 Chrysler 1971-1973 Plymouth C-Bodies

1970FuryConv

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2014
Messages
4,691
Reaction score
4,371
Location
Richmond, VA
What are you running for rear shocks if you have a Chrysler or Plymouth C-Body in these year ranges?
I have a 1972 Plymouth Fury. I bought some old NOS Monroe's off ebay, but would like to do something stiffer for rear shocks. I measured approx 25.40" extended length, center to center, with 8.75 axle hanging on leaf springs, no shocks installed.

I also bought a 1988 KYB paper catalog off ebay. KG5512 (22.64" center to center, extended length) fits all c-body Dodge, which is why Dodges are not mentioned in the title. I tried KG5512, but does not give enough extended length for 15X7 cop rims to mount.

KG5513 is listed for 1970-1973 Chrysler & 1971-1973 Plymouth. KG5513 is a discontinued part#. Unfortunately, the tables at the rear of catalog did not give extended and collapsed length on the (New Part# for 1988) KG Shock line. I think Chrysler altered the rear subframe for Chrysler 1970-1973 and Plymouth full size 1971-1973, but left Dodge alone. Not sure if Bilstein has an application for 71-73 Chrysler/Plymouth full size and at $240 per pair, expensive. I was discussing this in another thread with @Ripinator who is running Gabriel 81091. https://www.summitracing.com/parts/GAB-81091.
Is that my only new option or are you running something else? If so, what?
For anyone who is interested these are blowups of the pages from the 1988 KYB catalog. The cut off columns are for struts and cartridges, inapplicable. Many Thanks! Ben
newport-ny-jpg.jpg

fury-jpg.jpg

polara-monaco-jpg.jpg
 

CBODY67

Old Man with a Hat
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
7,747
Reaction score
4,834
When I was looking at those things, a good while back (years ago), I discovered two different part numbers for C-body rear shocks. One had an extended length longer than the other one. Seems like the short one also fit B-body rears, too? Perhaps the shorter one was for C-body wagons and the longer one was for C-body sedans? I realize that might not make much sense, but that's what I seem to recall.

Dynamics . . . extended length is not as important as compressed length. Extended length is when the car is on a body contact lift and the rear springs "dangle". Compressed length iw when the rear suspension "bottoms out" on a dip. Which should coincide with when the rubber bumpers on the pinion and rear axle ends limit the upward travel of the rear suspension in that dip. Which would make the default mode the shorter of the two rear shocks, I suspect.

There will be no real "stiff" rear shock any more, as there might have been when the cars were "used car". In the prior ratings, the 1 3/8" piston in the shocks usually came with firmer valving for HD applications. As the old Monroe Super 500s, which were later siuperceded with the Monroe Radial-Matics. In the present time, not sure of what's the best for a firm ride, anymore.

The only 1 3/8" bore rear shocks I know of any more are air shocks, as Monroe sells. I know that some in here totally dislike anything to do with air shocks, but on the back of my '70 Monaco, I liked them (using them with about 60osi to level the car, at a time when there were no repro springs available). But you don't have to run air in them, other than the minimum to keep the bellows inflated.

Those old Monroe Super 500s were the best HD shock around, back then. Really firmed up the ride without being too firm or stiff.

The "ride rate" on the stock springs is somewhat soft, with the HD rear springs being a bit stiffer. Shock valving is the key to making those soft rear springs work and provide the ride that was firm and not stiff. As the shocks snubbed upward body motion right before it went too far. With no "float".

Monroe was the OEM supplier for most of Chrysler's C-body shock absorbers back then. The OEM production and Chrysler parts replacement shocks had "MAECO" stamped on them, which I was told by the old-line Chrysler service manager that that meant "Monroe Auto Equipment Company".

Hope that might help,
CBODY67
 

3C's & a D?

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2015
Messages
1,624
Reaction score
1,331
Location
By the tree in Edmonton
I would think all fuselage C bodies would have the same rear shocks. They all weighed roughly the same. Chrysler's had narrower axle housings, I can't see that effecting anything though.

I also can't see why you would have any problems mounting 15x7 steel wheels. Where is the interference?

I have used new Monroe's with success several times on fuselage Chrysler's and Dodge's with 15x7's.
 

ayilar

Old Man with a Hat
FCBO Gold Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
5,471
Reaction score
7,868
Location
USA
I was discussing this in another thread with @Ripinator who is running Gabriel 81091. Gabriel Guardian Shocks and Struts 81091.

I would think all fuselage C bodies would have the same rear shocks.

I was also unaware of the issue, but Rip experienced it first-hand this summer on his '73 Newport Navajo 2dr (here is the relevant part of the thread cited by @1970FuryConv). The difference seems to be for 1970-1973 Chryslers and 1971-1973 Furies, not for any C-body fuselage Dodge or any fuselage C-body wagon.

Edit: Found an old post by @thrashingcows in another forum, that lists a number of fusie shock choices.
 
Last edited:

Davea Lux

Old Man with a Hat
FCBO Gold Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Messages
9,010
Reaction score
8,226
Location
Cornelius Or
Rock auto has the Monroe load leveler Rear shock in stock. Firm ride with extra load capacity.

Dave
 

CBODY67

Old Man with a Hat
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
7,747
Reaction score
4,834
3 Cs and a D, I was wondering today what Chrysler's attraction was to 6.5" wide wheels (14" and 15", depending on the model year range) might have been. Especially as the Police HD wheels were usually only 6.0" wide. Yet the 15x7 Rallyes were on E-body cars all day long. Which should also fit B-body cars, as that was the base for the E-body suspension. Another mystery!

I have a set of '76 Charger SE 15x6.5 Rallyes on my '70 Monaco. They fit with no problems, even with the "recessed mount" finned drums on the front. Plenty of tire clearance with P225/75R-15s on them.

With the factory backspacing, the only real clearance issues would be: front -- outer tie rod ends rear -- outer wheelhouse/fender skirts and leaf springs on the inner side.

I have seen some of the alloy 15x7 '81 Cordoba wheels (5-on-5 spoke) on '65 Chryslers, one year at Mopar Nats. Everything looked "right" on them. Removing the narrower spokes would yield an aluminum Magnum 500 look, which would be neat, I think.

Just some thoughts,
CBODY67
 

3C's & a D?

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2015
Messages
1,624
Reaction score
1,331
Location
By the tree in Edmonton
3 Cs and a D, I was wondering today what Chrysler's attraction was to 6.5" wide wheels (14" and 15", depending on the model year range) might have been. Especially as the Police HD wheels were usually only 6.0" wide. Yet the 15x7 Rallyes were on E-body cars all day long. Which should also fit B-body cars, as that was the base for the E-body suspension. Another mystery!

I have a set of '76 Charger SE 15x6.5 Rallyes on my '70 Monaco. They fit with no problems, even with the "recessed mount" finned drums on the front. Plenty of tire clearance with P225/75R-15s on them.

With the factory backspacing, the only real clearance issues would be: front -- outer tie rod ends rear -- outer wheelhouse/fender skirts and leaf springs on the inner side.

I have seen some of the alloy 15x7 '81 Cordoba wheels (5-on-5 spoke) on '65 Chryslers, one year at Mopar Nats. Everything looked "right" on them. Removing the narrower spokes would yield an aluminum Magnum 500 look, which would be neat, I think.

Just some thoughts,
CBODY67

I have no idea why the lighter E's would come with 7 inch wide wheels and not the C's. I really only have experience with fuselages, so only 15 inch, and have found most were only equipped with 15x5.5's. I think the trailer tow package would get the 15x6's, and likely heavy duty suspension car's. I've never seen a 15x6.5 on a fuselage.
 

polara71

Old Man with a Hat
Joined
Nov 16, 2010
Messages
43,577
Reaction score
23,008
Location
5100 ft above sea level
I have no idea why the lighter E's would come with 7 inch wide wheels and not the C's. I really only have experience with fuselages, so only 15 inch, and have found most were only equipped with 15x5.5's. I think the trailer tow package would get the 15x6's, and likely heavy duty suspension car's. I've never seen a 15x6.5 on a fuselage.

I'd have to confirm from my picture files but I'm certain my tow package 70 Polara ( used to own) had 6.5" steelies from the factory.
 

CBODY67

Old Man with a Hat
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
7,747
Reaction score
4,834
I believe the SAE Specs list 15x6.5 as "station wagon wheels", as others are usually 15x6s, with 15x5.5 on the base models.

In many respects, the rim width tended to parallel the tread width of the tires that were mounted on them. Unless you were racing or carrying very heavy loads, it might not be evident if the car had 5.5" or 6.0" wide wheels under it, I suspect. 70-series tires usually had 6.0" rims from the factory. The 15x7 E-cars usually had a 60-series tire on them. Has nothing to do with the vehicle's weight.

Back then, it was optimum to have the tire's tread width to be within 1" of the rim width. But as I found out with the 15x7s I put on my '80 Newport, still using the stock size tires, the wider rims made the sidewalls more verticle, which increased handling response, even with the B-grade radials I put on it for daily use. On a narrow-tread bias-ply tire, it would also probably need a few more psi to keep the tread from being concave against the road, which would help handling even more.

Corvettes didn't sprout the 15x8 Rally wheels until about 1968 or so. When they went to something wider than what was on the prior Sting Ray era cars. With the similar 15x7 Rallys, the Corvettes had a zero-offset wheel as the other cars using that style 15" wheel had the typical Chevrolet offset/backspacing. Easy to visually tell the difference if you knew what you were looking at.

Just my observations,
CBODY67
 

Snotty

Senior Member
FCBO Gold Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
4,311
Reaction score
3,209
Location
Chico, California
Since my leaf springs are weak I put a set of coil-over shocks on my car almost 17 years ago. They've worked well!

IMG_2258.JPG
 

1970FuryConv

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2014
Messages
4,691
Reaction score
4,371
Location
Richmond, VA
I would think all fuselage C bodies would have the same rear shocks. They all weighed roughly the same. Chrysler's had narrower axle housings, I can't see that effecting anything though.

I also can't see why you would have any problems mounting 15x7 steel wheels. Where is the interference?

I have used new Monroe's with success several times on fuselage Chrysler's and Dodge's with 15x7's.
With KG5512, 215-75R15 on 15x7 cop rims would not fit between Quarter panel at top of wheel well and brake drum/lugs. I had to disconnect lower mount of the shock to mount my tires. Returned KG5512 to RA.
 

1970FuryConv

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2014
Messages
4,691
Reaction score
4,371
Location
Richmond, VA
I was also unaware of the issue, but Rip experienced it first-hand this summer on his '73 Newport Navajo 2dr (here is the relevant part of the thread cited by @1970FuryConv). The difference seems to be for 1970-1973 Chryslers and 1971-1973 Furies, not for any C-body fuselage Dodge or any fuselage C-body wagon.

Edit: Found an old post by @thrashingcows in another forum, that lists a number of fusie shock choices.
I agree that the D100 and Ramcharger shocks are a better fit. Most are still short of 25" extended length. Might go with the Ramcharger coil overs. They're 25" even.
More Information for MONROE 58571
I'll have the 72 up in the air pretty soon. I need to do some measuring for when I go with wider tires.
 

Davea Lux

Old Man with a Hat
FCBO Gold Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Messages
9,010
Reaction score
8,226
Location
Cornelius Or
I agree that the D100 and Ramcharger shocks are a better fit. Most are still short of 25" extended length. Might go with the Ramcharger coil overs. They're 25" even.
More Information for MONROE 58571
I'll have the 72 up in the air pretty soon. I need to do some measuring for when I go with wider tires.

The #58577 load leveler is what shows in the Monroe catalogue. Could someone have replaced the stock shock with some that were longer? Some of the police cruisers used a specialty shock, is this a PK series Fury?

Dave
 

ayilar

Old Man with a Hat
FCBO Gold Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
5,471
Reaction score
7,868
Location
USA
With KG5512, 215-75R15 on 15x7 cop rims would not fit between Quarter panel at top of wheel well and brake drum/lugs. I had to disconnect lower mount of the shock to mount my tires. Returned KG5512 to RA.

No issue with KYB KG5512 on stock 1970 Polara (318-2, standard springs) and 1971 Monaco (440-4, ditto). Same for @71Polara383 who also put the same KYBs on one of his Polaras. Your and our respective experiences seem consistent with the info that you posted in the original message above.
 

3C's & a D?

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2015
Messages
1,624
Reaction score
1,331
Location
By the tree in Edmonton
I'd have to confirm from my picture files but I'm certain my tow package 70 Polara ( used to own) had 6.5" steelies from the factory.

If you find out, let us know. Sounds like they may be a wagon item.

With KG5512, 215-75R15 on 15x7 cop rims would not fit between Quarter panel at top of wheel well and brake drum/lugs. I had to disconnect lower mount of the shock to mount my tires. Returned KG5512 to RA.

Chrysler's have a huge quarter panel wheelwell overhang which makes mounting even a stock 15x5.5 a pain, 15x7's are notably worse. Did you raise and support the body, let the axle drop, then install tire?

No issue with KYB KG5512 on stock 1970 Polara (318-2, standard springs) and 1971 Monaco (440-4, ditto). Same for @71Polara383 who also put the same KYBs on one of his Polaras. Your and our respective experiences seem consistent with the info that you posted in the original message above.

The Dodge's don't have the overhang the Chrysler's do. Perhaps there is something to this extended length measurement?
 

CBODY67

Old Man with a Hat
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
7,747
Reaction score
4,834
In mounting the then-NOS P245/70R-15 BFG Advantage TAs on the 14x6.5" station wagon wheels, on my '67 Newport, I was glad it had the narrower rear brake drums as I just barely got the tires into the wheelwells by angling them as I pushed them upward past the brake drums. But once there, no issues. Now that I think of it, a 7" wide wheel might have required that the rear shocks be unhooked from the axle, with the car on a body-contact lift, for a bit more tire/body clearance.

Those P245/70$-14 BFGs mesured the same as an old, worn, H70-14 tire I came across. The stock statioin wagon tire on the '66-'67 Chrysler wagons was 9.00x14, which would have been mounted on the same 14x6.5" wheels. FWIW Which would also mean they'd have to clear the 11x3 rear drums, too.

Enjoy!
CBODY67
 

1970FuryConv

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2014
Messages
4,691
Reaction score
4,371
Location
Richmond, VA
The #58577 load leveler is what shows in the Monroe catalogue. Could someone have replaced the stock shock with some that were longer? Some of the police cruisers used a specialty shock, is this a PK series Fury? Dave
Not a PK. 72 Fury III coupe
IMG_20200918_091318ps.jpg
 

1970FuryConv

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2014
Messages
4,691
Reaction score
4,371
Location
Richmond, VA
Chrysler's have a huge quarter panel wheelwell overhang which makes mounting even a stock 15x5.5 a pain, 15x7's are notably worse. Did you raise and support the body, let the axle drop, then install tire?
The Dodge's don't have the overhang the Chrysler's do. Perhaps there is something to this extended length measurement?
Yes, axle hanging free, KG5512 (22.64" extended) did not allow enough space between top of wheel well and drum to mount tire. In my 1st post KG5513 is catalog shock. I suspect it was 3" longer. Discontinued #, no specs.
 
Top