ceebuddy
Well-Known Member
They seem to have been in business for quite a while, being known for their adjustable shock absorbers among the more race-oriented folks.
Rip's New '73 Navajo
- Thread starter Ripinator
- Start date
As a shoot from the hip guess... could it be minor valving difference? 70 to 71 is the change to a softer chassis mounting, correct?
Maybe. I've gone into parts stores in the 80s and 90s looking for rear shocks. The 71s were always discontinued. The 70s and 72s were on the shelf.
I have not looked for 71s since the late 90s
I have not looked for 71s since the late 90s
I always think the best way is to ignore the aftermarket parts books and look at what the factory used if you want to see "what fits what".
The aftermarket always aims to have as few part numbers as possible with parts fitting a very broad group of cars. Sometimes that works that you end up with a better part than Chrysler put on the car, but it goes the other way too. The market narrows even farther when you start looking at higher end parts, like let's say the QA1 probably only lists one or two shocks that fit everything.
Then there's just the fact that sometimes you just have to take what you can get with a 50 year old car.
First 2 are from the 70/71 parts manual and third pic is the 69 manual
Some part numbers repeat between vehicles. Differences (if I'm correct) in suspension would be the rubber mounting on some of the 70 and 71 models. That wasn't done on the convertibles and station wagons and all the '69s, but I really don't know what others had them and what didn't.
3400587 repeats between all 3 years and I believe all those cars listed do not have the rubber mounting.
340019 repeats between 70 and 71 and I think those cars have the rubber mounts.
"Extra Heavy Duty" on one vehicle translates into "Standard" on others, which I've found is typical Chrysler.
1969
The aftermarket always aims to have as few part numbers as possible with parts fitting a very broad group of cars. Sometimes that works that you end up with a better part than Chrysler put on the car, but it goes the other way too. The market narrows even farther when you start looking at higher end parts, like let's say the QA1 probably only lists one or two shocks that fit everything.
Then there's just the fact that sometimes you just have to take what you can get with a 50 year old car.
First 2 are from the 70/71 parts manual and third pic is the 69 manual
Some part numbers repeat between vehicles. Differences (if I'm correct) in suspension would be the rubber mounting on some of the 70 and 71 models. That wasn't done on the convertibles and station wagons and all the '69s, but I really don't know what others had them and what didn't.
3400587 repeats between all 3 years and I believe all those cars listed do not have the rubber mounting.
340019 repeats between 70 and 71 and I think those cars have the rubber mounts.
"Extra Heavy Duty" on one vehicle translates into "Standard" on others, which I've found is typical Chrysler.
1969
Now if these guys are correct, the 3400587 superseded a bunch of part numbers and fits a lot of cars. Also "Oriflow" is worthy of note. I'll bet that's the company that built Chrysler's shocks. Some googling of the Chrysler part numbers gets some interesting results. I did this number because it fits my 70 300 vert.
NOS Mopar rear shock absorbers 1962-72 B body 1965-70 C body standard - Hiltop Auto Parts
EDIT: After some googling, "Oriflow" must have been a Chrysler name for their tubular shocks. Still interesting though... I have to search some more.
NOS Mopar rear shock absorbers 1962-72 B body 1965-70 C body standard - Hiltop Auto Parts
EDIT: After some googling, "Oriflow" must have been a Chrysler name for their tubular shocks. Still interesting though... I have to search some more.
Last edited:
live4theking
Old Man with a Hat
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2014
- Messages
- 12,422
- Reaction score
- 8,474
I agree completely about not rearching springs. Total waste of time, effort and money.I know we're disagreeing on shocksbut don't waste your time and money on re-arching/rebuilding.
Also, don't forget that the offset rear shackles aren't obtainable new, even though there are listings for them. Most likely, the spring shop is just going to bust the old ones.
Ripinator
Old Man with a Hat
Its been no secret that I've been looking for a set of Chrysler Road Wheels for my Navajo. I don't HATE the wheels that are on it, but the car really needs Road Wheels. Thanks to (@sixpkrt) and @ayilar) I was finally able to put together a full set. One center cap is incorrect, but everything else on the wheels is good to go. I took (@71Polara383)'s advice and followed his procedures to do a refurb of the wheels:
The trim rings and centers were a problem that @aiylar solved for me (Thank you! Thank you!):
And here are my Road Wheels in all their refurbed glory:
When I get 'em on the Navajo, I'll post some more pictures.
The trim rings and centers were a problem that @aiylar solved for me (Thank you! Thank you!):
And here are my Road Wheels in all their refurbed glory:
When I get 'em on the Navajo, I'll post some more pictures.
Last edited:
75LandYacht
Yank Tank
What rubber did you end up going with Rip?
Last edited:
75LandYacht
Yank Tank
Even the Rip, I see in one of your pictures that you have an Oddball center cap, which happens to be the kind from my 77. Would you be interested and letting it go?
Last edited:
3175375
Senior Member
Looks like Hankook Kinergy STs
Ripinator
Old Man with a Hat
I went with the Hankooks.
Ripinator
Old Man with a Hat
Have you got a 73 cap to trade?
75LandYacht
Yank Tank
No sir.. NO worries, I have a stash already, was looking to add to it incase I lose one.
MacLebaron
Well-Known Member
Very nice, good job!
Ripinator
Old Man with a Hat
My Navajo adventure continues. . . Working on the A/C right now. Charged the system (converting to 134) and the A/C works! However, the compressor runs all the time - won't shut off regardless of the setting on the switch, temp lever, etc. Somewhere in my fuzzy memory, I remember reading somewhere that '73 Chryslers (and maybe other years) behave this way. Anyone have any info on this? If this is true, is there a trick I can perform to defeat this compressor from running all the time? Yes. I know I can just disconnect the connector at the compressor, but that's a pain.
You recall correctly, as the 73s were designed to run continuously. As I recall, the change occurred to the push button switch design, so if I am recalling correctly, going to a 1971-2 push button switch should fix that. I am not sure if there were wiring connector changes necessary to go along with that option however.
ceebuddy
Well-Known Member
I think the principle of having the compressor run the entire time applies to 1970 and 1971 models, too. The only way to make it stop was to push the "off" button -- or have ambient temperature be below freezing which is when a temperature switch interrupts the clutch circuit. The reasoning from Chrysler behind this concept was that the additional fuel consumption was minimal and outweighed by the benefit of having dehumidified air year round, no matter what temperature was selected.
Last edited:
Ripinator
Old Man with a Hat
Thanks a lot. I'll hafta check out the 'Off Button' again.
Last edited:
Normally I agree with your assessments, but this one I find confusing at best. Why not reason that if you want air conditioning to be running, you activate it and if you do not, you push "off". I don't see why you would add more complexity to it than that??? Chrysler did incorporate in the 1970 - 72 models at least (maybe earlier ones too) a time delay using a restart module mounted on the "heater box" in the engine department on startups to avoid fogging the windows.
The 1973 system was a one year only at best and a screw up IMO unless it somehow carried over into some of the formals and I was unaware of it? Some nervous nellie in the interior heating/cooling department was overly concerned about instantly fogging up the windshield under certain temperature/humidity conditions by turning on the compressor at just the wrong time. The life and durability of the RV2 compressor and the air conditioning systems in general was already challenged with just using them normally. Idle quality using that RV2 compressor was poor at best compared to GM vehicles for example too (which used more advanced rotary compressors) - why put up with it when you don't need to??
I actually visited the department handling vehicle interior cooling systems at the time within the Highland Park Engineering center when I started working there in 1969 and asked them why Chrysler was so behind the times in continuing to use that RV2 compressor and the only answer I got was an embarassed reply from their chief cooling expert that it had more "capacity" than the rotary compressors for such tasks as rear a/c units in station wagons - that same compressor dated back into the late 50s. That department felt like "sleepy hollow" - not really much of a competitive spirit at all. Very disappointing and it cost Chrysler a huge number of sales when you compared their systems in the 70s to what GM was doing. Night and day.
Ripinator
Old Man with a Hat
Thanks a lot, Steve for this illuminating post. I guess I'm gonna hafta put a toggle switch in the wiring circuit to the compressor. . .
Similar threads
