Shock recommendation for added ride height?

MAR Miss Ann's Ride

New Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2025
Messages
12
Reaction score
23
Location
45385
I'm wanting to raise the ride height on my 77 T&C.

Done some searching and see where gas shocks can add up to 2.5" to 3" height. My shocks appear to be pretty old and rusty so I will replace them regardless.

I've seen some older Mopar C bodies that apparently had spring shackles factory installed.

Don't really want to replace the tires with taller ones as mine are brand new.

Any suggestions/recommendations? Red
 
IMHO, adding air shocks to raise the rear puts strain on the upper shock mount. I've seen where this can damage that mount to the point of it needing a lot of work (read$$) to repair.

The much better solution is new leaf springs.
 
"Gas shocks" raise the ride height very little. Same with the "coil over" rear "Load Leveler" shocks. Shackles do NOT work on Chrysler rear springs, the main leaf gets bent down rather than raise the car.

You CAN put more pre-load on the front torsion bars, though, but that also increases the spring rate for a much more 1-ton truck type of ride.

How much air you put into an air chock to raise the rear end can and might cause some damage. For example on my '70 Monaco 4dr hardtop, I used them to level the car to normal ride height, in the rear. 60psi is all it takes to raise it one inch, with the front end set at specs for non-HD suspension. Compared to the minimum to inflate the air bellows of 30psi.

I started doing that in 1976. No issues. BUT I am in Texas and not New York or Canada. Difference is the use of salt/de-icer used on the roads in the winter. Salt spray which can get onto the noted upper shock support and cause underbody rust and related "flimsiness" and failure. My car was sold new down here, not imported from other parts of the nation.

I'm suspecting the northers associates who used air shocks to raise their A- and B-body cars to clear N50x15 tires (in the late 1960s and such) on the rear used much higher pressures and lost most of the compressibility of the rear springs in doing so. Which put ALL of the ups and downs directly to that upper mount. I never did hear of any failures of that upper mount bar down here, but there obviously were up north. I kept seeing those cars for several years, back then, until the owners got married and needed a bigger car to haul the new family in (not a hot rod, usually)

FIRST, you need to get a copy of a Factory Service Manual for a C-body car in the 1974-1978 model range (which can be similar to your 1977 car). Make sure teh front suspension is at the spec'd ride height adjustment. With the car on an alignment rack, compare the rocker panel heights (from the "road surface" to the bottom of the rocker panel). The design-height is for the rocker panel to be completely parallel to the road surface, period. Which is reflected in the photography art in the sales literature.

Once you have done that, you can determine how low the rear of the car is and how to best approach getting the car level again.

www.detroiteatonspring.com for prices, specs, and such for the rear springs. Other spring suppliers exist, but Eaton is supposed to be building them to the OEM specs they built the OEM springs to when the cars were new. Getting new ones means that your old springs are not being "refurbished" or "reformed "with heat and cold processes to "industry standards".

Just some thoughts, my experiences, and observations.
CBODY67
 
You CAN put more pre-load on the front torsion bars, though, but that also increases the spring rate
It really doesn't. All it's doing is moving (rotating) the hex in the front.

Remember that a coil spring is just a torsion spring(bar) wound in a coil. If you take a free standing coil spring and let's say you place a block of wood under it. Will it support more? No... It will just be higher.

It can make the ride worse because it can change the geometry of the front suspension or bring it closer to hitting the bumpers, but it doesn't change the spring at all.
 
In an old "Motor Trend" magazine tech column, a guy wrote in asking how to raise the ride height on his '65 Imperial as he drove over lots of "logging roads". Their reply included raising the front end via the torsion bar adjustment, with the mention of ride quality due to the raise in effective spring rate. Until then, I had never considered that. Putting more preload against a fixed anchor point would raise the car. With a stiffer spring rate as a result, too. "More spring rate" results in less deflection (higher ride height) for a given support weight (the vehicle). Just as "less spring" results in lower front ride height and softer springing.

Yes, a torsion bar is an un-wound coil spring, in effect, but in order for the torsion bar to be effective, it has to be larger in diameter than a coil spring, for a given weight capacity. Which might explain why torsion bar vehicles usually ride better than similar col spring vehicles. IF you know what you are feeling. As in 1963 Chevy/GM light and medium-duty truck models compared to the same trucks in 1966 versions with front coil springs. No "bouncy" feel, just firm and stable.

Once after we got our '66 Newport, the front end looked a bit low, so the dealership guys got out the yardsticks and raised it a bit. Made it look more like a 1963 drag racer with lowering blocks on the rear leaf springs. Rode firmer, too. With it back down to normal, it rode smoother and softer than when it was (not much) higher. Just my recollections of that one time. Never did ask for "an adjustment" again!

In the world of coil springs, just look at the Buyers Guide in an old Moog spring book to see that should be uncomplicated can become very complicated. Wire gauge diameter, "checking height", free height number of coils, etc. All of which can make a torsion bar look like the "easy way out".

YMMV. Just my experiences and observations,
CBODY67
 
In an old "Motor Trend" magazine tech column, a guy wrote in asking how to raise the ride height on his '65 Imperial as he drove over lots of "logging roads". Their reply included raising the front end via the torsion bar adjustment, with the mention of ride quality due to the raise in effective spring rate. Until then, I had never considered that. Putting more preload against a fixed anchor point would raise the car. With a stiffer spring rate as a result, too. "More spring rate" results in less deflection (higher ride height) for a given support weight (the vehicle). Just as "less spring" results in lower front ride height and softer springing.

Yes, a torsion bar is an un-wound coil spring, in effect, but in order for the torsion bar to be effective, it has to be larger in diameter than a coil spring, for a given weight capacity. Which might explain why torsion bar vehicles usually ride better than similar col spring vehicles. IF you know what you are feeling. As in 1963 Chevy/GM light and medium-duty truck models compared to the same trucks in 1966 versions with front coil springs. No "bouncy" feel, just firm and stable.

Once after we got our '66 Newport, the front end looked a bit low, so the dealership guys got out the yardsticks and raised it a bit. Made it look more like a 1963 drag racer with lowering blocks on the rear leaf springs. Rode firmer, too. With it back down to normal, it rode smoother and softer than when it was (not much) higher. Just my recollections of that one time. Never did ask for "an adjustment" again!

In the world of coil springs, just look at the Buyers Guide in an old Moog spring book to see that should be uncomplicated can become very complicated. Wire gauge diameter, "checking height", free height number of coils, etc. All of which can make a torsion bar look like the "easy way out".

YMMV. Just my experiences and observations,
CBODY67


By twisting the bar, all you are doing is raising the car. You aren't changing the material or heat treat, nor are you changing the length or diameter. These are what determines spring rate.
 
By twisting the bar, all you are doing is raising the car. You aren't changing the material or heat treat, nor are you changing the length or diameter. These are what determines spring rate.
By twisting the bar, is the car not being raised by the increased spring rate/pre-load? No need to get into the heat treat or other issues to explain this, as all of those other issues are "common" situations. As the amount of weight the bar is designed to "hold" remains unchanged.

Just curious,
CBODY67
 
By twisting the bar, is the car not being raised by the increased spring rate/pre-load? No need to get into the heat treat or other issues to explain this, as all of those other issues are "common" situations. As the amount of weight the bar is designed to "hold" remains unchanged.

Just curious,
CBODY67
The car raises just like if it had a coil spring and you put a spacer under it.

The weight of the car has not changed, it's just sitting higher. The amount of deflection in the bar didn't change. The bar isn't twisted more just like the coil spring wasn't extended when you put a spacer under it.
 
Guys, thanks all for the info.

Yes, CBODY67, I do have a Factory Service Manual, it came with the car.

There is a spring/suspension shop near me that added leafs to my F250 diesel when I mounted a plow on it. Will take the T&C there, at a minimum they will do the new shocks.

Thanks again, getting quite the education. Red
 
In a very similar boat, but it's farther down on my to-do list. Let us all know what you decide and how it turns out.
 
Back
Top