The way my ch***is is set up it does not look like I can run conventional tube shocks. They would either hang down too far from the axle housing or poke up through the floor of the bed. I am considering lever shocks mounted on the outside of the frame like stock. I have also considered using a lever on the outside of the frame run through to a bellcrank hooked to a horizontally mounted tube shock. This would be a last resort... Are there any lever shocks that will work good on the back of an early hot rod? Rebuilt Houdailles seem a little too spendy for me. Any thoughts, solutions, pictures? Thanks, Neal
<font color="green">Did you check out the air shocks for early Vettes? They are pretty short and what I wound up with. I like them. TRY THIS LINK FOR TUBE SHOCK INFO RASHY </font>
<font color="green">Oh yeah, You are looking for the MA785's. Cheapest at NAPA in these parts. RASHY </font>
[ QUOTE ] Did you check out the air shocks for early Vettes? [/ QUOTE ] How short are they? Has anyone ever used these on the rear? Speedway Shocks At ride height it measures 8" from the top of the frame rail/rear crossmember to the bottom of the axle housing and I have 2.5" of suspension travel. Any input would be appreciated. Neal
<font color="green">They are 9.5 compressed. I had about 8" also and had to build some mounts off the bottom of my shackles. Just barely stayed in the scrub. RASHY</font>
<font color="green"> There's this one... MONROE SHOCKS #31176 (CHRY., DODGE, IMP.,PLY '74-'89), with a 7.125 compressed length and 10.625 Ext with 3.5 travel. I think they fit a Caravelle? WTF is that anyway? Still looking. RASHY </font>
<font color="green">DAMN, those won't work. They are stud mounts top and bottom. HMmmm. You will need loop mounts up top and either stud or loop on bottom. Still looking. RASHY </font>
<font color="green">WOW! I figured that someone who knows what they're talking about would have dropped in by now. I'm no help. RASHY </font>
What kind of shocks are you going to use on the front? I am pretty sure I still have some sets of English lever arm shocks ( the ones with the cast aluminum housings ). Interested??
[ QUOTE ] What kind of shocks are you going to use on the front? [/ QUOTE ] I was planning to use something like a Pete & Jakes chrome covered tube shock... [ QUOTE ] I am pretty sure I still have some sets of English lever arm shocks ( the ones with the cast aluminum housings ). Interested?? [/ QUOTE ] I don't know. Do you think they would work, or should I stick with a short tube shock like the Speedway ones I posted above? Neal
They would probably work as well as any other shock ( but not nearly as good as a real good one, like a Koni ) Exacly what is a P&J shock, who makes them, are they specially valved for a straight axle Hot Rod or do they just fit nicely? The cool thing about those lever shocks is, if you are willing to take the time, you can change the stiffness by changing the viscosity of the oil and the length of the arm. Drawback is you change the droop and bump by the same amount. And they are '60 technology, and you may feel they would not look right...
For tube shocks you may want to look at Speedway's. The ones I got for the rear of the 31 are Canadian made and very nice. Chromes pretty good as well. A while back AV8 recommended SoCal's front shock as the ultimate in goodness for roadster type cars . . . ok, coupes too. Anyway, I note they're made in Canada as well and have excellent chrome. Might want to think about Metalshapes offer of the cast aluminum English made shocks. Seems like the sporty car set did a lot with these shocks far as tuning etc. went. I'd bet Dr.J would know about these. In the meantime, don't overlook the stud mount shock. Here's a local T roadster that's under construction. I think the shock mount is a cut down F1 rear shock mount and to my eye is a good looking home-made piece. Note as well it clears the bed.
I know you guys have seen this pic probably way too many times, but it illustrates the point. The typical street rodder rear coilover setup is easily duplicated and works well when used as a shock mount only. Plus it allows changing to a coilover if you desire. Which I'm pretty sure I'm not gonna do, specially so when you figure in the lack of travel on coilovers. The trad transverse spring is going to ride a lot better and have more travel once the bugs are worked out. Bugs being weight, use etc. Anyway, what you want here is a 1" OD 1/2" ID crush tube through the rear crossmember for the upper mount. In this pic the upper shock bolt is seen as a gold iridited bolt at extreme left of the rear crossmember. Lower mount is a commercially available Pete & Jakes lower coilover mount with proper length 1" buffed stainless spacer. There are three mount holes in the lower coilover/shock mount which makes for easy changes when ride height or shock length is changed. One reason I like the P&J lower mount is that it has built in crush tubes and side gussets which make a more than strong mount. Some of the 3/16" folded steel lower mounts would be ok for shock mounts, but I don't think they would cut it for coilover mounts. You'll note that this style upper mount also clears the body bottom and once you get the right length shock, a similar setup would more than likely clear the bed of your RPU.
[ QUOTE ] I'm interested in those lever shocks. More info ? [/ QUOTE ] I got rid of a whole bunch of stuff recently at a swap meet. But I dont remember those shocks being sold. I will look through my parts to make sure what is really there, and then you and Neal can duke it out. Give me some time though, I have got a lot of **** going on right now...
Neal , if it were me, I would decide what era I wanted the rpu to be in and use the correct shock. You can make anything work, if you lay it out right. I think lever shocks are cool and push the car back in time, but you may be thinking of 50's -60's car? In that case there are alot of tube shocks around, it just depends on what you want.--TV PS, I've got some double chanmber lever shocks that I think would work on the rear if you are interested?
Just like TV, I was going to say you can go NON-Ford '30s lever shocks. I'll try to post a pick of "dual chamber" shocks like those in my Packard. They're GM made I think: "Delco Lovejoys". Big honkin lever arms. Expensive to re-build though, have got a cam and two hydraulic piston circuits (to tame rebound). On the Packard you could adjust the valving from the dash by mechanical linkage. (Haven't got mine unfrozen yet.) Here's a link to the Apple Hydraulics site on the Delcos; Lotsa choices. http://www.applehydraulics.com/delco.htm#numbers
[ QUOTE ] Neal , if it were me, I would decide what era I wanted the rpu to be in and use the correct shock. You can make anything work, if you lay it out right. I think lever shocks are cool and push the car back in time, but you may be thinking of 50's -60's car? In that case there are alot of tube shocks around, it just depends on what you want.--TV PS, I've got some double chanmber lever shocks that I think would work on the rear if you are interested? [/ QUOTE ] I am shooting for the post-war era, like 46-51. I see a lot of cars in the Don Montgomery books with tube shocks in the front and I like the look. For some reason I don't picture tube shocks in the rear though. Am I mixed up? Can I mix shock types? I don't know anything about lever shocks. My only experience with them is looking at them in the junk pile because they were taken off and replaced by tube shocks. I am a closet restorer so I would prefer to use the old stuff rather than bolt on street rod parts Tell me more. Neal
[ QUOTE ] I am shooting for the post-war era, like 46-51. [/ QUOTE ] Then the English shocks are probably not right for your car. They might have been around for some of that period, but I doubt if they could be found in any of the American junkyards yet... 5 or 10 years later, they should not have been that hard to find.
[ QUOTE ] that shocker mount looks like a 46-48 Ford rear end shocker mount to me. [/ QUOTE ] You mean p***enger or pickup? Could very well be that era. The guy has a couple of F1's and a source of parts he's forever dredging up. Most of it F1 stuff, but other interesting stuff as well. And none of it for sale....
[ QUOTE ] I am shooting for the post-war era, like 46-51. I see a lot of cars in the Don Montgomery books with tube shocks in the front and I like the look. For some reason I don't picture tube shocks in the rear though. Am I mixed up? Can I mix shock types? [/ QUOTE ] I don't see why you can't. With the friction of the rear leaf, the light weight and the more than likely short suspension travel I'd guess the lever shocks would be fine. Why not invent something of your own - using era correct parts of course - and be like the guys who paved the way for many of us. No bright ideas right now, but it'd be cool to see something a little different created from back in the day stuff. Then, when somebody looks at the RPU they'll probably say, "Yep, that's the way they did it."
Jay, I believe its the car one. It bolts to the same holes that the backing plate bolts to. aV8's book features them.
Neal, their is no reason you can't mix them up, a lot of guys in the early 50's or late 40's installed tubes up front only because it was the eazy mod thing to do. My T frame runs lever in front and tube in back, but you really can;t see the rears unless you get under the car, so who cares. Do something strange, like lever shocks with a bell crank or something. Most guys will think it's some old Indy car trick.HA HA.--TV
What about friction shicks, Neal? Here are the cheapies they have at Speedway Motors. My vote's for lever shocks of some sort, just because they seem so unusual nowadays. And I also agree that you could mix n' match styles. --Matt
Neal, are you trying to fit the shocks in vertically or have you considered slanting them? Most early rear conversions ran the shocks mounted a ways inboard on rear X member at the top and mounted out near end of axle at bottom, at an angle often approaching 45 degrees. This shortens the actual vertical space need in a sense by a considerable amount. Part of the reason was that this angle mount resists sway, often a real consideration on rods that have dearched springs leading to incorrect shackle angle. Slanting also reduces the vertical resistance of shocks, meaning you need slightly stiffer shocks than if vertical--possibly an advantage, since most shocks are meant to deal with considerably more than '32 Ford wieght.
The Jalopy Journal
