Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rear Shock Interchange, 1951-56 And/Or 57-62

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Frame / Springs: Rear Shock Interchange, 1951-56 And/Or 57-62

    I am preparing to replace the rear shocks on the 62GT, and do not want to use Gabriels again. I dug up an old thread here that says Japanese KYB, number KB5197 (1999-2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee) and KB5417 (mid 70s Chevy G-Van) are good candidates. The thread also says the KB5417 is a direct bolt on for 51-56, but not 57-62, due to a difference in the upper mount for 57-62. I have a 56 and a 62, and never noticed any difference, but never really compared them. Does anyone here have first hand experience installing either of these shocks on any Stude, 51-62? Can anyone elaborate on the difference between 51-56 and 57-62? As always, thanks much, in advance. 7428-jeep-rescues-63-avanti-59-62-lark-and-hawk

  • #2
    Hi Joe,
    I did the Bilsteins (in my opinion, a much more robust shock over the KYB'S) last year on a pal's '62 GT which somehow became my project. Aside from enlarging the spacers(Stude is wider pin) on the bottom of the fronts they were a bolt in.
    As for the rears, not so much a bolt in but doable. The main problem was the lower mounts (stud type)approached the lower mounting plate at the wrong angle.
    I resolved this by taking the plates off the leaf springs and heating/bending them in a heavy duty vise to what appeared to be the best mounting angle. It took a couple of tries but as I said, it all worked out in the end. The car is a different car now and drives superbly well.
    Much luck as this is one of the trials and tribulations of us playing with 55+ year old cars.
    Bill
    .

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Buzzard View Post
      Hi Joe,
      I did the Bilsteins (in my opinion, a much more robust shock over the KYB'S) last year on a pal's '62 GT which somehow became my project. Aside from enlarging the spacers(Stude is wider pin) on the bottom of the fronts they were a bolt in.
      As for the rears, not so much a bolt in but doable. The main problem was the lower mounts (stud type)approached the lower mounting plate at the wrong angle.
      I resolved this by taking the plates off the leaf springs and heating/bending them in a heavy duty vise to what appeared to be the best mounting angle. It took a couple of tries but as I said, it all worked out in the end. The car is a different car now and drives superbly well.
      Much luck as this is one of the trials and tribulations of us playing with 55+ year old cars.
      Bill
      .
      This is good news! Do you know the Bilstein part numbers that you used for front and rear?
      Thanks Much

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi Joe,
        I believe the fronts were: 24-029728 but I can't recall the number I used for the rear. I am trying to contact Summit to see if they can look it up for me but so far no luck. I'll keep trying.
        Bill

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Buzzard View Post
          As for the rears, not so much a bolt in but doable. The main problem was the lower mounts (stud type)approached the lower mounting plate at the wrong angle. I resolved this by taking the plates off the leaf springs and heating/bending them in a heavy duty vise to what appeared to be the best mounting angle. It took a couple of tries but as I said, it all worked out in the end. The car is a different car now and drives superbly well. Bill
          IIRC, the '57-64 lower rear spring plates are still thick on the ground and a direct interchange for the early cars; no modification necessary. Does anyone else remember this as correct?

          jack vines

          PackardV8

          Comment


          • #6
            Joe,
            The pal I helped thought the rears were for a 64-72 Chevelle but I personally don't recall what we did. It would be easy enough to make a bracket which bolts into the single hole in the spring plate allowing a more common bolt through bushing for the lower application. Get creative and I am sure it will work.
            I think the fronts were 65 Buick Skylark with the mounting pins extended with very large washers.
            Much luck,
            Cheers, Bill

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Buzzard View Post
              Joe,
              The pal I helped thought the rears were for a 64-72 Chevelle but I personally don't recall what we did. It would be easy enough to make a bracket which bolts into the single hole in the spring plate allowing a more common bolt through bushing for the lower application. Get creative and I am sure it will work.
              I think the fronts were 65 Buick Skylark with the mounting pins extended with very large washers.
              Much luck,
              Cheers, Bill
              Hi Bill,
              I think I can work with that info. I recall using mid-60s Rivera, Monroe-matic front shocks on GTs, and having to use large washers to adapt the shorter cross pin. I have also used creativity in fitting rear shocks, but just got lazy 15-20 years ago and began using the bolt on Gabriels. But they are the bottom of the barrel when it comes to quality and technology. Determined to do better this time around.
              Thanks Again,
              Joe H

              Comment


              • #8
                Seems like we used to use 1965 or7? Cadillac's on the rear of Larks & Hawks.
                Can't remember, but most all of our cars had rear sway bars & so probably used those spring plates.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Joe,
                  Trust me, after using Bilsteins (or Konis) you'll shake your head at the fact you previously used Monroe or Gabriels. At $17.00 they simply don't cut it and are only worth $17.00 as all they do is fill the hole.
                  Luck Bill

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Buzzard View Post
                    Joe,
                    Trust me, after using Bilsteins (or Konis) you'll shake your head at the fact you previously used Monroe or Gabriels. At $17.00 they simply don't cut it and are only worth $17.00 as all they do is fill the hole.
                    Luck Bill
                    Agree. When I rode BMW boxer motorcycles years ago, KONI was far superior to all others. I will shoot for Bilsteins, but first need to figure out what fits. For now, I am only focused on rear shocks. For test fit, I plan to use KYB, as they have an excellent online catalog with all dimensions. After further research on sizing, I will start with ordering just one of the most likely fit. Once I am sure of fit, will then order one more KYB for the 62GT, then Bilsteins for the other two cars. The 62GT has always been my guinea pig.

                    Most critical dimensions are compressed and extended length and, near as I can determine, OEM length is 12" and 19". Next most important dimension is the upper and lower mount bushing ID. I believe OEM ID is 7/16", but plan to measure the mount pins on the 62GT to be sure. The length of the bushings are not as critical, since I can cut or space them as needed.

                    So far, it looks like the best candidates are KG5565, KG 5419 and KG5401
                    Last edited by JoeHall; 02-12-2020, 11:36 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Yes Joe those are all fairly long units which is required. The lower mount on the '62 GT had the single stud (pin) mount at the bottom but a small bracket can easily be fabricated to fit the plate hole and allow a bushing with sleeve for the mount. Don't forget my original post explained that the shock angle was incorrect which is why I took the plates off and heated and bent them accordingly.
                      The Bilsteins transformed the GT to an excellent driver.
                      Luck,
                      Bill

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I ordered one KYB shock, part #KB5565 and it is due to arrive this coming week. Keeping my fingers crossed. After extensive research, it appears to be the best candidate, but may need stud shims, at top and/or bottom mounts. Compressed and extended length is as close to OEM as any. The Gabriel Classic that most of us have been using for decades is too long, on both measurements, which seems more likely to cause problems.

                        From all info I could gather, OEM compressed and extended lengths are 12" and 19"; the Gabriel Classic #82151 is 13.87 and 23.23", and the KYB #KB5565 is 12.17 and 18.54". If the KB5565 fits, it is for miscellaneous larger Volvos, 1983-1995, and readily available in Bilstein and KONI. Will let y'all know soon.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Looking forward to the results. It will be great if they fit, and they should be available for a few years to come.
                          Tom Senecal Not enough money or years to build all of the Studebakers that I think I can.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The KB5565 arrived yesterday, and I installed it in a couple hours, but first took several measurements and notes. I then drove the car 40 miles on crappy roads to experience dips, bumps and potholes. The shock works well, and would probably suffice, but the 18.54" extended length concerns me. Per the thread I linked above, Nate said OEM compressed & extended length was 12" & 19". Maybe true, but I think around 21" would be better. The Gabriel Classic's 23.3" seems a bit long, but the KYB's 18.5" seems a bit short, though not experienced in on the road performance. I am just concerned if a big enough dip were slammed into, the rear tire(s) may briefly leave the pavement. So I am erring on the side of caution with a bit longer shock. I have selected KG5197, used on 1999-2004 Jeep Cherokee. Its length is 13.9" and 21.6", whch seems about perfect.

                            As for upper and lower mounts, there are several ways to easily adapt those, as long as the selected shock has upper and lower eyelets.

                            I also considered weight of vehicles the shocks are intended for; the KG5565 is for 3200 pound Volvos, and the KG5197 for 3800-4200 pound Jeeps. Either is OK for Hawk, but the KG5565 may be a bit light duty while the KG5197 may be a bit heavy duty. Will know in a few days when the KG5197 arrives, and will post results here.

                            The only bad news with the KG5197s, they're not available in Koni and the only decent brands they're available in are Bilstein and KYB. Whereas, the KG5565s are also available in Koni.
                            Last edited by JoeHall; 02-20-2020, 02:59 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Thanks for your update, Joe. My only concern with the shorter units is bottoming them out with the valving being not so aggressive on compression as with the Konis and Bilsteins. The Jeep application would be my choice.
                              Cheers, Bill

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X