{"id":5386,"date":"2024-04-16T15:32:05","date_gmt":"2024-04-16T19:32:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/stock.corvair.org\/wordpress\/?p=5386"},"modified":"2024-04-16T15:32:43","modified_gmt":"2024-04-16T19:32:43","slug":"early-corvair-shock-absorbers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stock.corvair.org\/wordpress\/2024\/04\/early-corvair-shock-absorbers\/","title":{"rendered":"Early Corvair Shock Absorbers"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

I did some research into early Corvair shock absorbers and made a table to summarize my findings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The part and stamping numbers come from my March 1, 1964 parts book. \u00a0The Piston travel numbers\u00a0for all except 1964 rear shock\u00a0come from GM\u2019s Vehicle Information Kits – we have a page on this website that links to them here<\/a>.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, I do not believe the GM Information Kits are completely accurate, because I checked the piston travel for both 1964 front and rear shocks and found that while the measurement stated for the front (4.75\u201d) is correct, the measurement for the rear is wrong.  The information kit states the 1964 rear piston travel is 4.75\u201d, same as the front, but it\u2019s actually only about 4\u201d, so that is what I put in my chart for the 1964 rear shock. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But, if we can believe the rest of the information kit measurements, we can answer the question of why the 1963 rear shock has a different number than the 1960-62 rear shock – it has a shorter piston travel.  And the different numbers for the other shocks is likely valving to account for different springs in wagons and HD suspensions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, it would be best to measure actual vintage shocks to confirm the piston travel numbers for all of the earlier (1960-63) shocks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Attached photos are for 1964 front and rear factory shocks. \u00a0The front shock is painted light grey primer, the rear is dark grey. \u00a0 The shocks are fully extended and it is obvious that the rear has a shorter piston travel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

It makes sense that they would’ve changed the 1964 rear shock, given the other changes made to the 1964 rear suspension. We believe the rear shock was shortened to reduce stress on the leaf spring bushings when the control arm is at its lower end of travel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

If we can believe the other numbers from the GM information kits, it seems they also reduced the piston travel in 1963, perhaps to reduce the risk of “tuck-under”?<\/p>\n

Here are some other related posts on this site<\/h2>