Found out part # of my tube shocks...need advice please

I finally found the receipt for my Monroe Tube shocks. I installed Monro-Matic Plus #33033.
They are stiff and I'd like to replace them with much softer Monroe Tube shocks (before I go to the trouble of reinstalling the old stock lever shocks) Fits off, does anyone know the application for the shocks I have now? Are they considered stiff shocks? If so then what part# monroe shock can I get that will really soften the ride, soak up the road faults and have the proper travel dimensions for the B. My wife has back problems and riding in my MGB really hurts her. If mine are considered soft shocks then I guess I have no choice but to put the stock levers back in.

Monroe 33033 Chevy Shock Absorber $28.23

Chevy Pick Up Full Size 1975-1976 .Monro-Matic Plus Shock Absorbers, Front, Nitrogen Gas Charged, Velocity Valving Give Smooth Ride And Safe Control In All Conditions, Improved Comfort At An Economical Price, Sold Individually, Self Lubricating Fluid Seal Maintains Pressure And Extends Shock Life.

Engine: 5.7L, V8, Gas, Carbureted, VIN "V"

Chassis: C20 Pickup, 2WD, 3/4 Ton, Except Heavy Duty Models, Custom Camper, & Crew Cab

Source:- http://www.performance-air-filters.com/sm/chevy~shock_absorber~parts.html

If you're going to use the tube shoxks you'll need something from a vehicle of the same size and weight, that will probably limit your choices.

All I know about this is what you may already know. The Monroe Sensatrack #5893 shock has been highly recommended here instead of the stiff shocks designed for Chevy trucks that have been in many kits.

I have Monroe tube shocks on my GT, and they have always been fine...not too stiff. Maybe this is why the front end hasn't self destructed! I contacted Monroe and they couldn't help me when I provided the part#. They said the shocks on mine were custom to a supplier and couldn't tell me an application. I originally got my kits from Werace.

If I ever replace them I'm going to try the #5893 unless something else is recommended in the mean time.

Wow, Ask and you shall receive. So I have truck shocks on my B. No wonder the ride is killer. They gotta go. Thanks Derek

Thanks Rod, I think I'll give them a try, Monroe-sensatrac #5893. I think my front springs are worn out from taking most of the punishment. Rear so stiff that the only movement in suspension feels like in the front. Like a diving board. I'm still open to other suggestions as far as tube shocks are concerned. This will be a Winter project most likely, but would like to have it sorted out now. At least now I know that my current tube shocks are for the front of full sized chevy pickup. Damn.

Don't thank me. Thank Google.

You might find useful information here:-

http://www.monroe.com/catalog_lookup/ocl_default.asp

If you do try the #5893 please do report back with your impressions.

I may have recommended the SensaTrac 5893 as that was the choice I made many years ago when we were all swimming around in a vacuum of information on shocks in general. I chose them after spending considerable time rummaging thru Monroe's catalog. They had what I considered the right range of motion to not bottom out in either direction and because the applications for them seemed to be both for passenger cars and cars of somewhere near a similar weight as an MGB. They are not a specific fit, but after having them on the car since 1999, I can attest that they give a ride which is not too far from the OE lever units, but because they are gas shocks, give better and more consistent control of the wheels over rough roads.

There have been some other choices from the SensaTrac catalog that others have used, but I cannot vouch for how they might compare to this model, even tho a trip through the archives can probably yield their model numbers. If considering switching to a SensaTrac shock, you might want to spend the time to find these other model numbers in their catalog, and make your own comparison of all the choices both by range of motion AND finding the cars the were used on. There may be better than the #5893, but I have been happy enough with them over the years to have not wanted to look for something else. FWIW

Oh I certainly will. Thanks

If you are happy with them, I'm sure I will be. Thanks Bob. When I get them on I'll report on my impression of them.

Thanks Google!

What is wrong with the lever action shocks? If you have the original set then they can be rebuilt and are right for the car.

Just my 2c worth

Russ

I just checked my Sensa-trac numbers for the rear Moss conversion. 5877ST. I wonder what the difference between the 5893 and 5877 is?

I just e-mailed Monroe to explain any valving difference between these two shocks. I checked out the dimensions and the 5877 is a little longer and has a little more travel.
5877- compressed 10.375, extended 15.875, travel 5.5
5893- compressed 9.375, extended 14.250, travel 4.875
I would guess that it depends on how the mounts were made, and there relative positions could dictate which one would work better. The Moss unit (5877) requires you to take the lower spring plate and swap sides and invert them, which drops the lower mounting position a little. I'm not familiar with other mounts or their upper mount positions. I'm looking forward to hearing about valving differences tomorrow.

Dan,
The Moss method you describe is exactly the same as I did to mount mine in the rear. I think that the difference between Moss's choice and mine is that they may have selected a longer piston travel shock to provide more than sufficient travel to prevent destroying the shocks. The ones I used on my 68, #5893, have enough extra travel in either direction such that I have not had any problems with bottoming or pulling the upper mounts loose or breaking them. As I said, I have had them in use since 1999 with no issues, so I would guess that they can't be too wrong, and the Moss units are probably not much different.

The key thing I would look for between these two choices would be to look through Monroe's catalog for applications for both and see what other cars they have been fitted to and if they are anywhere close to a similar weight as ours. I think that NOT having done so in previous years when truck shocks were specified, is one reason why so many folks became disillusioned with the early kits and our cars then rode like buckboards.

The spring plates are swapped and inverted on my GT also, as was recommended in the instructions with the Werace kit.

Money and time right now

Sounds reasonable. I didn't use the Moss kit. Our local guru manufactured the conversion mounts for a bunch of us back then. I'm pretty sure the lower mounts were handled the same way as the Moss method. I do remember swapping left and right, the inversion can't remember.

If that's the case ,then I'm sure that I inverted mine also. This was seven years ago.

Why don't I just go back to lever shocks? Well since I'm already set up for tube shocks and it looks like the 5893 monroes will improve my ride it would be cheaper for me to try them first. If Bob M has had no problems with them and he likes the ride, I'm sure they will be a good choice. If not then I can always go back to levers in the Spring.

I'm kind of in the same place Peter.

I installed the conversion front and rear on the GT in the mid 80s well before there was any debate on it, since the idea was so new at the time. After all these years the shocks are still good and it rides fine. Would I do it again, or convert the '63 over? No. But at this point it's easier and cheaper just to put (the correct ones for a light car, of course) new tube shocks on when the originals from the kit go bad.