MGB Rear Shock Aborsers

[shedman]

Today I obtained a rear MGB shock absorber. On offering it up to the front of my model A 1929 Sports Coupe I was really surprised how well it fitted. The bolt holes lines up perfectly, the length of the arm is the same as the Houdaille unit. The overall amount of movement of the arm is correct. The mid position of the arm lines up perfectly with the link.

Can anyone who has already fitted an MGB shock absorber to a Model A advise me on two potential problems I envisage?

The first problem I have is how to dismantle the units so the arm can be heated, a double set formed and a weld in ball fitted. Secondly, is there a problem with the tie rod making contact with the bottom of the shock absorber as the MGB unit hangs down lower than the Houdaille?

[Hotrodfil]

The track rod will be your problem. On my Fordor they wouldn't fit as it needed to run through the centre. Your mileage may vary as my front spring is quite flat.
I do run them on the rear though.

[Hotrodfil]

As for the ball, I didn't reset the arm but welded the ball in on the other side. Wrap a wet rag around the arm.

[Kahuna]

On my 32 B model, I did not bend the arm, as I was worried about heat bothering the shock. I had spacers made that allowed the shock to mount away from the frame and line up the arm. I bought Model A balls from some vendor and welded them in. These shocks are great in my estimation, and work real well.

[zzlegend]

Here is a thread about those shocks from a couple of weeks ago. Pictures are of mine also. I have then installed front and rear.

http://www.fordbarn.com/forum/showthread.php?t=154342

[shedman]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Today I offered up my rear MGB shock absorber to the rear suspension of my Model A. I think it could be used as is, with the addition of a weld in the ball and 2 new holes drilled in the chassis/frame. This would keep the link upright in its mid position and be midway in its overall travel. No reforming of the arm required.

If used in the original holes, the arm would need to be lengthened as with the longer arm in the original Houdaille unit, but then would not be in the centre of its overall travel. Unlike the front, I can see no obstruction with this modification except the unit would need to be removed to be able to top up the fluid.

Further to my thread of yesterday, on the front shock mod, I wonder if a rubber bump stop could be fitted to the underside of the chassis/frame to limit the spring travel and thus avoid the tie-rod clashing with the shock absorber.

[Hotrodfil]

Originally Posted by shedman

If used in the original holes, the arm would need to be lengthened as with the longer arm in the original Houdaille unit, but then would not be in the centre of its overall travel.

Further to my thread of yesterday, on the front shock mod, I wonder if a rubber bump stop could be fitted to the underside of the chassis/frame to limit the spring travel and thus avoid the tie-rod clashing with the shock absorber.

I wouldn't drill any more holes to be honest. There's MGB shocks on the rear of here and although the link is at an angle I have no binding or travel issues using the existing mounting holes.



But on the front there's no clearance between the bottom of an Armstrong and the track rod and I used stock ones. It only looks like there's a couple of inches between them on zzlegend's picture and I had less than zero. I'd want more suspension travel than that, especially when racing.