Cougar Rear Shock Question/issue: Answered!

I don’t know how I missed this as I was involved in the original discussion but as it turns out there is a more suitable rear shock out there than the mustang part, it’s an '78-'80 AMC AMX part!

KYB 344052

I just worked the numbers from an “at rest” measurement on Isabel. The 344052 is the right shock, very much more so than the 343219 (mustang shock). On my car, the measurement/calculation indicates the 343219 shock at rest is a mere 1.9" from full extension, not good.

Thought you guys might like to know, this is one of those Cougar-specific things that has bothered me for years. There was an answer back in late summer 2011 and I missed seeing/noticing it!

Here’s is the source:

http://www.mercurycougar.net/forums/showthread.php?57036-Mill-Mustang-rear-shocks-fit-a-68-Cougar/page2

It’s odd that they would know what fits an AMX and not what fits a Cougar. Thanks for posting this, this is one of those perennial questions that ever Cougar owner needs to know about.

BTW, here is the tech info on KYB shocks (including the two under discussion):

http://www.kyb.com/knowledge-center/shock-tech-for-pros/dimensions/

Thanks, Bob. I just checked NAPA’s website and see that they gave me Mustang shocks :angryfire:

That’s what every vendor is providing to my knowledge, wrong parts, but that is “what the book says”!

I read that post last night and went to KYB to see if they made the gas assist shock in that size. It doesn’t look like they do to fit the 78 AMC AMX. So I now have to decide if I want to go the GR2 route.

On a lighter note KYB will be scratching their corporate heads trying to figure out why suddenly there are so many 78 AMX’s getting new shocks! :open_mouth:

Other corporate heads will see this trend and start cranking out reproduction parts for 78 AMX’s to get ahead of the obvious trend. A whole new cottage industry will be stillborn.

Yes indeed, the Cougar rear shock demand will a boon of inprecidented proportions :rolleyes:

Seriously, it would be nice to have KYB or another manufacturer to correct the obvious error and list either the 344052 or another number as the correct alternative to the Mustang part number that has been referenced incorrectly for a long time. That way future and current Cougar owners don’t continue to order the wrong shocks.

Well I broke down last week and ordered the 344052 from Rock Auto and they arrived today. So naturally I had to install them. Here is a picture of the new 344052 along side the KG5517 gas assist shocks that are listed to fit 67-68 Cougars.


After they were installed my car now sits 1-1/4" higher. I’ll have to follow up after I drive for awhile to see if I still occasionally have tire rub when I hit large road bumps or RR tracks.

I recently put Monroe Sensa-Trac shocks on my '68. The car rides so much better…it is a little mushy feeling on certain uneven roads, but the stance is still the same as it was before I changed them.
MON-58539ST_ml.jpg

Looks from the posts like the KYB 344052 is deemed to fit the '68, but just want to confirm before I order. Is this the correct rear shock for '68s?

A quick follow up on the 344052 shocks. After 10 days and logging about 150 miles, the ride height has settled some and it now appears that the overall increase is about 3/4" from the initial 1-1/4" gain immediately after installation. While the additional increase is not huge it seems enough to prevent my
P255/60R-15’s from rubbing when hitting large bumps in the road.

Yup, just checked my receipts on the rebuild … installed KYB 343219’s. So, would the 344052 shocks let the car sit a bit higher? I’d like that.

This thread should be made a “sticky”.

I would think the GR2 343219’s are the same length as the KG5517 (silver) gas assist shocks. So from the picture I posted earlier in this thread you can see the length differences with the 344052 (black) being a longer shock.

I’d be surprised if the 344052 made any car sit higher. If it does, the springs are pretty tall (i.e. different than stock spring ride heights). My stock replacements (J R Spring) and the comp handling ones I put in recently (Espo) both sit low enough to put the (wrong) shocks bottom stud nut on with the weight of the car on the springs (so the height would not change with longer shocks). The longer shocks simply allow the suspension full travel upward where it was formerly being limited by the mootang shocks. Also, the silver/black discussion is invalid, they just changed the color and what they call the shocks at a certain point. All GR-2’s used to be black and now they are black and whatever they’re calling them!

I understand what your saying but prior to installation I measured the distance from the floor to the wheel trim mouldings, both front and back. My fronts both measured 27" and the DS rear was 26-1/2" and PS rear was 26-3/4". After installation the DS rear was 27-1/2" and PS rear was 28". I also firmly pushed down on the rear to make sure the springs were settled. Now 10 days later both sides are 1/2" lower but still higher than the ride height with the KG5517. As for the color I was just trying to help identify between the Gas Assist and the GR2’s.

Mike,

I don’t doubt what you’ve described, guess your spring free height is higher than what I have seen. Whatever works is good! Longer shocks (like original) definitely are desirable if for no other reason so that the suspension can properly travel throughout it’s range.

Regards,

Robert

Robert,

I’ll measure the heights again after another month or so to see if anything changes again. In the meantime I am going to enjoy the rest of the summer driving her! (If it ever stops raining here)