Shock absorber part number?

[TripleTransAm]

I searched all over the place and didn't find the part number for the rear shocks. I got the following photos of my new rear shocks from this afternoon when I was changing out the snow tires for the 18inchers. No sign of "Tokico" anywhere, so I was just wonderin'...

http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=89 31&stc=1&d=1143424396

http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=89 32&stc=1&d=1143424396

[fastblackmerc]

I searched all over the place and didn't find the part number for the rear shocks. I got the following photos of my new rear shocks from this afternoon when I was changing out the snow tires for the 18inchers. No sign of "Tokico" anywhere, so I was just wonderin'...

http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=89 31&stc=1&d=1143424396

http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=89 32&stc=1&d=1143424396
Probobly is made by Tokico, just doesn't say it anywhere.....

[mtnh]

Steve, I just bought a pair yesterday, after suffering a catastrophic loss of damping fluid in the driveway on Thursday. My car was built prior to the cutoff of late december, 2003, so the shocks for my car are numbered 3U2Z-18125-AC.

Oh, and, if anyone is buying new rear shocks, please note that the shock comes only with a bottom bushing for the top 2-piece bushing, and no new nut for the top, which is bonded to the cap-washer that packs the top of the 2-piece bushing together to the bottom of that bushing (the new one that comes with the shocks). I was having some trouble with the nut breaking free on the top of the shock, since it sits in the wheel well facing the elements with no protection, and the shock body kept turning with the nut. The shock body was larger than my largest channel-lock pliers, so I started to try to cut the top shock bolt off, through the bushing that was packed by the nut. I managed to cut some of the bushing off, but never really got a good run at the actual bolt I was trying to cut off, so I gave up and placed a pipe wrench on the shock body that was too wide for my channel-locks. I had pre-treated with PB Blaster early in the setup for removal, and I re-treated prior to the pipe wrench trick. It came apart, finally, and I about had a heart attack when I opened the box (I had not done that prior to this point) and found the shock all by its lonesome with no new packing nut, top bushing, or large bushing packing washer cup. Duh, next time, I'll keep a lookout for that crap.

By the way, the car has 54,800 on it when the shock lost its liguid. Not sure about this, but in my substantial exposure to many shocks, I have yet to see a shock end it all with a puddle a foot in diameter. I've seen them leak, be wet around the seals, etc, but this has got to be a real disaster, to have folks losing their damping fluid like this. Hack Goby had it a week ago, the man in Florida had three wet ones, and I thought I read about another. This is NOT how a $85 shock should fail. Back to you, Steve.

Mike

[TripleTransAm]

The cutoff date: according to the friendly parts guy at my other dealership, the old one should not have been available anymore and automatically resulted in the new one. I can't explain how you got the early style, unless there was a misunderstanding. From what I read, the only change was a minor cosmetic one, no mention of internal changes.

I'll try to find out more tomorrow...

[magindat]

Monroe has a replacement out. #5995
Ordered a set Saturday since I got leakers at 23K miles!

[RoyLPita]

Here is the Part # 3U2Z-18125-AC.

BTW, shouldn't the part # be mentioned on your service receipt???? I know where I work at, we have it shown.

[TripleTransAm]

That photo is right off the actual shock. So, out of curiousity, what does it cross-reference to in your system?

[RoyLPita]

The part # on the shock and most Ford parts is an engineering #. I have the number on hand because a member asked me for a quote on replacing all 4.

[TripleTransAm]

All I've got on the work order for the shocks is:
2x ASH-711.

No other part number on the entire work order.

Isn't there any way to cross reference that number 3W3D-18080-AD to whatever part number one would find at the counter? So far I've seen 2 references for 3U2Z-18125-AC as the MM shocks, and I'm now concerned they put the wrong shocks on my car.

[JMan]

All I've got on the work order for the shocks is:
2x ASH-711.

No other part number on the entire work order.

Isn't there any way to cross reference that number 3W3D-18080-AD to whatever part number one would find at the counter? So far I've seen 2 references for 3U2Z-18125-AC as the MM shocks, and I'm now concerned they put the wrong shocks on my car.

Steve,
This is from the Motorcraft site:
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=2 width=560 align=center bgColor=#a9a9a9 border=0><TBODY><TR align=middle bgColor=#ffffff><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top></TD><TD vAlign=top></SPAN></TD></TR><TR align=middle bgColor=#ffffff><TD align=middle></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=2 width=560 align=center bgColor=#a9a9a9 border=0><TBODY><TR align=middle bgColor=#ffffff><TD align=middle><INPUT type=checkbox value="[ASH267]{Rear Gas Adjust Shock}(2)" name=selectedPartID></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left>ASH267 </TD><TD vAlign=top align=left>Rear Gas Adjust Shock
FROM 12/01/03
</TD><TD vAlign=top>2</TD><TD vAlign=top>http://mfr.activant.com/motorcraft/images/MC/btn_bg.gif (http://mfr.activant.com/motorcraft/app/MC/bg_lookup_process.jsp?action=b glookup&partnum=ASH267)</SPAN></TD></TR><TR align=middle bgColor=#ffffff><TD align=middle><INPUT type=checkbox value="[ASH711]{Rear Gas Adjust Shock}(2)" name=selectedPartID></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left>ASH711 </TD><TD vAlign=top align=left>Rear Gas Adjust Shock
TO 12/01/03
</TD><TD vAlign=top>2</TD><TD vAlign=top>http://mfr.activant.com/motorcraft/images/MC/btn_bg.gif (http://mfr.activant.com/motorcraft/app/MC/bg_lookup_process.jsp?action=b glookup&partnum=ASH711)</SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

http://www.motorcraft.com/catalog.do?from=page


ASH711's are the replacements for your early build cars. Does it ride any less harsh? Does the front end stay down on corners? Do your teeth feel tighter? Just curious, been through it twice. I'm sure either set would work just fine. I intentionally went with different shocks up front because I didn't want to do them again in another year. I still have one original remaining on the r/r. It's like a time bomb to me. I may just replace it for peace-of-mind!

Best of luck,

J

[rayjay]

Monroe has a replacement out. #5995
Ordered a set Saturday since I got leakers at 23K miles!

Is that number for front and rear?

[Warpath]

...No sign of "Tokico" anywhere, so I was just wonderin'...

OEMs rarely put the supplier's name on their parts. They want you to buy the part from them and not the suppliers.

It is possible to get an old part if the dealer orders a bunch and has them sitting on the shelf for a while.

[TripleTransAm]

ASH711's are the replacements for your early build cars. Does it ride any less harsh? Does the front end stay down on corners? Do your teeth feel tighter?

Actually, the car does in fact ride harsher now. And not a nice harsher, but a jittery hard-to-keep-pointed kind of harsh. I got to drive both MM#1 and MM#2 today within 20 minutes of each other and the difference between both cars is unbelievable... MM#1 is the smoothest and most controlled. I suspect this may be due to the front end of #2 being worn as well, although they won't even look at the shocks if they aren't leaking. And I personally don't want to spend a dime on that car, so...

One thing I just thought of: I'm wondering if these shocks prefer to operate at a certain range of extension. I am remembering all those comments about the Eibachs and how the ride was horrible until the rear end was brought down as well... well I've noticed that MM#2 sits higher in the rear as compared to #1. I honestly think #2 sits at where a Marauder should be sitting (ie. with equal wheel well spacing front-to-rear) whereas MM#1 sat a bit closer to the tire in the rear relatively-speaking with respect to the front (meaning, I still had a rake, but the space between the fender and tire was less in the rear).

The front on MM#2 does bob a bit more than MM#1, but my biggest gripe is the side-to-side wallow. Very nauseating.


side note: I'm noticing a lot of things #1 did better than #2. Besides the suspension and ride/control, the climate control on #1 was WAY more accurate at maintaining a steady comfortable temp and the radio was much better at tuning than #2. Besides the intact warranty, the only other thing MM#2 has going for it is an engine with a killer part-throttle... MM#1 will lay down and sleep at the 3-4 upshift in town, whereas #2 will hunker down and pull like a mofo. I blame the ticking head and/or the unwanted reflash last Fall for #1's lack of oomph.

Not to be outdone, #1 started making nasty rear end sounds this morning. In contrast, I suspect #2's limited slip is already toast. Will the fun ever end? :pimp:

[mtnh]

I was able to nail down the point that Grand Marquis HPP uses the same shocks as the MM, and the price that I have on my receipt is the same price as the HPP shocks. If you wanted to downtune the rear suspension to a more comfortable ride, the normal Grand Marquis shocks would appear to work. And they would cost less.

Personally, I would try the Monroes, if I could order ahead of time.

That part number 5995 or whatever it is, for the Monroes, is their rear shock in a sensa track model. The fronts are a different part and double or more the price of the rears. The problem with the Monroes is that nobody and I mean nobody stocks them in my area. Pep Boys can get them in 3-5 days. That is not fast enough when you have a shock with no fluid left inside of it, so it was back to original for me.

Steve, I saw the same part numbers on my original shocks as you have in your photos, fwiw.

Mike

[TripleTransAm]

Thanks for the info, Mike.

Before I go the softer-shock route, I'm going to first play with my tire pressures (no, I will not go below 30 psi, that's for sure). Right now I think I'm at 34 psi.

The term "downtuning" seems so foreign to me... I have no problem with a stiff suspension as is, but I don't tolerate silly harshness. MM#1 was excellent in this regard... almost no body roll and an immediate halt in body movement at any suspension deflection. That, to me, is the way it should be.

[JMan]

Thanks for the info, Mike.

Before I go the softer-shock route, I'm going to first play with my tire pressures (no, I will not go below 30 psi, that's for sure). Right now I think I'm at 34 psi.

The term "downtuning" seems so foreign to me... I have no problem with a stiff suspension as is, but I don't tolerate silly harshness. MM#1 was excellent in this regard... almost no body roll and an immediate halt in body movement at any suspension deflection. That, to me, is the way it should be.

Steve,
Before you go de-tuning anything, bounce the front on each corner violently in your driveway (Weather permitting of course.). The suspension should travel completely throughout its normal swing with no binding or bottoming. If it does "bottom" or "top" out, you may have a front shock going south (Quite the pun to someone in Montreal:rolleyes: ). When my front failed, it hit so hard, I thought I was going to break a control arm. It was brutal! These cars should ride like glass even with the tires over-inflated. I would tend to think a Trans Am owner would find the MM comfy with 100psi in the tires! Oddly enough, my bottoming front shock became functional after removing it from the car. I presume all that shaft spinning allowed it to unlock.

I replaced the fronts with Police Interceptor (PI) shocks due to the limited availability of Marauder or Sport shocks at that time. I asked several of the Municipal agencies I deal with if they ever have problems with the shocks on PI's. All said very few if any - hence my decision. I must point out the PI shocks are a little more harsh, so anyone wanting to preserve the ride on these cars should NOT use the PI shocks up front.

It disturbs me they could put together such a tremendous platform, only to have it fall to the weakest link . . .

Best of luck with your ride,

Jake

[magindat]

Is that number for front and rear?

rear only.

[rayjay]

rear only.

Do they have a matching a front?

[TripleTransAm]

Before you go de-tuning anything, bounce the front on each corner violently in your driveway (Weather permitting of course.). The suspension should travel completely throughout its normal swing with no binding or bottoming.


I tried this right in front of that cantankerous prick in the dealer parking lot, with both cars side by side. He tried it as well. He claimed he felt no difference. I, on the other hand, could distinctly feel a difference between the force required to compress MM#2 versus MM#1, and I could detect a slight extra bounce in MM#2 whereas #1 stopped firmly on the rebound. Nonetheless he would have nothing to do with it...



These cars should ride like glass even with the tires over-inflated. I would tend to think a Trans Am owner would find the MM comfy with 100psi in the tires!


I agree. I tried all sorts of pressures on MM#1 and never noticed a HUGE difference. I'm just grasping at straws here. I think the rear shocks (if I do have the right ones) will mellow out with a little mileage, so I'll give it some time. However, it's the wallowing (kind of a duck-like waddle) that ticks me off. *sigh* I'm going to try one more time at my original dealer, and see if they can give me some satisfaction.

I agree with your "Trans Am" comment to a certain degree. While my GTA is VERY stiff riding (and harsh to a large degree), my '98 is an absolute dream when it comes to delivering a comfortable yet VERY controlled ride. Too very different feels when it comes to road feedback, but both with extremely good handling and out-of-this-world control. I can live with harshness... as long as I don't sacrifice the control. MM#1 hardly needed any steering correction on straight but bumpy highways. MM#2 constantly needs my attention.

[magindat]

Do they have a matching a front?

553001

http://www.monroe.com/catalog_lookup/E_Catalog/catalog.aspx?sec=ocl&page=ocl_ecatalog&VG=0&MK=32&MDL=457&YR=2003&LST=1604

[magindat]

I was able to nail down the point that Grand Marquis HPP uses the same shocks as the MM, and the price that I have on my receipt is the same price as the HPP shocks. If you wanted to downtune the rear suspension to a more comfortable ride, the normal Grand Marquis shocks would appear to work. And they would cost less.

Personally, I would try the Monroes, if I could order ahead of time.

That part number 5995 or whatever it is, for the Monroes, is their rear shock in a sensa track model. The fronts are a different part and double or more the price of the rears. The problem with the Monroes is that nobody and I mean nobody stocks them in my area. Pep Boys can get them in 3-5 days. That is not fast enough when you have a shock with no fluid left inside of it, so it was back to original for me.

Steve, I saw the same part numbers on my original shocks as you have in your photos, fwiw.

Mike

Monroe gives a different part number for GM. 5994. There's no separate option on their site for HPP.
http://www.monroe.com/catalog_lookup/E_Catalog/catalog.aspx?sec=ocl&page=ocl_ecatalog&VG=0&MK=32&MDL=455&YR=2003&LST=1587

I wonder if the difference is valving for performance?

[rayjay]

553001

http://www.monroe.com/catalog_lookup/E_Catalog/catalog.aspx?sec=ocl&page=ocl_ecatalog&VG=0&MK=32&MDL=457&YR=2003&LST=1604

Thanks! I booked it for later use.

[duhtroll]

Strangely enough, I found that after raising the rear about 0.5" I got FAR nicer, smoother ride out of her -- much less harsh. (insert all sorts of innuendo comments here . . .) I have more rear wheel gap than any other MM I have seen, and mine is not even up all the way.

Of course, the dealer tried to screw me out of a failed ring and pinion since I had raised the rear ride height. I asked him why the F it was adjustable if they don't expect people to adjust it. I ended up not paying for the gears as they had already been paid for an inspection earlier (long story).

But here's another theory I have: I think raising the rear has cost me 0.1 in the 1/4 (or so). I bet the lack of weight on the drive wheels is not helping traction, either. I'm going to play with this a bit when I hit the track. I don't want to add weight to the car, but shifting the weight from the front to the rear via angle (ride height) might just give me the extra bit of traction I need with the new Stallion.

Thoughts?
-A

Oh yeah, post 2000 happy day

[RoyLPita]

I just checked with my parts guy and he punched in the 3U2Z-18125-AC code and next to it came up ASH711. So.....they are one in the same.

[SergntMac]

I think raising the rear has cost me 0.1 in the 1/4 (or so). I bet the lack of weight on the drive wheels is not helping traction, either. I'm going to play with this a bit when I hit the track. I don't want to add weight to the car, but shifting the weight from the front to the rear via angle (ride height) might just give me the extra bit of traction I need with the new Stallion. Thoughts? Yes. Don't waste your time.

With a full frame 4400 pound car that's 212" long, front to rear weight transfer isn't a factor that will improve traction. Any weight you throw to the rear will land in the back seat. You would be better served by racing with 1/2 tank of fuel for added weight directly over the rear tires.

IMHO, try lowering the rear suspension to the default settings at the track, and shut off your air suspension. Low and flat with minimal body roll is your best approach when launching. If you haven't added them yet, consider the improved Addco sway bars, and of course...Zack and Mac control arms.

Good luck!

[magindat]

Strangely enough, I found that after raising the rear about 0.5" I got FAR nicer, smoother ride out of her -- much less harsh. (insert all sorts of innuendo comments here . . .) I have more rear wheel gap than any other MM I have seen, and mine is not even up all the way.

Of course, the dealer tried to screw me out of a failed ring and pinion since I had raised the rear ride height. I asked him why the F it was adjustable if they don't expect people to adjust it. I ended up not paying for the gears as they had already been paid for an inspection earlier (long story).

But here's another theory I have: I think raising the rear has cost me 0.1 in the 1/4 (or so). I bet the lack of weight on the drive wheels is not helping traction, either. I'm going to play with this a bit when I hit the track. I don't want to add weight to the car, but shifting the weight from the front to the rear via angle (ride height) might just give me the extra bit of traction I need with the new Stallion.

Thoughts?
-A

Oh yeah, post 2000 happy day

When using air suspension, ride height changes spring rate. Spring rate is the 'stiffness' or 'firmness' of the spring. Rate is the spring's resistance to compression.

As ride height changes, the pressure in the bags are increased. As the pressure increases, so then does the spring rate. This means stiffer springs.

As ride height decreases, the pressure in the bag decreases... yada, yada.

This does NOT mean lower is 'softer' and higher is 'firmer'. As with any car, there is an optimum spring rate based on the weight and balance of the car. When the spring rate correctly matches that weight and balance, the ride is 'perfect'.

Of course, perfect is subjective. Some will find perfect to be firmer and vice/versa. Perfect technically (without friction) means if you bounced the suspension (without a shock) it would oscilate forever due to a prefect match between weight and rate. The shock is the friction that stops (controls) the oscilation.

In general, a spring that has too little rate, gives a harsh, bottomy, twitchy, 'unglued' kind of ride. To much rate yields stiff, bouncy (depending on shock), reboundy ride.

So our air suspension is both a blessing and a curse. We have adjustable height and rate, but since we can adjust, we create our own monsters, and that's before we start changing shocks!

Of note: I have not found any checking in the air lines, therefore I beleive both bags run on one line. This means they will trade pressure in turns. The solution is sway bars. This would be another reason to have mounted the shocks so far outboard to help mitigate body roll due to pressure exchange.

At the end of the day, set the ride where you like it for looks and/or ride. Mac (as usual) is right about launching. Remember, adjusting ride height is akin to adjusting the air in your tires.

FWIW....

[SergntMac]

I just checked with my parts guy and he punched in the 3U2Z-18125-AC code and next to it came up ASH711. So.....they are one in the same. Maybe these two number correllate between each other, but for what car again?

My HVBoM guide from my L/M parts department identifies the rear shock assmbly with three part numbers. The production line (engineering) part number is 3W3D-18080-AD. The service part number (dealer repair) is 3W3D 18125-AA, and the matching Motorcraft catalogue number is ASH84. This is for an '03 300A, as of October 1st, 2004.

Just incase there isn't enough confusion here, this HVBoM guide calls the front shock a "strut assembly", with an engineering number of 3W3D-18B036-AC, and service/repair number of 3W3D-18045-AC without any mention of a Motorcraft number.

IMHO, the engineering number is the shock and spring pre-assembled for the production line, and the service/repair number is the shock alone. Not much help here, I suppose, but I thought I'd mention it.

/Steve...You have the correct shocks on one of your Marauders, may be interesting to see what's on the other MM?

[magindat]

If the stockers bust and leak, why are we working so hard on stock replacements?

I can't afford QA1's right now, but I will be using Monroes in the mean time. 28 bucks a piece? Who cares if they suck? They're not leaking!

[TripleTransAm]

/Steve...You have the correct shocks on one of your Marauders, may be interesting to see what's on the other MM?

Too late now. Maybe I have some photos at home showing the part number from back when took off the winter tires in early 2005. I'll have to check tonight. Would be interesting to see is they matched... whatever was in #1 was apparently good enough to completely keep the rear end planted solidly in all driving conditions and provide absolutely no swaying while maintaining an excellent ride. And continued to do so even at over 40000 km of rough road use.

Would be ironic if they ended up being the "wrong" shocks! :lol: I honestly could not ask for a better no-bobbing no-swaying no-harshness full control and awesome handling out of a smaller car, much less a large car like this!

[marauder307]

If the stockers bust and leak, why are we working so hard on stock replacements?

I can't afford QA1's right now, but I will be using Monroes in the mean time. 28 bucks a piece? Who cares if they suck? They're not leaking!

The fronts are listed by Rock Auto as being "Severe Service Units"; presumably they're for the CVPIs (or so I'm led to believe). Should be good
enough for the Hulk.

I really wish somebody had answered my question about Bilsteins in my "Owww" thread (this subforum). I also really wish I'd known about the part numbers for stock replacements---but WTH. The Monroes will be good enough, for the time being...

I too have purchased the Monroes, and will be getting them installed on Friday. Will let y'all know. :up:

[SergntMac]

I really wish somebody had answered my question about Bilsteins in my "Owww" thread (this subforum). I also really wish I'd known about the part numbers for stock replacements---but WTH. The Monroes will be good enough, for the time being... :up: Sorry, my friend. I remember your thread and your front suspension problems. I didn't catch your call for shock part numbers. My bad.

[marauder307]

Sorry, my friend. I remember your thread and your front suspension problems. I didn't catch your call for shock part numbers. My bad.


No worries, my friend...I thank you for your help. :bows:

[rayjay]

Just a curiosity here. I wonder if there have been variations build to build, car to car, to rear ride height at the factory during assembly? From personal experience I know that dampers are designed to work with a given amount of vertical travel. Varying that amount will shorten damper life. Folks lowering their MM with the Eibach front springs can expect their OEM dampers to prematurely fail. Curious if the same is true for the rear dampers if the height is out of spec. The Naakes are probably the only shocks out there for the MM that are capable of adjusting to a lowered ride height and maintain service life. Just food for thought.