Topic: Rear shocks

[AJ]

Pretty sure these rear shocks are original to our 11/22/69 Boss.   Is the T9DB the date code.  If so, does it translate to 69 April week 2.    Im not well versed on nuances of dates?other than parts with the typical 4 to 6 weeks prior to build.   

[Bob Gaines]

Pretty sure these rear shocks are original to our 11/22/69 Boss.   Is the T9DB the date code.  If so, does it translate to 69 April week 2.    Im not well versed on nuances of dates?other than parts with the typical 4 to 6 weeks prior to build.

I think you translated the date correctly. Different parts can have different typical parts lead time before usage. They are not all of the same.  In this case although farther out in the spectrum the date is not out of the ordinary IMO.

[J_Speegle]

Pretty sure these rear shocks are original to our 11/22/69 Boss.   Is the T9DB the date code.  If so, does it translate to 69 April week 2.    I'm not well versed on nuances of dates?other than parts with the typical 4 to 6 weeks prior to build.

If you check the article on decoding date codes in the Library you will find that the "B" in your T9DB Gabriel shock code stands for shift rather than week I believe Since shocks were made by a supplier the dates between their making and the car completion date sometimes greater. This suggests IMO that machines were set up to run specific applications then those same machines were changed to run another rather than having them turned out continuously through out the year. This meant larger groups when they were made when the machines were set up to run them. So you will find shocks dated in groups and less variations in the dates. It's effect even greater since you have a lesser demand shock in your application than say standard shocks for a 70 Mustang 

[AJ]

Good stuff.  In reality, i?m trying to determine appropriate date code for front shock. Which are long gone.  So i started by checking dates on rears.   I need to have some front shocks made so i need to prescribe an appropriate date.   

Jeff/Dan are the front shocks more of a typical shock than rears.  And if so,  would you expect the date on fronts to be slightly closer to november.  Perhaps something like a  9G 9H 9J on a 11/22/69 build.

[Tucson Bruce]

your shock appears to be a C9ZF,
a 70 B2 with the comp. suspension came with a D0ZZ-18125-B rear shock

[specialed]

Correct bruce and 70 longer shock due to rear sway bar plate. Also i always thought the B in date code is second week not shift ?

[AJ]

Just weird   Car has the following

D0ZF 18080 B1 T9FC yellow daub at left rear
C9ZF 18080 D1 T9DB  orange daub at right rear

Shocks have identical patina
Rear fold down seat has never been out of this car
Looking at the C9ZF lowest bushing, the shock is indeed slightly short

At the risk of saying it?i?m 99.9% sure these are the born with shock

[AJ]

After digging around on other sites, i have found two others reported same shock mismatch as mine.  Oct Nov built Boss 302s with one each C9ZF D1 and D0ZF B1 rear shock.   The C9ZF is on the right rear of my car.

[J_Speegle]

After digging around on other sites, i have found two others reported same shock mismatch as mine.  Oct Nov built Boss 302s with one each C9ZF D1 and D0ZF B1 rear shock.   The C9ZF is on the right rear of my car.

Interesting discoveries. Sure this post will likely turn up more examples. Guessing that both these other examples you found were also Dearborn built Boss 302's or were they from NJ?

One would expect that earlier than Oct-Nov period examples would show the same pattern but we'll have to see. For some Ford must have figured that the extra C9 shocks would not get all sold if sent to the parts departments at dealerships like was normal practice for some or that they arrived at the car plants in bulk form so the extra cost of boxing them for storage and sales was too high while at the same time they didn't choose to sell them as salvage. Another option they had used in the past

Thanks for sharing