Topic: C8ZF-18080-G1 Shock Application Question?

[preaction]

I did a search for this part  and nothing came up would this have been used as a GT or a CJ manual trans rear shock for 68, I have seen it listed as a C9-G1 used on boss 302.

[jwc66k]

C8ZF-18080-G (no "1" in any of the listings I used) appears to be a regular application shock. It says "EX H/D or CJ" in the 75 MPC. It's also stated as type "Auto Flex XD" and a Motorcraft stock number of AX-76.
Confused? Download your own 75 MPC -
http://squarebirds.org/Manuals/1965/1965-72FordPartsTextCatalog/
Jim

[J_Speegle]

C8ZF-18080-G (no "1" in any of the listings I used) appears to be a regular application shock. It says "EX H/D or CJ" in the 75 MPC. It's also stated as type "Auto Flex XD" and a Motorcraft stock number of AX-76.

By that late date Ford had moved on to Auto flex shocks - not what was used originally on these cars.

Have some examples of the G1 shocks but without where they came from on the picture title. Will see if they are covered in a 68 MPC I have

[67gta289]

Attached is the info from the Aug 1968 MPC.  If you went to a dealer on or after this date and wanted a replacement for a C8ZF-18080-G (or G1 I suppose) they would have sold you a C5ZZ-18125-B.   What we don't know is how the actual shock barrel pulled out of the box labelled as C5ZZ-18125-B would be stamped, nor if each shock pulled out of C5ZZ-18125-B labelled boxes would be stamped identically, especially as time marched on.

Generally speaking it seems that Ford spent a lot of time and effort engineering systems comprised of dozens of variations of shocks and springs, only to turn it around and service them all with a handful of parts.  Granted, if you went to a third party shop, there might be even more of a one size fits all scenario.  It is absolutely a matter of inventory cost.

I think we have found that only by observing original parts associated with a known vehicle can we figure out the correct applications.  Since shocks are a wear item it can be difficult to figure these out.  We would need to hear from owners of various 68 Mustangs to see if this part number was used, and then look for patterns.  It would be interesting to set up a survey and develop a spreadsheet to identify known original shocks, with the corresponding vehicle configuration and assembly dates.

[preaction]

John, my august 69 MPC even though its a Mercury flavor states the same info as you posted and it is a "G" without the 1 also. I believe you nailed it as to the application being specific to each individual car as it was ordered as to what was actually under the car but once in a great while a part comes along claiming to be a take off part and it seems the only way to be sure is to have a correct month, year, plant build sheet. This application may come down to be a -H part.

[J_Speegle]

........................I believe you nailed it as to the application being specific to each individual car as it was ordered as to what was actually under the car but once in a great while a part comes along claiming to be a take off part and it seems the only way to be sure is to have a correct month, year, plant build sheet. This application may come down to be a -H part.

Yes the shocks application would be tied to engine, time period and option (suspension) chosen. Buildsheet for  68 and 69 would only show the paint marks not the number . 

Buildsheet for  68 and 69 would only show the paint marks for both or part number in the front shock section and color in the rear shock section depending on production date, car details  and plant

[RoyceP]

Actually it's the other way around. The build sheet shows the number, not the paint marks for the shocks.

Yes the shocks application would be tied to engine, time period and option (suspension) chosen. Buildsheet for 68 and 69 would only show the paint marks not the number

[RoyceP]

The build sheet shows the prefix and dash number that is found on the shock. In this case, a Cobra Jet Cougar.

[preaction]

Thanks for posting your build sheet Royce, I  have a 67 Dearborn build sheet and it has a engineering number for the shocks but believe this info changed over the years on the build sheets.

[RoyceP]

It's not my build sheet. It is a car similar to mine in some ways. My car didn't have any build sheets that I could find. 

Thanks for posting your build sheet Royce, I  have a 67 Dearborn build sheet and it has a engineering number for the shocks but believe this info changed over the years on the build sheets.

[J_Speegle]

Actually it's the other way around. The build sheet shows the number, not the paint marks for the shocks.

Royce should have been more specific  and thanks for the comment. It depends on plant and when the car was built. Have lots of copies where there is a part identification number in the front shock section with a color in the rear shock section and others with color codes only in both sections. Can't find any Mustang or Shelby buildsheets with numbers used in both sections. Maybe this is a Cougar thing. 

Top example - 8T02J1212xx
Bottom example - 8R01C1669xx

 



Did alter my post above to reflect these two styles found

[J_Speegle]

Went through the buildsheets I have copies of electronically and found -E, -F- and  -H when the numbers were used.

Think there MAY be the possibility that a G1 could be a service part. Just a guess or possibility based on the letter progression. Unfortunately the pictures I have of G1 don't have a paitn mark as we might be able to cross reference the application that way

[RoyceP]

Now that's weird - I was not expecting to see build sheets with both paint daub colors and engineering numbers! The MPC does have a nice section that cross references between engineering numbers and part numbers for replacement shocks, but not anything that I could find for paint daubs. Surely there must have at one time been a chart referencing these. I wonder if the shock absorber engineering drawings might contain that data point?

Thanks for the additional information Jeff. I doubt there would be anything specifically different about Cougar build sheet practices since they were generated and used in the identical plant as the ones for Mustangs.

[J_Speegle]

Thanks for the additional information Jeff. I doubt there would be anything specifically different about Cougar build sheet practices since they were generated and used in the identical plant as the ones for Mustangs.

Didn't expect to find this difference. Especially since they shared the same line in those plants in 68 so the same worker assigned to grab the shocks from the bins used both buildsheets.

As for paint marks I understand there was a guide/decoder published for that purpose just don't have one for any of the years. In some years must have been some revisions during the year just like most other things - adding to the puzzle we find ourselves with often

[RoyceP]

Interesting, I just realized one of the build sheets that you posted shows the same C8ZF-H engineering number as was used on the R code 4 speed Cougar GT-E with no AC. What is the application for your build sheet Jeff?