Thread: ball joints

Tweet

The front suspension on my Oze chassis uses Chrysler upper screw-in ball joints, with the dimensions like a Moog K772. The ball joints that came with my chassis look like the cheapest thing that can be had, with rubber boots that don't look like they would ever seal well. In addition, the upper A-arm tilts quite a bit, while the lower is close to horizontal, at ride height. That causes the rubber boot on the upper to be squashed a lot, at ride height.

I'd like to try a Howe racing ball joint, with a longer stud, to raise the end of the upper arm. Some of these "racing" joints, like the QA1 models, say that they are NOT for street use. I notice that they have no rubber boots.

Anyone use a "racing" ball joint on their street driven car or have an opinion on this idea? Anyone know of a better ball joint?

Speedway 1968-89 Chrysler-Type Upper K772 Style Ball Joint - Speedway Motors, America's Oldest Speed Shop

https://www.howeracing.com/p-7921-ho...fits-k772.aspx

I called Howe Racing yesterday and got a very apathetic response. The guy I spoke to had no opinion on the use of Howe ball joints on a street driven car and didn't seem to care either. I did find out that Howe offers a dust boot that can be used with their ball joints. Some of the companies that make urethane suspension bushings also make universal dust boots, that could be used. That's the only problem that I can see with a street driven car - there's a need to keep the dirt away from the ball. Racing cars apparently get such frequent service that it's not an issue.

I show a cross reference to AFCO 20034 http://www.summitracing.com/parts/af...FY17fgodmhoANQ

This maight work for you?

Dave, Also try energy suspension on dust boots, they make polyurethane ones that are very nice and availble from Oreillys, I am not positive but alot of the circle track items, seemingly mainly steering say not for street use, including u-joints and such, I called at one time on some of these and if I remember they said that circle track cars where serviced frequently, at least yearly on their parts and heck a street car though not as abused is much longer and probably for insurance they are listed as that. Their are some ball joints in the style your after that have a teflon race so steering is much easier and no lube is needed and I believe they are for circle track cars also as to combat the dust. I know I didn't answer your question directly but the Moog line is good stuff, getting those ball joints out can be a pain, the tip I found was clamp the ball joint flat in a vise and put a cheater pipe on the tube of the arm and unscrew it as the cheap sheet metal wrenches from Speedway won't come close to getting the things out! You can call an expert at Lakeshore Fabrications in Columbia MO and ask him at (573) 875-1500 he told me the tip of getting them out and can answer any suspension question probably. They use to make all the Speedway items listed under their own brand (not sure if they still do) but the guy is a true expert. Best of Luck Matt

Originally Posted by daveS53

In addition, the upper A-arm tilts quite a bit, while the lower is close to horizontal, at ride height. That causes the rubber boot on the upper to be squashed a lot, at ride height.

The upper arm is angled more than the lower arm to allow more camber gain on bump to prevent the outside tire rolling over on itself and keep the tread more parallel with the road/track surface.

.

Thanks for the responses. I plan to buy a 1-59/64" ball joint socket and hope that it will work to remove the joints. I won't be surprised if Oze didn't apply anti-seize to the threads, so they may be stuck. They're supposed to be torqued to 100 ft/lbs.

My concern about the A-arm angles comes from reading literature on the Heidts website. As far as I can tell, my suspension is built to function like the Heidt's Super Ride II. If you go to the link below and read page 74, it mentions that they want both the upper and lower A-arms to be parallel at ride height. Mine certainly aren't, but a longer stud on the upper ball joint could correct that.

http://www.heidts.com/HEIDTS%20V27%2...ed%2012-15.pdf

I'm also dealing with Ride Tech, who made the control arms for Oze. The rod ends on one of the arms are not square to the pivot tube that it bolts to. I also found that the steel sleeves in the flanged rubber bushings look like they were shortened with a hack saw. The bushings need to have a 1.125 OD, with a .625 ID on the steel sleeve and a 1.5 inch sleeve length. Energy Suspensions doesn't offer these dimensions in their list of universal bushings, but there is one that could be cut down from a 1.75 inch length to 1.5 inch.

Ride Tech has agreed to do whatever it takes to correct my A-arm problem, either by tweaking the arm so the rods ends are at the correct angle or making a new A-arm. I'll be sending the A-arm to them, as soon as I get that ball joint socket and get the ball joint removed.

They're also supposed to be helping me find some new rubber bushings.

Dave, You might be surprised at how tight they really are, I have used several different vendors a arms with the Volare joint, I didn't think I would ever get them out until I talked with Lakeshore about tightening the thing in a vice, even then I thought I would have bent the actual arms it took so much torque, like a 4' cheater bar, and the arms like I mentioned where from two different vendors! I was also surprised as how little thread depth there where on the actual joints themselves, it appears to be normal. I read on another site that some press the screw in joint into the arm, I don't believe that but did while trying to take them apart. When you get'em back its a great time to powder coat'em before the joint goes in. Best of luck and let us know how it goes.
Also on a Mustang II suspension (or clone) the upper a arm is not parrellel with the lower, the lower should be level but the top will be at a angle, its normal. Since Wildrod went out before getting my suspension bought from them I had to have arms made & I researched it greatly (luckily my buddy had one that we had copied), I am not 100 percent sure Oze used the same geometry as Wildrod but would assumed they did, its a modified mustang II, just with coilovers and rod ends on the upper arms (no slots thankfully) I am not sure if the Heidts Superide 2 is of modified Mustang geometery, but I know the Superide is not.
Matt

If you look at page 54 of the Heidt's catalog, it states that they do use a mustang II spindle on the super ride II. I'm not sure what spindles I have, but they are marked E-lan with a PN of L 1192. My searches have not resulted in any info.

http://www.heidts.com/HEIDTS%20V27%2...ed%2012-15.pdf

If you read about how a mustang II suspension is supposed to work, on page 74, I can only hope that the cross member is made to function properly, so a line through the center of the two pivots goes through the center of the pivot on the rack.

I got a 1-59/64" ball joint socket and it worked great to remove my ball joint. Ant-seize was used, but I still saw some evidence of some galling on a couple of threads, so I asked Ride Tech to chase the threads, if they have the proper tap (a $200 item). It's likely that the threads distort from welding, unless the threads are chased or tapped after the welding is complete.

Whatever Oze used to install the ball joint sure buggered up the top of the ball joints. You're not supposed to use an impact wrench with a ball joint socket, but to remove a joint that I plan to toss, it decided to try it and it worked fine. I'll screw them in with a 1/2" ratchet and switch to my torque wrench, to get the proper 100 ft-lbs.

Unless Ride Tech recommends otherwise, I plan to use the upper arm sitting horizontal as a guide to the intended ride height. The lower arm still angles down at the ball joint by about 2 degrees, with the upper arm horizontal.

Dave, Glad to hear the ball joints came out so well, I personally think you will be 100% fine on geometry, even though (the new) Oze has had less than good reviews by you I bet money they don't make there own suspension or crossmember parts, as I haven't seen to many frame manufacturers make their own parts (though there are some like TCI) but the company is in business to sell kits not engineer suspensions and by the fact the use Ride Tech arms tells me its probably bought and welded on. Even though the ball joints look flimsy a Volare weighed way more than what your rod will (which your joints where made for) and the Volare is a much better joint than a stock Mustang II, though your correct there is different quality even among Volare joints.
The only part you might check on is I have only read on mustang II geometry that the lower a arm should be level at ride height as opposed to the upper arms. I have a superide (not superide II) on a rod and it doesn't use any of the same settings as the Mustang II and the lower arms are not set level, I do know when I purchased it I talked with Heidts and their suspensions at the time where all engineered to use alot of stock components to build there suspensions (ex. rack on a Superride was a Omni) the a arms and crossmember where custom though. This was when Gary owned it years ago, when he designed the suspensions. If you want to contact an expert and can't call Oze to find out who manufacturered yours their is one on The Hamb and he goes by ELpolacko, check out his posts the guy is an expert and you could contact him if you are indeed worried, if there is a place to be worried its this area and brakes! I hope everything goes well!

I'll look into the suspension posts on Hamb, since I'd never claim to be a suspension expert. Thanks for the tip.

I'm fairly certain that the designed ride height is with the upper A-arm horizontal, since it coincides with a stock Ride Tech shock wave length of 11.8 inches and it now looks like the ball joint is sitting around mid-travel. I'd have to drop the car even lower to get the lower A-arm horizontal and it's already about 3/4" lower than I ever used during my test drives.

One thing I've found with those selling hot rod parts is they all seem to act like Schultz on Hogan's Heroes (I know NOTHING!). I got a call from ride tech today. They got the screwed-up upper A-arm that I sent them and told me that it was fine because it fit their welding fixture. I told them to take the arm to someone in the shop with real machining or engineering experience (like I have) and they could easily tell what was wrong - the threads for the rod ends are not parallel. I got a call back in about 15 minutes telling me that they would make me a new A-arm. It was obvious what was wrong, but they tried hard to convince me that I should accept an A-arm with crooked rod ends, since nothing is perfect.

I also complained about what I have to assume is their choice of spring rate for the coil-overs that I got from Oze. They really had nothing to say about why I got 450lb/in springs, when they should probably be 350lb/in. I told them that by now I was used to paying for other people's mistakes - trashing parts that were useless to me and buying new ones. I expect if I want some softer springs, I'll be buying new ones.

oops, duplicate post.

I have figured out why most, if not all specialty ball joints are recommended only for racing use. The preload on the ball joint must be set by the user and it requires relatively frequent readjustment. The frequent readjustment would not be likely to occur on most cars that are real drivers. Standard ball joints only require an occasional greasing and get tossed when they wear out. There is no adjustment required or possible on these ball joints.

It looks like the AFCO 20034 that was suggested may be a good choice.