ball joint issues

-
pauly v.100

pauly v.100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
2,756
Reaction score
245
Location
honolulu, hi.
i have a 68 dart with /6 and small 9" drum brakes. because of the expense of available disk conversion kits plus shipping to hawaii, i've decided to go with the scarebird setup, at least for now.
i recently read (mopar action, i think) that the lower ball joint to control arm stud was so small that they said they would'nt drive a car equipped with em over 20 mph for fear of them breaking. i have recently installed a full p-s-t urethane kit w/ new ball joints.
am i putting myself in danger sticking with the older size ball joints ??
anybody else have problems with these or even heard of a ball joint stud breaking ?? .. i sure haven't.
..thanks
 
If you mean the stock lower ball joint then I have no issues driving the car over 20mph as a matter of fact I drive my car at about 122mph thru the lights drag racing. This kind of thing is why I don't read magazines they are a bunch of morons giving idiot stick advise.

The people on this site are a 1000 times smarter than those magazine "experts".

Chuck
 
I don't think it was the ball joint that was the problem. They said it was the bolts that hold the ball joint to the spindle that was the issue. I can't remember what the problem with the bolts were, just that they went bad. Just put in new ones that are stronger than what is in there.
Anyone else remember that article?
 
Although I probably shouldn't admit it, in my younger days I launched my Barracuda on more than one occasion by travelling over a particular dip in the road. Just guessing, the car flew maybe 50 or 60 feet, maybe farther, & landed hard, with stock 9" brakes & new J.C. Whitney lower ball joints. I also had stiffer than stock shocks, heavy duty rear springs, & 340 torsion bars. I actually dented the oil pan one time. The ball joints never failed.
A friend of mine looked at the information page that came with the ball joints & said it looked exactly like a Moog info sheet without the Moog name on it. I should go back there someday & measure the distance. I know the city later reworked that dip in the road. There used to be a lot of gouges in the pavement on the far side of it where cars hit after the drivers were caught by surprise.
 
pauly v.100 said:
i have a 68 dart with /6 and small 9" drum brakes. because of the expense of available disk conversion kits plus shipping to hawaii, i've decided to go with the scarebird setup, at least for now.
i recently read (mopar action, i think) that the lower ball joint to control arm stud was so small that they said they would'nt drive a car equipped with em over 20 mph for fear of them breaking. i have recently installed a full p-s-t urethane kit w/ new ball joints.
am i putting myself in danger sticking with the older size ball joints ??
anybody else have problems with these or even heard of a ball joint stud breaking ?? .. i sure haven't.
..thanks
Click to expand...
If your staying with the /6 or at least a SB you should have no problems. Adding the weight of the BB to the front end may be an issue.
Changing to disk brakes makes a world of difference, so try and scrape the parts together for the conversion.
I had the 9" on mine - WHOA has a whole new meaning :angel9:
 
Ok, so it is the bolts that hold the ball joint to the control arm, same thing, there are thousands of cars on the road and they are all bad? Aren't those two bolts like 1/2" or something? Come on, this means all a-bodies are going to or could fail because they used the same lower ball joint until they quit making the a-body. It's the upper one thats different on the later a-bodies. Or am I just not understanding it correctly?


Chuck
 
Sorry, but your ball joints are not going to fall apart. The only difference in lower ball joints revolve around disc or drum brakes. The steering arm on the disc ball joint has a different curve for caliper clearance. I wish this old chestnut would quietly die, since it was started to get people to convert to disc brakes so the car would stop. In 40 some years I have seen one lower ball joint fail and the "driver" hit the curb at the end of a median doing 60 in a 35 zone. Really can't consider that a ball joint failure since the K member was also bent and the control arm was ripped loose. The 73 up A bodies used a different upper ball joint and control arm so it would be easier for Ma Mopar to use one brake/spindle set up for A and B bodies.
 
Chuck if I remember correcly the bolts just braek as they get old. In the mag article they narrowed it down to 9" front drum brake cars. My 65 Cuda had these and I can't remember if the bolts are the same on the later or Disc brake cars or not. I just put the best grade bolts in I could get when I put my 10 " drum spindles on for my new disc brakes. I tried going through some old Mopar mags that I have and just gave up as I have saved so many.
 
Moog lists the same ball joint from '63 - '72 for both the 9" and 10" drum. They do list a different ball joint for the disc brake cars. If the failed on a 9" drum car they will fail on a 10" drum car also. Metal fatigue is metal fatigue, if it was because of this, it was irresponsible to make the comments about it like the magazine did, but then again sensationalizm is pretty commom with the media, it sells. You should almost always use the same grade bolt when replacing a bolt. Going to a heavier grade bolt can sometimes be weaker that a lower grade bolt. A higher grade bolt doesn't flex as well as lower grade and can shear or snap easier because it is more brittle.

I not try to shoot the messanger, even though it may sound like it, I just think from what I am reading about the mags comments it is a load. I am only making comments about what I have read here being I didn't read the article first hand, so maybe my comments are a load.


Chuck
 
FWIW, When I swapped from 9" drums to 73+ disk brakes I also rebuilt the front end and ordered lower ball joints for the 73 disk brake car. The only difference between the new Moog lower ball joint and the old 9" I took out was the size of the hole the bolt goes through to attach the spindle. The 73+ disk brake cars used a much larger bolt close to 3/4".

Also, all the articles I have read about doing this swap state if your lower ball joints are good to just drill out the ball joint to accept the larger bolt.
 
thanks for the input everybody. i'm thinking they'll probably be ok since they ARE brand new ball joints. still, i'm gonna give them a serious look over when i have everything apart. btw, i'm gonna keep the /6 in car for now since its my daily driver and my `67 valiant has a gas suckin 360/380 crate in it and is good for plenty of thrills (`75 dart front discs).

heres the little nugget from ehrenberg that got this thread started, its from the "disc-o-tech" article in mopar action:

'62-'72 A-BODIES (Dart, Duster, etc.)

"If your car now has 9-inch drums, the first step up would be the 10" drums used on all '65-up 8-cyl cars. We frankly wouldn't drive an A-body over 40 mph with the 9-inch drums, for reasons having nothing to do with the brakes. The small ball-joint-to- knuckle bolts, which are loaded in shear, are known to snap, usually at the most inopportune time."
 
Drum brake cars use the same lower ball joint so the bolts will be the same. Just goes to show don't believe everything or (anything) you read from the media. Plus I believe the lower ball joint is different or at least a different part number from '73 and up so there statement about '65-up is not accurate also


Chuck
 
pauly v.100 said:
We frankly wouldn't drive an A-body over 40 mph with the 9-inch drums, for reasons having nothing to do with the brakes. The small ball-joint-to- knuckle bolts, which are loaded in shear, are known to snap, usually at the most inopportune time."
Click to expand...

Well, I used run my Valiant where the speed-o-meter would be straight down and my car would start seriouly wobling(spelling) and scare the living crap out of me.

Lee
 
340mopar said:
Drum brake cars use the same lower ball joint so the bolts will be the same. Just goes to show don't believe everything or (anything) you read from the media. Plus I believe the lower ball joint is different or at least a different part number from '73 and up so there statement about '65-up is not accurate also


Chuck
Click to expand...

The reason for a different part number for the 73+ lower ball joint is that the hole the bolt goes through to attach the spindle is much bigger to accomodate the bigger bolt that is used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top