Author Topic: UCA Ball Joint Issues (Read 12085 times)

Topcat · « **on:** April 04, 2015 - 11:04:01 PM »

When I first started on my Cuda resto, one of the first things I did was get new upper ball joints put in.
That was many years back. They sat for a long time.

After only 500 or so miles, both of the upper control arm ball joints are wobbly inside.
They move up and down about a 1/4 inch. I filled the ball joints with the grey Molibendum grease before driving it the first time.

The spindles came off I think either a 76' or a 78' Cordoba from a wrecker nearby.
I was informed these would work well because the spindle is thicker to accept the more common later 72'-74' rotors that are way lower in cost. What it looks like is that the taper of the ball joint shaft almost looks like it's too wide to slide down further to where it should be? I'm really not certain. Yet I cross referenced the ball joints at O'Reilly's website, and it indicated that both the 71' E body and later year Cordoba were the same p/n.

I replaced one already and the other refuses to budge even with a 3' cheater bar.

why the playin the ball joint?

AussieMark · « **Reply #1 on:** April 05, 2015 - 12:35:03 AM »

I think the spindles are incorrect from memory they are too tall and hyperextend the ball joints, do you still have the originals to compare or get the measurement of the originals and compare to what is in there now?

Topcat · « **Reply #2 on:** April 05, 2015 - 12:45:14 AM »

Quote from: AussieMark on April 05, 2015 - 12:35:03 AM

I think the spindles are incorrect from memory they are too tall and hyperextend the ball joints, do you still have the originals to compare or get the measurement of the originals and compare to what is in there now?

I recall the height of the connecting upper was about a half inch higher.

All that stuff on a Mopar magazine was what I read to do this swap.
Maybe it wasn't such a good idea?

AussieMark · « **Reply #3 on:** April 05, 2015 - 02:58:36 AM »

Mopar Action did an article called Disc-O-Tech it was a brake upgrade article and it has some info about these spindles you can read it online. You don't want to angle your ball joints any further then their standard limit or they will wear prematurely or even worse pop out of their socket and cause a loss of control incident.

brads70 · « **Reply #4 on:** April 05, 2015 - 07:24:53 AM »

I use spindles taller than the B-body ones and don't have any issues with it binding or wearing out prematurely . I'd say you got offshore ball joints perhaps? Just replace them with Mogg joints and see how it goes. As for the suborn one... maybe a little heat?

HP2 · « **Reply #5 on:** April 05, 2015 - 11:33:06 AM »

While not common , it does occasionally happen that the upper arm ball joints use up all the available metal in the thread in bushing and won't hold a bite into the metal. The quick and dirty repair is to put 4 tack welds around the perimeter to hol it in, knowing that the arms will need to be replaced at teh next ball joint rpelacement. Or you can bite the bullet now and replace teh arms and ball joints altogether.

The spindle height had nothing to do with this. Oval track racers are using taller spindles with more extreme angles than anything a stock mopar sees. Most oval track ball joints are based of the original mopar design exactly because of their ease of replacement, durability, and a bility to hanlde extreme angles and abuse.

Chryco Psycho · « **Reply #6 on:** April 05, 2015 - 01:50:20 PM »

I know the Volare / 5th ave spindles are 1/2 taller & seem to have no issues within normal travel
I have never used later Cordoba spindles nor have I seen any recommendations for using those

Topcat · « **Reply #7 on:** April 05, 2015 - 02:45:11 PM »

The disc o Tech article says:

Do not succumb to the temptation to use "lookalike" knuckles from later Mopars, such as 73-up B/R-bodies, F/J/M bodies, etc. These parts, while visually very similar, are taller, altering suspension geometry (camber change, bump steer, etc.), and possibly forcing the ball joints beyond their designed range, a/k/a �over angling"

This is my issue?

brads70 · « **Reply #8 on:** April 05, 2015 - 04:29:20 PM »

I seriously doubt it but I assume you have your torsion bars out now? If so cycle the suspension so it's on the bump stops and then look to see if the ball joint is hitting the side of it's housing. Most people lower the front end drastically from stock and don't have any issue so a spindle 3/4"-1" taller? won't make a difference either.

Topcat · « **Reply #9 on:** April 05, 2015 - 04:55:47 PM »

Perhaps that's true.

These articles contradict each other?

http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/chassis-suspension/mopp-0503-swapping-a-and-b-disc-brake-spindles/

http://www.moparaction.com/tech/archive/disc-main.html

This will help you identify the needed �74-�74 E-body / �73- �76 A-body steering knuckle. Casting numbers are rarely visible, so comparing dimensions is the sure way. Be sure to inspect for spun-bearing damage. Exact, drop-forged steel repros are available from Master Power (see sources.) Do not use the similar, but taller, knuckles from �73-up B and F/J/M/R-body cars!

Topcat · « **Reply #10 on:** April 05, 2015 - 04:59:40 PM »

Quote from: Chryco Psycho on April 05, 2015 - 01:50:20 PM

I know the Volare / 5th ave spindles are 1/2 taller & seem to have no issues within normal travel
I have never used later Cordoba spindles nor have I seen any recommendations for using those

Article calls those years: Cordoba 75-79 B spindles

Chryco Psycho · « **Reply #11 on:** April 05, 2015 - 08:01:07 PM »

As the upper control arm rises the angle for the ball joint becomes worse , this should help handling as the force from the spindle to the control arm forces the frame rail downward , but at the upper stop limits it could bind the ball joint & cause unusual wear that you are seeing .
I have used FMJ spindles in a number of swaps with no issues , never used later B body Cordoba though if they are different ?

72bluNblu · « **Reply #12 on:** April 06, 2015 - 01:28:04 AM »

Quote from: Topcat on April 05, 2015 - 04:55:47 PM

Perhaps that's true.

These articles contradict each other?

http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/chassis-suspension/mopp-0503-swapping-a-and-b-disc-brake-spindles/

http://www.moparaction.com/tech/archive/disc-main.html

The articles contradict each other because the Disc-O-Tech article in Mopar Action by Ehrenberg is completely, totally, 100%, factually incorrect regarding the use of the '73+ FMJ and B/R body spindles (the FMJ's and B/R body spindles are the same).

The '73+ F/M/J/B/R spindles will NOT overangle the ball joints. It will not cause you any alignment problems.

In fact, if you look at the chart provided at the bottom of the Hot Rod article, you can see that they actually did a full analysis of the suspension geometry using the later spindles, and found that, if anything, the later spindles are BETTER than the earlier ones for suspension geometry, especially for cars that are lowered or using wider than stock tires. Notice any actual data or analysis in the Mopar Action article? There isn't any. And that's because there isn't any data to support those claims.

That Mopar Action article, while useful for its comprehensive list of part numbers, is just flat out wrong about using the later spindles.

I have FMJ spindles on both my Challenger and my Duster. No issues with either. I even use the larger B/R rotors on the spindles on my Challenger. It's a wonder I haven't burst into flames.

HP2 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 06, 2015 - 09:38:02 AM »

The disc-o-tech article is pretty old and kicked off a decades long debate between Ehrenburg and Dulcich at the competing mopar publishing houses of the day. It also spilled over into moparts and was one of the highest viewed and longest running threads on that web site through the 2000s. Ehrenburg eventually agreed that there is no harm in using the taller spindles after being presented with piles of data contradicting his opinion, but he said he was never going to change his article to reflect that fact.

So back to the original issues on this topic, I think it simply comes down to your upper control arms being used up. These parts weren't designed to be serviced for 40+ years. Who knows how many ball joints have been threaded into those arms. Once they seat, that extra quarter turn some installers use to make sure everything is tight has simply eaten up the available metal. It may be time to replace them. In the meantime, several tack welds around the perimeter will hold them snug until you want to swap them out.

Chryco Psycho · « **Reply #14 on:** April 06, 2015 - 05:30:23 PM »

Ok I'll bite where is it loose , is the ball joint loose in the control arm or is the ball joint pin loose in the ball joint housing ??

Author Topic: UCA Ball Joint Issues (Read 12085 times)

Topcat

UCA Ball Joint Issues

AussieMark

Re: UCA Ball Joint Issues

Topcat

Re: UCA Ball Joint Issues

AussieMark

Re: UCA Ball Joint Issues

brads70

Re: UCA Ball Joint Issues

HP2

Re: UCA Ball Joint Issues

Chryco Psycho

Re: UCA Ball Joint Issues

Topcat

Re: UCA Ball Joint Issues

brads70

Re: UCA Ball Joint Issues

Topcat

Re: UCA Ball Joint Issues

Topcat

Re: UCA Ball Joint Issues

Chryco Psycho

Re: UCA Ball Joint Issues

72bluNblu

Re: UCA Ball Joint Issues

HP2

Re: UCA Ball Joint Issues

Chryco Psycho

Re: UCA Ball Joint Issues