|
|
Veteran
Posts: 174
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ | On my 1959 Plymouth I just installed my spindle on the new upper ball joint I got from Rock Auto and it seems to have a different taper. It is a Moog K772 When I tightened the nut it didn't seem to have a solid feel of bottoming out the taper, so I removed the spindle and it seems to wobble in the hole like the wrong taper. I fit the old ball joint in the spindle and it seems very solid. Has anyone else experienced this? Is this the wrong Moog part number for a 59 Plymouth? |
|
| |
|
Expert 5K+
Posts: 7393
 
Location: northern germany | Big Jimbo - 2008-04-27 5:17 PM
On my 1959 Plymouth I just installed my spindle on the new upper ball joint I got from Rock Auto and it seems to have a different taper. It is a Moog K772 When I tightened the nut it didn't seem to have a solid feel of bottoming out the taper, so I removed the spindle and it seems to wobble in the hole like the wrong taper. I fit the old ball joint in the spindle and it seems very solid. Has anyone else experienced this? Is this the wrong Moog part number for a 59 Plymouth?
if i remember correctly the moog k772 is the correct ball joint. i think i installed these before without any problems.
http://www.jegs.com/i/Moog/719/K772/10002/-1 |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 3775
 
Location: NorCal |
Is there a thick washer under the nut? In most installations the washer is needed to allow the nut to pull the taper tightly into the spindle bore. |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 174
Location: Phoenix, AZ | I used the thick washer under the nut and it still pulled the stud through so far that the cotter pin hole was aboaut 1/4 inch past the nut! |
|
| |
|
Expert 5K+
Posts: 7393
Location: northern germany | Big Jimbo - 2008-04-27 6:21 PM
I used the thick washer under the nut and it still pulled the stud through so far that the cotter pin hole was aboaut 1/4 inch past the nut!
worn spindle ? |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 4533
Location: Ripon, WI | No... it is differences in the spindles.. you need 2 of the washers on them. Use both, and it will be just fine. |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 174
Location: Phoenix, AZ | The front end had the original ball joints and bushings and the holes all look OK. It looks like the two washers should work. I will give that a try. Thanks! |
|
| |
|
Expert 5K+
Posts: 7393
Location: northern germany | safetymike77 - 2008-04-27 10:48 PM
No... it is differences in the spindles.. you need 2 of the washers on them. Use both, and it will be just fine.
actually there is no need to pull the stud into the spindle. it should slip right in there easily and shouldn't wobble without the washers and tightening the nut! |
|
| |
|
Expert 5K+
Posts: 8947
Location: WHEELING,WV.>>>HOME OF WWVA | you may want to check the fit after you tighten and using two washers to make sure you are not seating past the the machined taper-which may give you a false sense of seating---------------later |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 4533
Location: Ripon, WI | Actually, when comparing the old and new uppers, the old ones were slightly shorter.... |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 3951
Location: Bama | Did you screw it in crooked? |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 174
Location: Phoenix, AZ | The ball joint screwed in straight and bottomed out straight in the A Arm. I will take a picture of how it looks and post it next week when I get a chance. It looks like it might be OK with two washers under the nut. Thanks for everyone's advice! |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 174
Location: Phoenix, AZ | Well, I finally had time to finish putting the front end together and everything went well. I used two washers under the upper ball joint nuts and it fit perfectily with good allignment of the cotter pin holes. I only needed one washer under the lower BJ nuts to allign the hole. I am not sure why it didn't seem to fit right before, but I have it all torqued and ready to go! Thanks for all the help!
 (DSC02944.JPG)
 (DSC02950.JPG)
Attachments
----------------
 DSC02944.JPG (15KB - 236 downloads)
DSC02950.JPG (14KB - 249 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Regular
Posts: 68
Location: Stockholm Sweden | Hi, I ´ve got the same issue/question, while I replaced the worned out upper control arm bushings I thought it would be a great idea to also replace the upper ball joint as
the rubber seal was cracked.
The old upper ball joint was mounted with seals and a retainer as described in manual
The new upper ball joint, MOOG K778 suits New Yorker 1961, comes just with a large rubber boot seal.
I tightened the threaded MOOG ball joint and nut as the manual says.
The MOOG ball joint has now created wider angel to the control arm and a tighter bond to the spindle, ca 8mm, the slot in the ball joint stud to insert
the cotter pin and is way to low from the castle nut, even two spacers won´t make it.
I´m curious about if there will be enough clearance/free play between ball joint and the spindle?
 (old upper ball joint.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
old upper ball joint.jpg (135KB - 230 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 406
Location: Hilltown, PA | I see this issue from time to time with a variety or components on all different makes/models. It has even started to surface with the OEM parts I use every day.
Generally this kind of issue is a result of "part number consolidation". That's in industry term for reducing inventory by giving similar components/applications the same part number. Note that I said "similar" and not "identical".
What it means to us is that the part the application catalog calls out may not, in fact, be an exact replacement part. But never fear - you can rest assured that somewhere a junior engineer pored over the specifications of both the part you received, and the actual correct part, and decided they were close enough to be pretty much the same. Usually. (Ask me about spark plugs . . .)
The downside is you now have to take some extra time to qualify the parts for your application. Unfortunately that sometimes means having to install and remove a component a couple of times to make sure the fit and function are acceptable to you.
The upside is, since the replacement component now fits a broader range of applications, there may be expanded interchangeability of related parts. In the instance of balljoints, this may mean that by using the replacement/consolidated balljoint you could potentially install a completely different spindle - perhaps allowing the retrofit of a factory disc brake spindle where one previously could not be installed.
And yeah, that requires a whole lot more inspection and investigation, on top of the consolidated part not really being right in the first place. Sorry - I don't make the news, I just live with it.
Gregg
Edited by LostDeere59 2018-03-10 2:26 PM
|
|
| |
|
Regular
Posts: 68
Location: Stockholm Sweden | Here´s referece pic of the new MOOG K778 balljoint in place into the upper control arm torqued as specs |
|
| |
|
Regular
Posts: 68
Location: Stockholm Sweden | oops, another try
 (new upper ball joint MOOG 778.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
new upper ball joint MOOG 778.jpg (137KB - 230 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Regular
Posts: 68
Location: Stockholm Sweden | LostDeere59 - 2018-03-10 8:25 PM
"The downside is you now have to take some extra time to qualify the parts for your application. Unfortunately that sometimes means having to install and remove a component a couple of times to make sure the fit and function are acceptable to you.
The upside is, since the replacement component now fits a broader range of applications, there may be expanded interchangeability of related parts. In the instance of balljoints, this may mean that by using the replacement/consolidated balljoint you could potentially install a completely different spindle - perhaps allowing the retrofit of a factory disc brake spindle where one previously could not be installed.
And yeah, that requires a whole lot more inspection and investigation, on top of the consolidated part not really being right in the first place. Sorry - I don't make the news, I just live with it."
I think it´s the right thing to do is to figure out how to check the max play the ball joint stud before it hits the spindle, not much room for the ball joint to wiggle/twist as the ball joint and the spindle are surface to surface and also have a new alignment as the upper control arm became lowered.
Gregg
|
|
| |
|
Regular
Posts: 68
Location: Stockholm Sweden | fravizo - 2018-03-10 9:08 PM
LostDeere59 - 2018-03-10 8:25 PM
"The downside is you now have to take some extra time to qualify the parts for your application. Unfortunately that sometimes means having to install and remove a component a couple of times to make sure the fit and function are acceptable to you.
The upside is, since the replacement component now fits a broader range of applications, there may be expanded interchangeability of related parts. In the instance of balljoints, this may mean that by using the replacement/consolidated balljoint you could potentially install a completely different spindle - perhaps allowing the retrofit of a factory disc brake spindle where one previously could not be installed.
And yeah, that requires a whole lot more inspection and investigation, on top of the consolidated part not really being right in the first place. Sorry - I don't make the news, I just live with it."
Greg
I think it´s the right thing to do is to figure out how to check the max play the ball joint stud before it hits the spindle, not much room for the ball joint to wiggle/twist as the ball joint and the spindle are surface to surface and also have a new alignment as the upper control arm became lowered.
Johan
|
|
| |
|
Board Moderator & Exner Expert 10K+
Posts: 13045
Location: Southern Sweden - Sturkö island | The fast cowboy solution is to drill Another hole...... |
|
| |
|
Regular
Posts: 68
Location: Stockholm Sweden | Sven, that´s one straight ahead solution and rather easy task to drill with support of the castle nut tightened, but I´m concerned about if there´s enough space for
the ball joint stud bottom to move with clearance against the spindle. I understand that the upper contol arm will adjust horizontically, yet kind of uncertainty to me. |
|
| |
Wrong Upper Ball Joints?
