Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

When ball joints are on the counter, what’s the No. 1 upsell? Shop rags, latex gloves and floor cleaner, because it’s going to be a messy job!

Seriously, though, it depends on the suspension. For light cars and trucks with strut-type suspension, most ball joints aren’t greaseable, and most of them only have one lower control arm on each side, resulting in only one lower ball joint on each side (multi-link suspensions are another story). Most of these are a cakewalk to replace, and you barely get your hands dirty. But, heavier trucks and older cars with upper-lower A-arm suspension and greaseable joints are a different story. That’s when it gets real.

But before we start wiping up grease, let’s look at two of the stickier aspects of ball joints: inspection and installation. Ball joints have wear specifications, and the maximum allowable play as well as proper inspection procedures can vary considerably between different applications. When checking a ball joint for wear, technically speaking, not only should we confirm the recommended procedure and specifications, but we also are always supposed to check them using a dial indicator. In the real world, that rarely happens.

Most technicians understand that a little bit of play in a ball joint is normal and acceptable. But at the same time, there’s a common misconception that any play in a ball joint means it’s wearing out. The root of the problem goes deeper than this article can cover, but let’s face it: Time is money, and taking the time to look up specs, set up a dial indicator (if you have one) and recording the readings just isn’t realistic, especially when a shop manager is breathing down your neck for a diagnosis.

Another part of the problem is when you check a ball joint for wear, you always can feel even the slightest amount of play – so again, rather than performing the correct procedure, it’s easier to estimate the free play in your mind based on your familiarity with these types of measurements.

You can’t always see the movement when it’s minimal, but the worse it gets, the easier it is to see. Experienced technicians are good at recognizing when the amount of play is still “acceptable,” or when a ball joint is – as we like to call them when the vehicle isn’t safe to drive – “wasted.” When a ball joint exhibits wear but still is acceptable and safe for use, that’s how we represent it to the customer, and we’ll just recommend checking them again at the next service. “Let’s keep an eye on those ball joints,” we might say.

This all might sound like I’m criticizing technicians, but that’s far from the case. I’ve been a tech my whole life and it can be tough to wear our shoes. There’s a lot we need to know – we’re all human – and we do make mistakes. When it comes to parts, we rely on the knowledge of a counterperson more often than you realize. One of the strongest traits of a good technician is understanding that you don’t know everything, and not being afraid to ask questions or accept advice. In the case of ball joints, they usually don’t come with specifications, and there’s rarely any information with them aside from installing the grease fitting. And when they do come with information, does it always get read? You probably can guess the answer. This is the real world of automotive repair.

As crazy as it sounds, when you’re deep into a suspension repair with parts and tools all over the place, it can seem like it takes an eternity to unbox a bunch of parts and remove them from their plastic bags, etc. – so again, it’s no surprise that details are missed should they happen to be included. It’s worth its weight in gold when we learn something we don’t know about any particular part, and we’re always eager to learn.

If the line between misconception and mistake isn’t blurry enough, there’s an extra kicker with ball joints. Some vehicles utilize telescoping ball joints. What this means is that the ball-joint stud telescopes a small amount to compensate for manufacturing tolerances, primarily related to the ears of a steering knuckle.

When you install one of these joints, it may appear as if the stud is too long or too short, potentially causing a technician to think it’s the incorrect joint. Also, since the stud is engineered to slide in and out of the housing, they can exhibit as much as .060” (sixty-thousandths of an inch) of free play. For comparison, .060” is about the thickness of a penny, and while this amount of play rarely would be represented as unsafe, it could easily be misdiagnosed as a worn joint.

This may turn out to be more important in the case of a warranty concern. I’m sure it wouldn’t be the first time you had a part returned as defective and you were surprised by it. This is when your knowledge can save time and money for your company as well as for a technician, shop and the end customer. Information like this often doesn’t make it to a technician level, and it’s a great opportunity for you to educate and build rapport with your customers at the same time.

Replacing Control Arms

Where do control arms come into the picture? Independent suspension, be it front or rear, has been around for a long time. There are many different types, of which upper-lower A-arm, MacPherson strut and multi-link are the most common variations we deal with today. One thing they all have in common is some type of control arm.

To put a simple spin on it, any control arm is nothing more than a link between the fixed frame of a vehicle and the steering knuckle – the component that in turn provides a mounting point for the brakes, wheel bearings and wheels. Control arms move freely up and down in response to suspension movement and not only offer mounting points for springs and sway bars, but they also are integral to suspension design, affecting the alignment angles and suspension travel.

The control arm also carries another distinction: It offers a provision for mounting a ball joint to provide articulation between the arm and steering knuckle. Ball joints are either bolt-on or press-in, and in many cases on newer vehicles, the ball joint is an integral part of the control arm. If you have to replace the ball joint, you have to replace the entire arm.

Control arms are either steel, cast-iron or aluminum, and the most important factor when replacing a press-in style of ball joint is making sure the hole in the control arm isn’t worn. Generally, if there’s no visible damage or corrosion to the control arm and the old ball joint requires considerable force to remove, as long as the new joint requires a similar force to install, the control arm will be OK.

However, since we don’t have the technology (in our shops) to measure the roundness and integrity of the hole, many manufacturers recommend to only replace a press-in style ball joint one time. The next time, the whole arm should be replaced, and this is good advice to pass along to your customer.

As with any type of suspension work, any torque-to-yield fasteners should be replaced, torque specifications always should be utilized, and in the case of control-arm replacement, fasteners should be torqued with the vehicle at ride height.

The post

link hidden, please login to view
appeared first on
link hidden, please login to view
.

link hidden, please login to view

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Topics

    • By OReilly Auto Parts
      How To Use a Ball Joint and U-Joint Press
    • By OReilly Auto Parts
      What Do DTCs P0171 & P0174 Mean? Fuel Trim System Too Lean (Bank 1 & Bank 2)
    • By Counterman
      It’s safe to say that most of the vehicles on the road today have a MacPherson Strut type of suspension in the front. Most of these are of the design with one lower control arm on each side (as opposed to a multi-link suspension). Taking it one final step, most of these have the ball joints riveted to the control arm.
      As luck would have it, the first suspension component that usually wears out on one of these vehicles is… you guessed it, the ball joint! So, when it comes time to replace them, you have a choice. These ball joints are available in two ways, as just the joint itself, or as the ball joint and control arm as a complete assembly.
      So then comes the million-dollar question. Do you replace just the joint or the entire control arm? Your customer will likely ask your opinion.
      Often, the decision comes down to who’s doing the work or who’s paying the bill, and sometimes a combination of both. There are pros and cons to each. Replacing just the joint by itself is the most economical from the standpoint of parts, but how hard is it to deal with the rivets that hold them in place? Is there extra labor? Replacing the entire control arm assembly is more expensive, but there are only traditional fasteners to deal with. Both jobs require an alignment afterward, so that’s a wash.
      A new control arm includes new bushings, an additional benefit, but that’s when the argument can begin. If the control arm bushings are ok, why take the extra time to replace the entire arm, look up additional torque specs and potentially replace extra fasteners? After all, replacement ball joints come with bolts for reinstallation, so it may seem like it’s easier to replace just the joint, and you can replace the ball joint without removing the control arm, right? Well, you can…but there’s more to that story.
      What better way to decide than with a good, old-fashioned case study. My 2014 Chevrolet Equinox had recently started clunking in the front, and upon inspection I found both front ball joints were bad. This was the perfect time to compare jobs, so I ordered a new control arm for one side and just a new ball joint for the other. Let me say that I’m no stranger to riveted ball joints, and I was certain I already knew what would be easier on this particular job, but I’m a glutton for punishment so why not find out for sure?
      For many years, I worked at a Volkswagen specialty shop, back when the original Rabbit and other Mk1 models were still a common sight on the roads. These cars had riveted ball joints, and the nature of the aftermarket at the time was still to replace only the bad components. This was well before things like complete CV axles or control arm assemblies were readily available; replacing individual CV boots or ball joints was commonplace.
      It didn’t take long to master the process of replacing a ball joint on one of these cars. You have two choices for this job, either drilling out the rivets or shearing them off. I had an air hammer bit designed specifically for shearing off the rivets (you can still buy these if you want one). I’d don my safety glasses and hearing protection, warn the shop it was about to get loud and then it took only a few seconds per rivet to shear the lower head of each of them off. Then, I’d switch to a punch bit and drive out the remainder of the rivets.
      Unbolt the joint from the knuckle, slide the old one out and the new one in, reinstall the bolts and you were done. Sounds easy, right? It was, but the rivets were comparatively small. So were the control arms and control arm bushings. Everything was small and lightweight and easier to move around.
      Nothing on new cars is small anymore. The control arms and bushings are larger, heavier and harder to work with, and the rivets that hold the ball joint in place are much larger in size. You can’t shear them off as easily. When you’re going to remove them, the best method is to use a cut-off wheel and cut into the head of the rivet in a cross pattern. This divides the head into four sections that you can then more easily shear off.
      However, you should always take the word “easily” with a grain of salt. This can still be a difficult process, and after shearing off the rivet heads, rust often makes it difficult to drive them out. In addition to the noise and the negative effect of the vibration on your hands and wrists, you’re also wearing down both a cut-off wheel and air hammer bits, none of which are inexpensive to replace, so there’s an additional tool expense with this method when you really nit-pick the details.
      So how did the Equinox compare? It was obvious what I was going to do on the control arm side, but on the other side, the ball joint had large, stout rivets, as expected. The manufacturer service information tells you to drill them out when removing the old ball joints, but it also tells you to remove the entire control arm and secure it in a vise before drilling out them out.
      Remove the control arm? What does the manufacturer know? I never used to remove the control arm. Why should I take that extra time? My gut still told me to cut and shear the rivets, but these had a small divot in the center of each, which was even better since it was the perfect centering point for a drill bit. So, my decision was to drill out the old rivets with the control arm on the car.
      Luckily, I had a brand-new set of stepped drill bits, which have been the best drill bits I ever owned. It was off to the races. I sized a bit up based on the new bolts, but I was careful not to go too large in case I ended up off center. I didn’t want to remove any material from the control arm. The drill bits cut well, but these rivets were no wimpy metal. I stopped a couple times to let the bit cool and let my arms recover, and overall, it took well over five minutes to get through just one rivet.
      After finally drilling them all out (a decision I was regretting), I still had to shear off remaining parts of the rivet heads on bottom, and drive the rivet through, both of which I was able to do by hand with a hammer and chisel. Comparatively, drilling the rivets was quieter, but ultimately not much easier on the hands or arms, as it took longer and there was still wear and tear on expensive tools.
      After getting the rivets out, I still had to remove the nut from the top of the ball joint, separate it from the knuckle with a pickle fork, then wrestle the ball joint out. Wrestling the new ball joint in place was more difficult than I expected due to the tension on the control arm bushings, and I pinched my fingers in the process, with nothing nice to say about my decision at this point. Once it was in, I installed the new castle nut and cotter pin, installed the three bolts to hold the ball joint to the control arm and was done with the job.
      All in all, between getting the tools together and fighting with the various aspects of this method, it took me about an hour and a half to install the ball joint, and I had a mess of shavings and sheared rivets to clean up. Published book time for the job is 1.4 hours, so I wasn’t too far off, but I can think of many things I would rather have been doing.
      So, now onto replacing the control arm on the other side. With just a few sockets, ratchet and wrenches, I removed the rear control arm bolts, front control arm bolt and ball joint nut. Then, I separated the ball joint from the knuckle with a pickle fork, pulled the control arm out, slid the new one in place, bolted it back up, installed the wheels and lowered the vehicle onto the suspension so I could tighten the bushings with the suspension at ride height.
      All in all, I had 20 minutes in replacing the control arm, and maybe not even that long. And there was no drama, no pinched fingers, and I didn’t add any wear to any tools, or to my hands and wrists.
      I saved money on the ball joint only because I wasn’t paying anyone labor to do the job, but, in retrospect, if I were to do it again, I would absolutely remove the entire arm before drilling out the rivets. I still wouldn’t want to drill them out. It was far from easy, and the one thing none of us ever has enough of is time, and you can’t get that back. Does replacing just the ball joint really make sense? I know my answer. I’ll let you decide.
      The post
      link hidden, please login to view appeared first on link hidden, please login to view.
      link hidden, please login to view
    • By Counterman
      While constant velocity (CV) joints are the most popular type of driveline joint in use today, universal or “U” joints are still in use on the driveshaft of many larger SUVs, trucks and vans. U-joints can handle a lot of torque, making them popular for these applications, but why did the CV joint rise in popularity? The question can be answered by looking at the operational aspects of a U-joint.
      The basics are this: U-joints are located on the ends of a driveshaft, mounted between the driveshaft and a front and rear yoke. The front yoke attaches to the transmission and the rear yoke attaches to rear differential. As the engine moves from the effects of torque and as the suspension of a vehicle travels up and down, the angle of the driveshaft changes.
      A U-joint does two things. First, it transfers the motion between the yoke(s) and driveshaft and, second, it does this at different angles, allowing for driveline movement. Here’s where the fun begins. When a yoke and the driveshaft are in perfect alignment, the velocity from one is transferred to the other at the same rate. However, when there is an angle between the two, the velocity of the driven member fluctuates continuously during rotation.
      It can be hard to visualize, but the reason this happens is that as the angle of the U-joint changes, the two halves of the U-joint cross are forced to rotate on a different axis. The drive axis remains at a constant velocity, and the ends of the U-joint connected to it rotate in a consistent circular path at the same velocity.
      The driven axis, however, rotates in a path which causes the distance of travel at the outer ends of the U-joint cross to increase or decrease in relation to the consistent points of the drive axis.
      This effect results in the continuous fluctuation of velocity between the input and output sides of the U-joint. While the input remains at a consistent speed, the output speeds up and slows down as the points of the driven axis continuously alter between a long and short path of travel.
      So, why don’t we feel that on a vehicle with a traditional driveshaft? Because there are two U-joints and the fluctuation on each end balances out, effectively allowing the driveshaft to provide a consistent output speed to the rear differential. The angle of the two joints must be the same, however, and it doesn’t take much wear in one for the angles to differ, and subsequently cause a vibration.
      U-joints are known for their propensity to cause vibration, and an inherent disadvantage they have is the greater the angle of the U-joint, the greater the fluctuation in velocity. Anything over 30 degrees and the fluctuation dramatically increases.
      The driveshaft I’ve described here represents the majority, but U-joints have also been used frequently in the past on the end of the front axles for a 4WD vehicle, and in the rear of independent rear suspension vehicles on the ends of short driveshafts, known as half-shafts.  Have you ever noticed how jittery an old 4WD truck feels in the front when the hubs are locked, and you turn a corner? Now that you understand how the fluctuation in velocity of a U-joint changes as the angle increases, you know why.  
      You may have heard of a Double-Cardan U-joint. It is basically two joints side-by side with a common link-yoke in between. This is one of the original concepts for a true CV joint, and they are often referred to as this. The advantage they have is they offer smoother operation at greater angles, and they are common on 4WD trucks, and a common upgrade for lifted trucks where the driveshaft angle is altered considerably.
      The drawback to a Double-Cardan joint is they are bulky, and they can still suffer from limitations due to operating angle. The operating limitations of a U-joint ultimately brought about the popularity of the modern CV joint, but the durability of U-joints means we’ll still be seeing them in certain applications.
      The post
      link hidden, please login to view appeared first on link hidden, please login to view.
      link hidden, please login to view
    • Government UFO Files
    • By Counterman
      While constant velocity (CV) joints are the most popular type of driveline joint in use today, universal or “U” joints are still in use on the driveshaft of many larger SUVs, trucks and vans. U-joints can handle a lot of torque, making them popular for these applications, but why did the CV joint rise in popularity? The question can be answered by looking at the operational aspects of a U-joint.
      The basics are this: U-joints are located on the ends of a driveshaft, mounted between the driveshaft and a front and rear yoke. The front yoke attaches to the transmission and the rear yoke attaches to rear differential. As the engine moves from the effects of torque and as the suspension of a vehicle travels up and down, the angle of the driveshaft changes.
      A U-joint does two things. First, it transfers the motion between the yoke(s) and driveshaft and, second, it does this at different angles, allowing for driveline movement. Here’s where the fun begins. When a yoke and the driveshaft are in perfect alignment, the velocity from one is transferred to the other at the same rate. However, when there is an angle between the two, the velocity of the driven member fluctuates continuously during rotation.
      It can be hard to visualize, but the reason this happens is that as the angle of the U-joint changes, the two halves of the U-joint cross are forced to rotate on a different axis. The drive axis remains at a constant velocity, and the ends of the U-joint connected to it rotate in a consistent circular path at the same velocity.
      The driven axis, however, rotates in a path which causes the distance of travel at the outer ends of the U-joint cross to increase or decrease in relation to the consistent points of the drive axis.
      This effect results in the continuous fluctuation of velocity between the input and output sides of the U-joint. While the input remains at a consistent speed, the output speeds up and slows down as the points of the driven axis continuously alter between a long and short path of travel.
      So, why don’t we feel that on a vehicle with a traditional driveshaft? Because there are two U-joints and the fluctuation on each end balances out, effectively allowing the driveshaft to provide a consistent output speed to the rear differential. The angle of the two joints must be the same, however, and it doesn’t take much wear in one for the angles to differ, and subsequently cause a vibration.
      U-joints are known for their propensity to cause vibration, and an inherent disadvantage they have is the greater the angle of the U-joint, the greater the fluctuation in velocity. Anything over 30 degrees and the fluctuation dramatically increases.
      The driveshaft I’ve described here represents the majority, but U-joints have also been used frequently in the past on the end of the front axles for a 4WD vehicle, and in the rear of independent rear suspension vehicles on the ends of short driveshafts, known as half-shafts.  Have you ever noticed how jittery an old 4WD truck feels in the front when the hubs are locked, and you turn a corner? Now that you understand how the fluctuation in velocity of a U-joint changes as the angle increases, you know why.  
      You may have heard of a Double-Cardan U-joint. It is basically two joints side-by side with a common link-yoke in between. This is one of the original concepts for a true CV joint, and they are often referred to as this. The advantage they have is they offer smoother operation at greater angles, and they are common on 4WD trucks, and a common upgrade for lifted trucks where the driveshaft angle is altered considerably.
      The drawback to a Double-Cardan joint is they are bulky, and they can still suffer from limitations due to operating angle. The operating limitations of a U-joint ultimately brought about the popularity of the modern CV joint, but the durability of U-joints means we’ll still be seeing them in certain applications.
      The post
      link hidden, please login to view appeared first on link hidden, please login to view.
      link hidden, please login to view

×
  • Create New...