Most likely to fail; upper or lower ball joints

[spstan]

Recently had both lower ball joints fail on my Mercury (not at the same time but within a couple of months). Scary situation; control arm hits the ground and starts scraping. Good thing the ball joints failed at low speed instead of highway speed or car would have probably flipped. Any way , about to get my Chrysler out for the summer and I want to make sure (as much as possible) that the ball joints are safe. I'm thinking the lower ball joints are more prone to failure cause they bare the most weight. Is this correct or are both the upper and lower ball joints equally prone to fail? Paul

 

[RemCharger]

You are correct. The uppers are followers.

 

[CBODY67]

Lower ball joints on Chryslers used to be a scam driving into the service lane. With the lower control arm jacked up, the tech would get a large and long screwdriver and move the suspended wheel up and down. Instant Sale! That "slack" is supposed to be there AND there is a spec for it.

Were the OEM Ford lower ball joints greaseable?

Grease your joints, upper and lower, for best results.

CBODY67

 

[Big_John]

Chrysler lower ball joints wear out, but they don't fail catastrophically like other cars.

 

[mobileparts]

Once again ,
I have *** U.S.A. made *** Upper & LOWER Ball Joints &
Upper & LOWER Control Arm Bushings —- if you want to treat your car right…..

Not knowing any information about your Mercury —- I probably have *** U.S.A. made *** Ball Joints for that car , if you haven’t already gone ahead and tossed some Chineseum garbage in there…..

 

[mrfury68]

Compared to other makes, Chrysler had the most stout ball joints of them all. I can remember replacing Ford and GM ball joints more often than Chrysler when I worked in a neighborhood service station. We did Pennsylvania Safety Inspections and had a chart with the allowable play for ball joints and Chrysler always had more than the other makes.

 

[spstan]

Lower ball joints on Chryslers used to be a scam driving into the service lane. With the lower control arm jacked up, the tech would get a large and long screwdriver and move the suspended wheel up and down. Instant Sale! That "slack" is supposed to be there AND there is a spec for it.

Were the OEM Ford lower ball joints greaseable?

Grease your joints, upper and lower, for best results.

CBODY67

No C the original ball joints, pitman arm,...etc were not greaseable . I asked my mechanic about putting fittings in when I bought the car and he said the expense would be prohibitive. All the fittings are now greaseable cause I insisted on MOOG fittings. Paul

 

[CBODY67]

Well, if non-greaseable . . . on Chrysler products back then, I think somebody needs to look again, I suspect. Perhaps I'm incorrect? "Trust but verify".

I knew that GM pickups went to non-greasable lower ball joints in the 1990s, for which there was no way to install grease zerts, a GM TSB also stated that, too.

Now, in the 1966 FSM, it plainly states that the production ball joints had screw-in plugs in them. That the plugs were supposed to be removed, fittings installed, install grease, remove fitting and re-install the plugs.

One side issue is the law enforcement fleet business Chrysler had and wanted to KEEP back then. Non-greaseable components, which had previously been greaseable, would probably not have been agreeable to those customers, I suspect.

Now, as all fwd vehicles I know of have non-greaseable lower ball joints, that means "lower control arm replacement" rather than a shop re-rivet new ball joints to the lower control arms. Cheaper and easier to replace the component rather than fix it. Les shop liability, too!!

Additionally, I strongly suspect that any replacements will be greaseable.

Just some thoughts,
CBODY67

---------------------------------------
Edit --
Page 2-4 in the 1974 Chrysler Parts Manual shows the assembled lower control arm. On the bottom of the lower ball joint (in the control arm), there is a "nub" sticking out on the bottom of the lower ball joint, as if it is either the factory plug or a grease fitting.

I fully realize your car might not be a 1974 model year car, but once Chrysler started using something, there had to be a very good engineering reason to change it, by observation. In that orientation, I'm suspecting the other Formals are the same way.

 

[Big_John]

No C the original ball joints, pitman arm,...etc were not greaseable . I asked my mechanic about putting fittings in when I bought the car and he said the expense would be prohibitive. All the fittings are now greaseable cause I insisted on MOOG fittings.

Page 2-4 in the 1974 Chrysler Parts Manual shows the assembled lower control arm. On the bottom of the lower ball joint (in the control arm), there is a "nub" sticking out on the bottom of the lower ball joint, as if it is either the factory plug or a grease fitting.

The original parts would have a small plug where the grease fitting would screw into. For some unknown reason, the factory used plug and from what I've been told, they would be exchanged for zerk grease fittings first service at the dealership (or wherever). IIRC, the OEM plug wasn't threaded and the after removal, the self tapping zerk fittings were threaded into place.

If you think about it, most of the replacements usually have the zerks loose in the box with the part.

 

[Gerald Morris]

Chrysler lower ball joints wear out, but they don't fail catastrophically like other cars.

So true! Alas, the driver side on my '68 ragtop IS failing, now, after giving us a good 42 months service on top of its age. All the suspension parts are original. I plan to park it and replace all the front suspension starting this weekend. I took the trouble to obtain good NOS American steel parts several years ago in anticipation of this situation.

 

[Gerald Morris]

Recently had both lower ball joints fail on my Mercury (not at the same time but within a couple of months). Scary situation; control arm hits the ground and starts scraping. Good thing the ball joints failed at low speed instead of highway speed or car would have probably flipped. Any way , about to get my Chrysler out for the summer and I want to make sure (as much as possible) that the ball joints are safe. I'm thinking the lower ball joints are more prone to failure cause they bare the most weight. Is this correct or are both the upper and lower ball joints equally prone to fail? Paul

Take heart Paul! You CAN FIND GOOD AMERICAN STEEL PARTS with a little clever shopping on the internet. I did, having the time and having planned it. Avoid some of these parts hoarders, use your eyes and brain, take the time and you can actually score good parts. I prefer the steel forged 50-60 yrs ago to today, but otherwise for RUBBER. My coming installation will be old Moog, TRW, McQuay-Norris and one Rare Parts lower ball joint, which I will watch carefully.

The MOST failure prone component in the front suspension is the Lower Control Arm bushing! Be sure you get fresh material in yours, be it butyl rubber or polyurethane. Mine were sealed in heavy plastic until this week from time of purchase, which helps retard aging....