Topic: Ball Joints 67, Upper and Lower Arm Rebuilding

[Bossbill]

Some pics on various service and original ball joints.

First is a pic of a Ford service replacement ball joint complete with seal. Note the large metal bent over tangs. This feature is not present on Moog ball joints. What's not featured on the Moog ball joints are the price of the Ford service originals, now hovering near 1k!

Second are the Moog ball joints. While a fine ball joint they lack these tangs.

Third are a set of 66 upper control arms. Ok, not 67 but they do illustrate how the tangs are present on a complete control arm.

Lastly is a reproduction ball joint that has the same tangs as the originals. I think that what's really missing on the Moogs and most other reproduction ball joints. The zinc hold down is wrong but that can be changed out during installation with the correct seal.

[Bossbill]

Richard,

I used Moog ball joints.  Riveted in using a hydraulic press.  In the past I've used a "Rosie the riveter" type tool, but they can be very unwieldy and noisy compared to the slow and steady press.

For the dust shields I used the reproductions available from NPD.  Like most reproduction parts, I would classify them as a reasonable facsimile of the original, but not exact.

A word of caution though - after mine were installed I found that on one of the two wheels, the upper ball joint dust shield center metal ring was binding on the ball joint stud.  The ID of the boot was smaller than the OD of the stud where it ended up residing when everything was torqued down.   As I moved the spindle to simulate steering from end to end, the interference resulted in a partially pulled out boot out of the retaining ring that was riveted in.  Fortunately I was able to get a jewelers file in the right position to remove enough material to eliminate the binding, and slip the boot back under the ring.  I recommend test fitting when on the bench, before the rivets are installed.  Hopefully I'm painting the picture sufficiently.

I gave up trying to fit tangs to a plate to sandwich under the Moog BJ since:
a) the Moog BJ is sufficiently different at the base that it will never look like a Ford BJ anyway.
b) The Moog BJ is accepted as concours
c) These control arms have been laying around for a long time and it's time to get off the pot.

However, John notes that he had clearance issues with a repro boot. I have an NOS boot and I test fit the spindle. I found that during the test fit the metal ring binds itself to the BJ stud. I've noticed that original boots are also bound to the stud and it may well be by design.
As noted in the pics below (ignore the bolts) that the metal ring rotates with the spindle and BJ and it slides on the rubber.
I don't think it's meant to be loose on the BJ stud and is meant to slide on the boot.

First pic is when BJ stud, metal ring and boot are at 3 o'clock.
Second pic is when BJ stud is rotated to 6 o'clock and the metal ring rotates as well. The boot remains at 3 o'clock.

[Anghelrestorations]

Thought I would add this link here as it answers alot of questions in previous comments and since its directly related.  This gives details year by year.

http://anghelrestorations.com/uploads/3/5/1/2/35122002/65_to_73_suspension_guide_v2.1aa.pdf

[Bossbill]

Thought I'd post a pic of some reproduction ball joints that have the tangs, along with a set of NOS dust boots.

[Bob Gaines]

Thought I'd post a pic of some reproduction ball joints that have the tangs, along with a set of NOS dust boots.

What brand of reproduction ball joints have the tangs?

[Bossbill]

These are Dennis Carpenter's.
I think the stud is a little short, but I can slot the taller nut to make it look right.
I think it looks much better than the Moog joints in the previous pic.

Here they are un-installed.

[Bossbill]

Bob requested in my "Searching for Used 4 bolt Ball Joints" thread that I post pics of the Dennis Carpenter (DC) tanged ball joint to show how the castle nut looks installed.
People ask what tanged means. Tanged means that upper portion of the BJ has 4 fingers that are subsequently bent over the lower portion of the BJ and dust boot holder. These are easily visible even when installed in the car (if you are looking for them). Original Ford BJs have the tangs. The concours accepted Moog BJ does not.
The DC BJ while having the correct 4 tang look has a slightly shorter stud.

As I've noted previously the issue, for concours, is does the shorter length of the DC stud portion that goes through spindle look better or worse than the lack of tangs on the more common Moog BJ?


Here is a pic of a stripped down Ford BJ showing just the [upper] ball and the stud. The measurement is from the face of the spindle to the center of the cotter pin hole.
A tall Ford castle nut and DC supplied nut is shown.


The tall castle nut on the Ford BJ stud, installed.


The DC BJ showing its cotter pin location.


The DC BJ shown with the short castle nut, installed. The Ford stud and castle nut are shown as a comparison.


A slotted Ford castle nut installed on the DC BJ. A cotter pin was installed in both.

Once bent over you might or might not be able to discern that the stud does not poke out as far as the Ford stud. I'll leave it to you to figure out which you prefer.

[67gtasanjose]

It's a shame that the reproduction D.C. stud is shorter (requiring an incorrect castle nut).
I imagine that the stud cannot be swapped (or SHOULD not be swapped).

It's also a bit sad that time and time again, duplicating such parts...they are almost never the same as original.

[Bossbill]

Well, you can take the original castle nut, slot it and then the nut is the right size (visually). That's what I was showing.

But yeah. Why go through all of this trouble and get the stud length wrong?

[Bossbill]

I show part number C3DZ-3049-A for the 65/66 and C7OZ-A for the 67.
Other than the slot on the end of the threaded section for early 64/65 these ball joints appear identical, externally.
All aftermarket joints show 65-70 as applicable so bolt spacing and taper are the same.

I gather the change in the Ford part number is due to some change or update on the internals?

Marcus' PDF on suspension details does not address this item.

[Bossbill]

I finally have my NOS ball joints so I thought I'd share this comparison.

Rt is an NOS "C7OZ-3049-A B/JT. ASSY", built 6/72.
It comes with boot and an S100 nut.
Center is the MOOG replacement that comes with the wrong boot and wrong finish on the nut.
Left is the D.C. tanged joint, but it has the shorter stud and thinner nut.

Center/Top is an NOS seal, part number as noted on the package.

The NOS ball joint comes with a plastic, protective green sleeve which tend to narrow the mushroom of the dust boot.

I'm glad I waited on these arms (I actually forgot about them for a long time) so now they can look 100% correct after I send them off to be riveted. It only took a few years!
[I left the pic full size so you can see the details]

[Bossbill]

Moved from another thread.

Could we have zinc dichromate on 67 ball joint nuts? In my parts stash I have black oxide, bare, dull zinc and zinc dichromate. What a choice!

The 67 Assy Manual says S8, but I quit believing finishes listed there a long time ago.

[Bob Gaines]

Moved from another thread.

Could we have zinc dichromate on 67 ball joint nuts? In my parts stash I have black oxide, bare, dull zinc and zinc dichromate. What a choice!

The 67 Assy Manual says S8, but I quit believing finishes listed there a long time ago.

S8 is typical S36 is not for 67.

[Bossbill]

S8 is typical S36 is not for 67.

Okay! I have a number of those!
Thanks.

[Maksim27]

I seen a pink daub on 65-66 UCAs.  Is there a reason for the daub or not all UCA's had them.  I have over 20 UCA's and seen on some of them.