[BlackNBlue65]

One of the lower ball joints on the '65 has dropped out of the control arm. I had the suspension apart working on the springs and shocks. I took the castle nut off to lift the drum off the ball joint and the joint dropped out of the a arm. Hmm...that doesn't seem right. Right?

I need a little guidance here. I haven't replaced ball joints before. The new ball joint comes with the joint and the boot. Does that ball joint get pressed right into the hole in the control arm (I know it gets pressed in...I borrowed a press) or is there supposed to be some kind of bushing in the control arm? I ask because I can slide the new ball joint into the hole and put a little hand pressure on it and it fully seats. The press won't get it to "stay."

I'm missing something here. The directions say slide the ball joint up into the hole, use the press to seat it, then slip the boot over the stud.

Thanks guys!

 

[davis95]

It should be a super tight fit when fully seated. I've never heard of one just falling out of the hole.

 

[BlackNBlue65]

It didn't just drop out. It got popped out. The jack slipped a little on the arm and the pressure from the spring popped it lose I think.

So no bushing between the ball joint and the control arm? It just presses in? Is it possible that the hole is that worn out?

 

[davis95]

Maybe the hole is a little worn. As long as everything is tight with no movement once the spindle is bolted to it, I wouldn't see there being a problem.

 

[JWagner]

If the joint came out of the control arm easily, you may want to check the control arm for cracks around the ball joint area. Broken control arms are well known. Some of the ball joints get a tack weld to hold them in if they are loose. The castle nut is what pulls the taper stud of the joint into the spindle. If the taper drops into the spindle and does not wobble, then you should be good. Was the joint tight in the spindle and kind of difficult to remove? If so, that is good. Assemble the joint to the spindle without any lube on the taper; that will assure a tight fit. Lube on the threads is ok.

 

[BlackNBlue65]

the castle nut tightened down holds the spindle to the stud (pulls the spindle tight onto the taper). That's not the problem. The entire assembly "floats" in the control arm. Maybe I'm not explaining it well.

With the entire thing together and on the ground the ball joint is NOT seated into the bottom of the control arm. The spindle is pressing it through. In other words, if I were to put a jack under the ball joint, I could raise the ball joint (and the spindle) without moving the control arm (until the ball joint makes contact with the arm).

 

[novaderrik]

there should be a pretty decent interference fit.. the looseness can be from having a few new balljoints pressed in over the years, tolerance stack up with the hole in the control arm being at the "big" end of the specs and the balljoint being at the "small" end, or a cracked control arm.. if the arm is good, Moog does make balljoints that are slightly oversized for just this situation..

 

[burrodebo]

there should be a pretty decent interference fit.. the looseness can be from having a few new balljoints pressed in over the years, tolerance stack up with the hole in the control arm being at the "big" end of the specs and the balljoint being at the "small" end, or a cracked control arm.. if the arm is good, Moog does make balljoints that are slightly oversized for just this situation..

This right here is an extremely helpful answer and very informative. I did not know that oversized ball joints were available. That should solve the problem if a new arm is not in the budget. I would not want a ball joint that is loose on the big end in the arm. No way. Bo

 

[BlackNBlue65]

Moog does make balljoints that are slightly oversized for just this situation..

REALLY?! That's great news! The arm itself seems to be fine and no, new tubular arms aren't in the budget.

Ok, so how do I find them? This is all that shows: http://www.fme-cat.com/overlays/part-detail.aspx?brand=MC&PartNumber=K5103&pt=Ball%20Joint&lu=1965%20CHEVROLET%20MALIBU&vin=#.Ubfa_fkp9H0

 

[novaderrik]

looking at the NAPA website, they don't show an oversize balljoint for a 65 Chevelle.. they must not make them for everything- i know they had them listed for my 86 Camaro..

i'd say that it's time for you to find a good used lower control arm. should be easy enough- i think they were the same up to 72. you can also get brand new stock style control arms for not too much money, thanks to the early A body front clip being popular in the circle track world these days..

 

[BlackNBlue65]

yep, I didn't see them on NAPA either. But the ones for your camaro show:

http://www.napaonline.com/Catalog/Result.aspx?Ntt%3dball%2bjoint%26Ntk%3dKeyword%26Nty%3d1%26N%3d599001%2b101986%2b50012%2b2012008 (clearly state IMPORTANT INFO: Oversized)

 

[novaderrik]

try summit and rockauto..

 

[BlackNBlue65]

Summit and Rockauto list a bunch of options. none say "oversized." I'll need to make some calls I think.

 

[Tom Mobley]

the ball joints are a press fit in the A-arm. If they're loose the A-arm is shot. Don't even think about driving it with the ball joint loose in the A-arm, you might be on the same road as my wife and son.

 

[Andy's Auto Repair]

As a shop with THE most unused liabilty policy in the industry, your ball joint pops out, you are getting a different lower arm.

 

[dogsridewith]

two different mfg replacements measured 1/64 inch greater than OEM removed. One pressed in so hard I'd consider reaming a little first before pressing. (neither replacement was listed or labeled as oversized)

 

[amx364]

New arm with ball joint already installed! If arm is bad, replace or park till funds allow. 2 cents worth.