ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1967 Mustang => Topic started by: 67gtasanjose on September 07, 2016, 04:06:36 PM
-
My question is if I am restoring my 67 Upper and lower Arms, what is the best source of a quality replacement ball joint or ball joint boot without buying NOS Ball Joints at over $250 each or just a NOS boot for $200 a pair?
Not going for THOROUGHBRED ever but trying to get really close to Concours as practical. ( I just watched these parts go crazy on eBay, NO WAY I'll go that route on this project)
-
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.
-
Moog riveted in with the proper boot.
-
Moog riveted in with the proper boot.
+1 Marty
-
:D
OK, final throws of preparing for this task...
1.) Correct Boots; Upper and Lowers ~CHECK
2.) MOOG Upper Ball Joints ~CHECK
3.) Original Lower Ball Joints (re-usable) ~CHECK
4.) Reproduction Lower B J boot retainer & gasket kits ~CHECK
NEEDS or more info needed:
1.) What UPPER Ball Joint boot retainer should I use? (the ones supplied by MOOG?)
2.) What tooling to install the rivets? (I have a 20-ton press & high quality air-chisel). Wanting to reproduce the "waffle pattern" that should be on original uppers.
3.) ORIGINAL UPPERS were replaced years ago; could use image of direction & Type of rivets originally used. (for Nov. 66 San Jose car)
4.) Are the replacement lower boot retainers Va. Classic sells OK to use or should I consider sending originals out for re-plating.
I'm sure I'll have other questions pending some of these answers. Thanks in advance ;)
-
Richard, my comments are:
1. Regarding the upper ball joint boot, as stated in a previous post I did experience that the correct repro boots (somewhat of an oxymoron) had an inner metal ring inside diameter that was too small. It would bind on the ball joint stud, and not "slip" as the spindle was turned. Since the stud is tapered, it is somewhat of a crap shoot and difficult to check on the bench. Something to be wary of. I had to file mine in place, and it was time consuming.
2. I bought tooling from http://www.rivetsinstock.com/?gclid=CP2Vw-vA3dECFRu2wAodpZkB0g which is about 5 mile from me. I much prefer riveting using the press - the air tool + vise + clamp method was pretty violent and I was concerned about collateral damage. With a press you can be slow but sure.
3. I've attached pictures of what I think would be correct for your car
4. For the lowers I used correct repro boots (ugh) and did not have the interference problem discussed above regarding the uppers. I ended up reusing original retainer plates, I did not like the differences in the repro. On mine the original rivets were not waffled like the upper, they were a dome style.
-
1. Regarding the upper ball joint boot, as stated in a previous post I did experience that the correct repro boots ... Something to be wary of.
Understood. I have a pair of the reproductions for UPPER & LOWERs, and a NOS set to match up with. I have un-torn originals too for lowers but they are getting changed (swollen)
2. I bought tooling from http://www.rivetsinstock.com/?gclid=CP2Vw-vA3dECFRu2wAodpZkB0g which is about 5 mile from me. I much prefer riveting using the press - the air tool + vise + clamp method was pretty violent and I was concerned about collateral damage. With a press you can be slow but sure.
Got it. Yes, good sources of correct tooling and experiences of "Don't do it this way..." are a great help. I can practice a little on a spare lower I have in setting things so that helps too. I could consider sending them to a restorer, but like you...I'd like to try. I get very similar jobs all of the time at my day-job of owning a repair shop so it may come in handy to have tooling and rivets to do this for other vehicles outside the vintage Mustang spectrum.
3. I've attached pictures of what I think would be correct for your car
The picture of the UPPERS helps a lot. I still have the original lowers in place but I am sure your images will help other readers.
4. For the lowers I used correct repro boots (ugh) and did not have the interference problem discussed above regarding the uppers. I ended up reusing original retainer plates, I did not like the differences in the repro. On mine the original rivets were not waffled like the upper, they were a dome style.
Thanks. I'll consider the match-up of the retainers after I take these apart. (see attached picture) The Daniel Carpenter reproductions that Va. Classic sent look pretty good next to the assembled original. As far as the rivets, good confirmation for the lowers. Same as what I have and I know my LEFT lower is original, my RIGHT lower was off another December 66 San Jose and is identical to my November 2nd car and looks much like the April 67 SJ I have as an extra arm.
Good to see at least one thing that didn't change (much) on a 67 Mustang over the course of the production year! I still need to order the lower arm bushings, sites were asking the diameter when I was searching and did not want the wrong ones so I waited. Not sure when or why there would be two different lower bushing diameters. Maybe another reader knows why/when they changed some of them.
-
I am anxiously standing by to hear about anyones experience in pressing the rivets. I am wondering how well the 20 ton press does in pressing the rivets . Best of luck. Keep us posted .
-
2. I bought tooling from http://www.rivetsinstock.com/?gclid=CP2Vw-vA3dECFRu2wAodpZkB0g
I have bought tooling and rivets from them as well. Could you be more specific with a link as to what tooling you actually got.
Jim
-
I am anxiously standing by to hear about anyones experience in pressing the rivets. I am wondering how well the 20 ton press does in pressing the rivets . Best of luck. Keep us posted .
+1 Is 20 ton big enough?
-
We used a 40 ton press and it was kind of scary. I need to build a jig to hold the arm but was lazy hand held it by hand, won't do tat again. I used the air hammer on the last ones and they turned out well.
-
The press and the application of the rivets are a challenge we see them where they are not the right size to start with, not the original finish, not compress enough or over compressed and damaged. Then you get to add in the concours details like the waffle pattern. I've seen the collection of dies at Rare Parts and they must have a dozen different waffle patterns - all due to different owners wanting something slightly (or way off IMHO) different from what they were offering at the time
-
The press and the application of the rivets are a challenge we see them where they are not the right size to start with, not the original finish, not compress enough or over compressed and damaged. Then you get to add in the concours details like the waffle pattern. I've seen the collection of dies at Rare Parts and they must have a dozen different waffle patterns - all due to different owners wanting something slightly (or way off IMHO) different from what they were offering at the time
Jeff, does rare parts have the parts and ability to do this job correctly ? -Concours-
-
Marcus Anghel also restores control arms and has fixtures/dies to do the rivets correctly.
-
Jeff, does rare parts have the parts and ability to do this job correctly ? -Concours-
Since it appears that we're making this thread the default Ball joint discussion let me approach this in a different direction
First lets look at some original rivets so that we have something to compare all the restorations and efforts to. After that I'll try and post some pictures of other efforts and you and others can compare
The following are from my April 69 Dearborn example. Unfortunately over the last few years a couple of the boots ripped :( So luckily I shot a few pictures before I had them redone. I know - imagine that ;)
Believe current (in the pictures tone/color of the rivet has changed over the years and through the cleaning process)
Upper A arm rivet - top of rivet
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/6/6-260117173452.jpeg)
Upper A arm rivet - bottom of rivet
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/6/6-260117173321.jpeg)
Lower top of rivet
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/6/6-260117173354.jpeg)
Lower bottom of the rivet
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/6/6-260117173433.jpeg)
-
Re RIVETS: Thanks for the input to this point. I see that especially for the waffle pattern I need for my build information ON THE UPPERS, it may be best done by somebody who already has the tooling. As I get the arms ready for the riveting, I'll make that final decision when ready. (Still holding out for a source of riveting tool recommendations)
Looking into my UPPER CONTROL ARM SHAFTS, one side had some play in it, other side I had rebuilt just before parking the car 20 years ago and was tight. It looks like I should consider new upper shaft kits. WHERE is the best source of a reproduction shaft kit?, again, looking towards Concours Driven but I want these to look correct.
-
ANOTHER QUESTION (to add to my previous post on where to buy correct repro shaft kits):
11/66 built SJ, UPPER ARMS appear to need to be restored to ALL NATURAL STEEL (with gun blueing attributes) and LOWER ARMS maybe??? 1/2 dipped in Semi Gloss Black??? (also with gun blueing attributes), Is this CORRECT?
Honestly, I think there may be some 67 SJ version LOWER control arms that are completely BLACK. It looks as though mine were BOTH all black, one absolutely know as original to my build and the other removed from another car in 1978 that I got the fender from. The fender has a December date, with evidence it was a San Jose car since it matches 100% to the unrestored underside of the drivers fender (correct date on drivers fender, never repainted before I bought car in 1978)
Attached are 2 pictures borrowed from a renowned Restorer's website including details I hope to duplicate to whatever I ought to do given my build date. Regarding the UPPER control arms, that site only looks to have pictures of a 68-69 version so hardware details would differ (red dye on nuts NOT used on 67's).
Below the two "borrowed" images, are two more images of my original arms, partially stripped down. You can see evidence of paint under the strut rod mounting and all the way to the tip of the arm suggesting that the whole arm was painted black after assembled. I had never removed these arms completely before, I once replaced the lower inner bushings right after I bought the car (1978) and this was done without removing the arms from the car. After that time, nothing was ever done to the arms.
Any sort of time frame this is correct for that we understand for the SJ cars?
-
Any sort of time frame this is correct for that we understand for the SJ cars?
After seeing thousands of 67 San Jose cars must report that I've never seen an original completely painted (lower) in all that time other than the ones that had evidence of black on other accepted bare steel parts int he same area - like spindles and sway bar links that suggested that someone had been in there painting
Must say that by 76 allot of things may and were done to many of these cars. Just sharing what I've seen and done
As always one or even two examples may get or attention but still fall short of prof enough (IMHO) to change current beliefs. This (for others) should not be seen as being closed minded but we need to remain objective and search for more examples, if they are are out there, and more understanding. Think we;ve sort of held all things to these practices for the betterment of the "hobby"
Just as a possibility I wonder what would have been done at Moog or TRW if the mechanism or worker that dipped these parts allowed the part to be submerged completely or past what we see as the norm? Would the parts be thrown away, placed into the over the counter line or just thrown in the container going to the assembly plant and the correction made before the next batch. Just a though and maybe a possibility
-
FYI the 67 arms do not use safety red dye on the grease plugs. Just bare steel . Same on the upper control arm inner shaft nuts . Safety red not used on 67 nuts.
-
After seeing thousands of 67 San Jose cars must report that I've never seen an original completely painted (lower) in all that time other than the ones that had evidence of black on other accepted bare steel parts int he same area - like spindles and sway bar links that suggested that someone had been in there painting
Must say that by 76 allot of things may and were done to many of these cars. Just sharing what I've seen and done
As always one or even two examples may get or attention but still fall short of prof enough (IMHO) to change current beliefs. This (for others) should not be seen as being closed minded but we need to remain objective and search for more examples, if they are are out there, and more understanding. Think we;ve sort of held all things to these practices for the betterment of the "hobby"
Just as a possibility I wonder what would have been done at Moog or TRW if the mechanism or worker that dipped these parts allowed the part to be submerged completely or past what we see as the norm? Would the parts be thrown away, placed into the over the counter line or just thrown in the container going to the assembly plant and the correction made before the next batch. Just a though and maybe a possibility
UPDATE FOLLOWING USE OF RUST 911 (Evaporust equivalent)
See pictures below. BOTH arms confirmed now they were clearly dipped similar to others found to date, thus proving Jeff's reply. No anomaly found here after all! ;) I'll update my previous comments so as not to steer anyone incorrectly. (pun intended)
Obviously, I repainted the arms most likely when I replaced the strut rod bushings, this was done when I was 16-years-old. I would have thought I would remember this; but oh well...I'm getting old I suppose :P Boy, that old Krylon held up very well under the Easy-Off cleaning! :o I am sure nobody but myself has worked on this car...EVER, the mileage when purchased and overall "un-kept" condition of this car when purchased showed me then it was one of those examples we long to seek and find today! (original hoses and the likes ALL still in place back in the day, removed RIGHT AWAY and discarded so it would be safer to drive ~what we all seemed to do back then ;) )
FYI the 67 arms do not use safety red dye on the grease plugs. Just bare steel . Same on the upper control arm inner shaft nuts . Safety red not used on 67 nuts.
Yep, that much I understood (I actually mentioned the dyed hardware but did not mention the grease zerk plug detail), thanks for pointing the detail out so perhaps others will not copy the detail by viewing the previously supplied images.
Good to have 100% confirmation BEFORE work is done. Thanks everyone! Moving forwards, my decisions are now much better educated :D
-
Although the arms can be dipped straight down when doing them yourself. Many original examples observed seem to indicate that typically they were hung from a hook causing more weight on one side which resulted in them being dipped at a angle . Your witness line on your bare metal arm is just another example of that effect.
-
Another note for those taking notes on DATE CODES, I found two very clear to read codes. UPPER ARM (original to my buid) J4 (September 4th if I understand the decipher correctly) and interesting enough, another J4 on the lower arm known to be replaced way back in '78. (Fender & door also used from the same donor car are both dated early December) The other upper (known original to my build), I see a stamping but cannot make it out clearly. It is possibly something like J5 but top half of stamping isn't clear since it was on a rounded surface. Last, the other lower arm (original to my build), I find no sign at all of a stamp anywhere.
-
Still just spit-balling ideas...I cannot imagine nobody has tried these ideas and perhaps since the ball-joint riveting is a safety-related item AND an item many PROFESSIONAL Restorers do as "Services for Hire", my replies are limited out of liability or financial concerns but if anyone has experience they may be unwilling to share publically, please consider private messaging me as an alternative.
Riveting tools like this for duplicating the waffle pattern are out there, so obviously, individuals are doing such work: http://www.macsautoparts.com/ford_model_t/waffle-tool-for-setting-body-rivets-use-with-air-gun.html
At about $30 each tool, I see it becomes cost-prohibitive quickly for most do-it-yourselfers. As mentioned earlier, I often change ball joints for hire so I wouldn't mind outfitting myself to do riveting work on those jobs too. Many ball joint kits have cheap bolts provided that I end up replacing with harder bolts for safety issues.
-
I don't see how using that air hammer bit would yield desired results. Maybe after pressing with a flat bit and then using it as a finisher?
-
Jeff, does rare parts have the parts and ability to do this job correctly ? -Concours-
Sorry this took a couple of days - and example of the rivets (waffle patterns - one of maybe a dozen available) done at Rare Parts (upper A arm style) for comparison
Please ignore the scratches and marks left in the metal - not the focus right now ;)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/6/6-050217172423-6728840.jpeg)
Original 69s from another thread for comparison
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/6/6-260117173452.jpeg)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/6/6-260117173433.jpeg)
-
Oh boy. My turn.
First pic, from right to left, a spare LCA in all of its greasy glory, a degreased and cleaned version and finally one of my original Shelby arms that still have great jacking tabs and are in really good shape.
The ball joint was removed in order to make sure all traces of rust are removed. I removed the bushing too.
The second pic shows the jack pads.
The third pic is of the original ball joint and rivets with the swollen boot cut off.
Enough of the show and tell.
I have the original lower ball joint and it appears to be in decent shape. I originally planed to just to replace it. Now I'm not so sure.
I've never seen a closeup of a Moog ball joint and don't know if I should use it or the original.
The car will compete in concours.
-
Typically the lowers don't need replacement. If they are tight I would just re use them . The upper ball joints take the majority of the abuse. Double check the MOOG ball joints as some are shorter and require the use of a shorter castle nut for the cotter pins to work.
-
After closer inspection I'll reuse the lowers and source new boots, seal holding plate and rivets.
I'll be sending off the arms to have rivets pressed.
These take an inordinate amount of time and labor to look right. I'm beginning to understand the prices people get for completed arms.
-
Arms dealers? Couldn’t resist.
-
After closer inspection I'll reuse the lowers and source new boots, seal holding plate and rivets.
I'll be sending off the arms to have rivets pressed.
NOS service replacement boots show up now and again. I believe that I found the zinc plates and gaskets at NPD to finish off the lower ball joint parts list. The plates looked like excellent reproductions, I could not tell them apart.
HARRIS bushings (with the cam bolts as kits) are available about 1/2 as often as the NOS boots. Happy Hunting.
You are correct about how much time it takes to ready the arms for tumbling. Also a good idea to pay to have the rivets pressed 'as original's, the technique and tooling can get pricey if you do not plan to do these as a hobby regularly.
-
So I'm left with three options on upper and lower boots:
Nasty prices on NOS.
Low prices on NPD boots.
Lots of unknown unknowns on the All Classic Motors boots, which has "USA made exact, steel ring & embossed Ford number". I'll have to call them.
And yes, although it's not apparent in the pics above you have to "massage" the arms with various grits in order to remove any/all traces of pits. Difficult at best to do this and still leave all the press marks.
I managed to chuck up the LCA grease cap in my lathe and finesse the pits out of them with a 10mm belt sander (and other tools) while the part was spinning.
While I'm at this I will take my spare arms (aka the arms that need the most work and aren't up to a 'no qualms' concours finish) and will assemble them for later resale.
While you have the tools out to do one set, it's not much more work to do another. And I'll become an arms dealer ;)
In the end they will go to either Rare Parts or Anghel for the rivet press. I don't need or want to mess about with this particular skill or set of tools.
If you've had this done send me a PM as to how much this costs. Just wondering ...
-
I now have 4 LCAs stripped all the way down.
I thought I'd read every ball joint and UCA/UCA thread here and have never seen an date code listed for the LCA.
For my March car my original (as far as I can tell) LCAs are actually dated on the side of the front nose of the arm. I've never seen date codes shown on LCAs, although I have on UCAs.
Here is an arm with an A5 date code (zoom to see the 'A'), with is appropriate for my car.
-
I now have 4 LCAs stripped all the way down.
I thought I'd read every ball joint and UCA/UCA thread here and have never seen an date code listed for the LCA.
For my March car my original (as far as I can tell) LCAs are actually dated on the side of the front nose of the arm. I've never seen date codes shown on LCAs, although I have on UCAs.
Here is an arm with an A5 date code (zoom to see the 'A'), with is appropriate for my car.
I could have sworn that Charles T. had posted pictures of UPC and LCA date stamps on a thread , but regardless the markings are many times overlooked because they are typically so faint that they are easy to miss or are not visible at all from my experience. After blasting and tumbling cores the faint stamping will apparently disappear given so many cores end up without any. The generic looking simple marking is easy to duplicate if one needs to see them. In concours I would not deduct if they are not seen (Thoroughbred or SAAC Premiere /DIV I ) given many are to faint to be distinguished originally.
-
A couple of examples both lower and upper to illustrate.
Upper A arm one is just about impossible to see on an assembled car but we the owner or builder knows :)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/12/6-270519182416.jpeg)
-
Took forever to find the boots, so I'm back to this.
One thing that should be mentioned (I don't see it in this thread) is the separation of the ball joint cup/stiffener portion that is spot welded to the stamped steel LCA.
Viewing the attached first pic, note the two holes in the center of the arm that line up with the sway bar hole.
If you intend to really clean up the arms you have to separate the ball joint cup with its integral flat plate stiffener. The stiffener runs under the strut rod bolts and really keeps the assemble, well, stiff!
To remove I use a flat style spot weld cutter and cut through the spot welds on the top of the arm. Having the arm in a drill press with adjustable x/y clamp is the ticket.
After the two are separated, weld up the holes and grind smooth with a 80 and then 120 grit wheel.
After the arm was finished with 120 on both sides I took out a round ball carbide and made some slight depressions on top where the spot welds used to be. Faux spot weld divots!
I finish up with a coarse abrasive mesh wheel (like the 3M black biscuits but much coarser) that smooths out the "weld" depressions. I will gun blue the divots to replicate weld heat later.
Finally another run through the medium grit. I'll do a 20 glass ball run through just prior to sending these off.
I got a hold of Marcus but need a few finish details ironed out prior to sending these in for rivet installation.
I suspect the ball joint cup/stiffener plate should be done to mimic heat treat. So a gun blue finish for all of it?
The grease cup under the ball joint (the one that has the grease fitting) appears in most restorations to be a grayish or cold phosphate treatment. It doesn't appear as bright as the arms. True?
-
I finally found some NOS upper dust boots for my 67 and took a few pics.
I'd really like to know:
a.) I think they're real, right?
b.) What's up with the green paint? I have that on my lower NOS boots, too. Leave it on?
Rotated to show the various markings and one in profile to show the shape.
-
I finally found some NOS upper dust boots for my 67 and took a few pics.
I'd really like to know:
a.) I think they're real, right?
b.) What's up with the green paint? I have that on my lower NOS boots, too. Leave it on?
Rotated to show the various markings and one in profile to show the shape.
I think that they are genuine Ford. The paint marking maybe a later assemblyline or service part Identification. I would take the green paint off. I haven't seen evidence to support that on 67 assemblyline units. If I was concours judging and saw that I would require some type of reasonable evidence or there would be some type of small deduction as part of a cumulative total. We don't typically take off if a paint marking is missing however we do take off if one is applied and is not typical. Typically small but some type of deduction or mention none the less. Just me others may see differently.
-
Thanks again, Bob.
My uppers were replaced, but my original, leaky lowers weren't green.
Hopefully the pics will be useful to others.
-
ASSEMBLY NOTE (regarding use of Service Replacement boots):
Be sure to ensure the aluminum ring that seals the grease at the ball joint shaft can rotate or the new boot will rip as soon as you turn rotate the ball joint (turn the wheel). This has happened to other restorers and the memo was handed down to me as a note of concern for using NOS boots.
-
I've seen C4 assembly line ball joint boots with a greenish hue on the upper side like that, but not that bright. It's usually barely visible, especially once installed.
-
ASSEMBLY NOTE (regarding use of Service Replacement boots):
Be sure to ensure the aluminum ring that seals the grease at the ball joint shaft can rotate or the new boot will rip as soon as you turn rotate the ball joint (turn the wheel). This has happened to other restorers and the memo was handed down to me as a note of concern for using NOS boots.
Thanks Richard. I did read that and I'll be sure to check that prior to final assembly.
Whenever that will be . . .
-
The green on the ball joint boots is actually typical....but I have not seen it that distinct or that exact color and with splotches of what looks like paint.
Most people dont notice the green color because its very subtle and hard to see. Not easy to take a picture of, but here is some boots I have that show that.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48996580548_5c19d83b3a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hDEho9)20191101_112103 (https://flic.kr/p/2hDEho9) by Marcus Anghel (https://www.flickr.com/photos/154714213@N02/), on Flickr
-
The green on the ball joint boots is actually typical....but I have not seen it that distinct or that exact color and with splotches of what looks like paint.
Most people dont notice the green color because its very subtle and hard to see. Not easy to take a picture of, but here is some boots I have that show that.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48996580548_5c19d83b3a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hDEho9)20191101_112103 (https://flic.kr/p/2hDEho9) by Marcus Anghel (https://www.flickr.com/photos/154714213@N02/), on Flickr
On service boots I would agree. That green marking is the only way I have seen them. On assemblyine boots I am skeptical. If it isn't seen then it isn't a issue . If it can be seen then it is a issue at least for me. Just because a service part looks a certain way doesn't always mean a assemblyline part looks the same.
-
Agree Bob....good point on the assembly line units. I will keep an eye open on the ones Im rebuilding in the future to see if I see any traces of green under the grease and grime....
-
Agree Bob....good point on the assembly line units. I will keep an eye open on the ones Im rebuilding in the future to see if I see any traces of green under the grease and grime....
The '65 ones you just did for me had green on the assembly line boots.
-
Just coming back to this and I wanted to look at a few more known assembly line boots before replying. The ones here are from Charles Turner project he is working on (C4 boots). The other is an original control arm dipped in evaporust with C7 boots. So after seeing this, I feel the green was on some of the originals. I do think that green does wear off over time so maybe thats why we dont see them on all.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49020935412_fcd792800d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hFP7eA)20191018_122617 (https://flic.kr/p/2hFP7eA) by Marcus Anghel (https://www.flickr.com/photos/154714213@N02/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49020734736_c6f242d728_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hFN5zE)20191103_125526 (https://flic.kr/p/2hFN5zE) by Marcus Anghel (https://www.flickr.com/photos/154714213@N02/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49020208343_afe824d2ea_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hFKo6V)20191103_125545 (https://flic.kr/p/2hFKo6V) by Marcus Anghel (https://www.flickr.com/photos/154714213@N02/), on Flickr
-
I wonder if the green "paint" was actually a sealant between the rubber and the metal ring? I seem to recall it's in the inside too.
-
i too thought it could be a mold release agent of some sort.
-
My question is if I am restoring my 67 Upper and lower Arms, what is the best source of a quality replacement ball joint or ball joint boot without buying NOS Ball Joints at over $250 each or just a NOS boot for $200 a pair?
Not going for THOROUGHBRED ever but trying to get really close to Concours as practical. ( I just watched these parts go crazy on eBay, NO WAY I'll go that route on this project)
Glad you asked that question. Turns out 67 & 68 A-Arms are different but some great info in your post that helps my build
-
Re RIVETS: Thanks for the input to this point. I see that especially for the waffle pattern I need for my build information ON THE UPPERS, it may be best done by somebody who already has the tooling. As I get the arms ready for the riveting, I'll make that final decision when ready. (Still holding out for a source of riveting tool recommendations)
Looking into my UPPER CONTROL ARM SHAFTS, one side had some play in it, other side I had rebuilt just before parking the car 20 years ago and was tight. It looks like I should consider new upper shaft kits. WHERE is the best source of a reproduction shaft kit?, again, looking towards Concours Driven but I want these to look correct.
Just curious where people are buying the bushings and ball joints. Obviously some buy NOS if they are lucky enough to find them, but where else can we find suitable replacements for restoration. I am looking for a complete set for upper and lower A-Arms 1968. I have seem some on various websites, but want to check and see what guys are using here before I purchase something I may end up not using. (Yes I have done that before and wished I had asked the stupid questions first)
-
It has been a few years now since I searched for these items but I ended up using MOOG upper ball joints with NOS boots. Upper shaft and bushing kits, I believe I bought at NPD. Be sure the outer shaft caps have the O-ring style seals. I could not find an exact same item for this detail and also, mine being Early-67, the studs that hold the shafts to the shock tower, fit loosely in the new shafts. That detail is likely another one of those supplier/running changes for the 67 model year and may not be an issue for your 68 Mustang.
-
Just curious where people are buying the bushings and ball joints. Obviously some buy NOS if they are lucky enough to find them, but where else can we find suitable replacements for restoration. I am looking for a complete set for upper and lower A-Arms 1968. I have seem some on various websites, but want to check and see what guys are using here before I purchase something I may end up not using. (Yes I have done that before and wished I had asked the stupid questions first)
I used a set of UCAs from rareparts.com on a project a couple of years ago. They were the most accurate reproductions I have found.
-
I used a set of UCAs from rareparts.com on a project a couple of years ago. They were the most accurate reproductions I have found.
Used them on a couple of restorations I did a few years back. No comments of findings from judges and the like. I suggest that you check and request that they be sent in bare steel (no other coatings other than oil) since over the years that have often coated them with multiple finishes since allot of the people they supply are not concours focused.
They are about 10 minutes from home so have worked with them over the years to get things closer - little by little. Of course "we" (concours like owners and shops) are not their main focus :)
-
No connection to this auction but seems reasonable for a concours resto... Not C7OZ but C7AZ??
https://www.ebay.com/itm/2-C7AZ-3A105-B-NOS-SHELBY-MUSTANG-UPPER-BALL-JOINT-DUST-CAPS/383271822025?hash=item593cc7e2c9:g:4WwAAOSw9qFd0d70
-
No connection to this auction but seems reasonable for a concours resto... Not C7OZ but C7AZ??
C7AZ-B boots have a metal ring similar to the ones for a tie rod end, to press it on and seal. Mustangs and other models that use the C7OZ-B boots, have the metal plate secured with the ball joint rivets.
I would not think simply removing the "extra rings" would make them usable on a Mustang application...but maybe some restorers have tried and know more on that detail.
-
Even though I haven't done the control arms yet (I was searching for reasonably priced FoMoCo's) I thought I'd fit what I believe is an original length upper BJ stud into my 67 spindle. This was to check how far the threaded portion sticks out and if I have the right sized castle nut.
There is data that says some of the Moog BJs have a short amount of thread sticking out and need a much thinner castle nut for the cotter pin to fit through the hole. I think this is the right nut.
-
Even though I haven't done the control arms yet (I was searching for reasonably priced FoMoCo's) I thought I'd fit what I believe is an original length upper BJ stud into my 67 spindle. This was to check how far the threaded portion sticks out and if I have the right sized castle nut.
There is data that says some of the Moog BJs have a short amount of thread sticking out and need a much thinner castle nut for the cotter pin to fit through the hole. I think this is the right nut.
You are correct on some of the after market ball joints. That looks like the assemblyline size nut. the one needed for some of the after market ball joints are shorter.
-
Well, that's a two-fer, Bob.
I get to validate my castle nut size and others get to see a pic and dimension.
-
It has been a few years now since I searched for these items but I ended up using MOOG upper ball joints with NOS boots. Upper shaft and bushing kits, I believe I bought at NPD. Be sure the outer shaft caps have the O-ring style seals. I could not find an exact same item for this detail and also, mine being Early-67, the studs that hold the shafts to the shock tower, fit loosely in the new shafts. That detail is likely another one of those supplier/running changes for the 67 model year and may not be an issue for your 68 Mustang.
Thanks Richard I am searching for control arms. I was hoping to find some nice originals. I have 3 pairs right now and none of them are up to snuff. I have a perfectly mint pair of 69 style upper control arms, a set that is pitted and another set that has the ends ground down for tire clearance. I may use the bottom A Arms that came on my car as they are pretty good. I think they are moog, but I welded on some jacking tabs and they look pretty good. They are also mint. I guess my hunt for control arms will determine if I need to get ball joints
-
I used a set of UCAs from rareparts.com on a project a couple of years ago. They were the most accurate reproductions I have found.
Thanks. I cant find the upper control arms on their website. They have bottom ones and tie-rods etc. I was told that Rare Parts are not making anymore 68 Mustang parts and are just selling out the inventory. Not sure if that applies to other models or not.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://anghelrestorations.com/uploads/3/5/1/2/35122002/65_to_73_suspension_guide_v2.1aa.pdf)
-
Thought I'd post a pic of some reproduction ball joints that have the tangs, along with a set of NOS dust boots.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/15/4249-300121204248.jpeg)
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.
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/15/4249-300121204333.jpeg)
The tall castle nut on the Ford BJ stud, installed.
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/15/4249-300121204440.jpeg)
The DC BJ showing its cotter pin location.
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/15/4249-300121204640.jpeg)
The DC BJ shown with the short castle nut, installed. The Ford stud and castle nut are shown as a comparison.
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/15/4249-300121204758.jpeg)
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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]
-
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.
-
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.
-
S8 is typical S36 is not for 67.
Okay! I have a number of those!
Thanks.
-
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.
-
This is how the OEM ball joint housing looks like all cleaned up. NOS ball joints have different cup variations and the cups look more round on the edges as can been seen on Bills pictures. The only thing that DC could improve are the BJ cups to mimic at least Moog cups and elongate the stud as Bill mentioned. Not sure if the OEM housings can be molded and reproduced to concours & thoroughbred. I remember in 8th grade Metal class we would put a metal piece in a sand to make a mold, then pour hot liquid to make another casting. Does anyone have blacksmith abilities to reproduce the casting at least or maybe it's unsafe to do as the Supplier used a special casting to make these BJ housings.
The last picture is how a similar NORS shaft Hex cups could look like to an OEM shaft cups.
-
I doubt they would be manufactured using a casting technique for various reasons including it would be too slow a process. I'm not an expert but I'd say pressed using a die.