Re: 200,000 Mile Oil Change Intervals

I don't buy that. My experience is that modern permanently sealed components far outlast the old one's that had to be greased all of the time. My 96 minivan had all of the original suspension parts at 178,000 miles and ten years of age, other than one lower ball joint that I replaced at about the 150,000 mile mark.

Most people who have parts with grease fittings don't bother to grease them, or worse yet, they overfill them and blow out the seals which lets water and dirt work its way in. Most folks don't know that about half a pump on most grease guns is plenty for 20,000 miles or so.

I think on average, the sealed parts last much longer than greasable parts. Sure, a person who was very fastidious about maintenance might make parts last longer by greasing them, but I don't think the average car owner would be well served by returning to the old style parts.

Matt

Rubbish.

It depends on the use.

The grease in sealed ball bearings can only go bad due to heat, a seal failure and entrance of water, or internal wear. If the bearing is high quality and is lightly loaded such as an alternator bearing, the seal isn't going to fail and it is not going to develop the amount of wear needed to contaminate the grease, nor the amount of heat needed to make the grease fail. Sealed bearings work fine for these uses.

I dislike sealed bearings in axle bearings, so I would agree with you there, but that is about it.

And as for suspension parts and CV joints that is rediculous. Those parts have rubber seals that are absolutely going to fail after enough flexing and due to aging of the rubber. No amount of regular lubrication is going to keep a CV boot from splitting after enough time and wear on the rubber boot. Same goes for tie rods. sealed ends are going to fail at the same rate as non sealed ends.

Ted

Matt Whiting wrote in news:9yyHf.6062$ snipped-for-privacy@news1.epix.net:

I somewhat agree. I think the manufacturers know that a lot of people simply won't adhere to the scheduled maintenance and parts will fail. Because of that, they've made better, non-maintainable parts. The other side of that coin is that when the part does fail, it's more expensive to replace.

I fully agree with this. But it goes both ways - manufacturers will make money when those parts fail. It's all going towards passenger vehicles becoming more and more of a "disposable" commodity.

Heck, I once owned a vehicle with over 40 lube points. (1956 190SL) and would not want to go back there ever again.

Richard.

The sealed ball bearings in the compressor clutch only rotate when the compressor isn't running, in the "middle of the Mojave" it's unlikely that they would fail because the compressor would be engaged.

Making a tie rod end or ball joint sealed maks it no harder to replace.

My minivan would have easily made 200K with almost all of the major parts still in service. Cars my parents had in the 60s and 70s didn't even come close. My dad bought a brand new Ford Falcon in 69, I believe, maybe 70, and it required new ball joints before it made 50,000 miles. If 200,000 miles is the disposable point for new cars ... I'll take it! :-)

Matt

My 1940 Royal Coupe has 25 just on the front end.

Matt Whiting wrote in news:UkMHf.6081$ snipped-for-privacy@news1.epix.net:

The part is more expensive, not harder to replace.

The key to longevity is proper maintenance. Sure, some of those parts were simply not designed for longevity. But with proper maintenance almost any car could run upwards of 150k miles.

True, because they're the same. I would say "making a tie rod end or a ball joint *TRULY* sealed is impossible." Having taken apart both zerkless and zerk-equipped tie rods and ball joints on cars made over the past 50 years, I can tell you one thing: the seals are no different on the "sealed" ones at all. They do an OK job, but they're far from perfect. Ball joints and tie-rod ends, IMO, should always be zerk-equipped simply so that a conscientious owner CAN force new grease in and drive the contaminated grease out. For the owner that "doesn't want to be bothered," they'll last just as long either way.

Some did...

I just converted my 1966 Dodge to disk brakes in December 2005. It still had the original upper and lower ball joints, and Pitman arm at 268,000 miles. The lowers were still tight, so guess what? They're still in there with the new disk brakes and still racking up the miles, as are the tie-rod ends! The uppers had to be changed for the new spindle that the disk brakes required, and I upgraded the steering box as well and replaced the Pitman arm as part of that. Its had upper and lower bushings replaced once or twice, due more to age than mileage.

Your parents' car's problem wasn't that it had greasable ball joints, the problem was that it was a '69 Ford. I know whereof I speak. My first car was a '68 Ford, and the front end was a horrible design. It was impossible to keep ball joints tight in that car. And shocks- the goofy "fake McPherson Strut" setup always kept a slight side-load on the shocks (which shocks aren't designed for) and wore them out.

I kinda like the sealed for life parts. You get a better seal which means that no dirt will get in the joint. With no dirt mixed in with the grease, the part will last a really, really, really long time. The old joints with zerk fittings were sealed as well because they had to allow a way for the old grease to get out when you pumped in fresh grease. If the seal on the modern parts fail, they are a pain to replace.

--------------- Alex

Well, the sealed parts don't cost any more than the one's with zerks and often just the other way around. So, if the part doesn't cost more and it isn't harder to install, whye how can it be more expensive to replace?

My dad maintained his cars very well as his father owned a car dealership and garage and he was well versed in car maintenance and repair. The cars of the late sixties and early seventies were simply not built nearly as well as the cars of today. We had a 1971 Maverick that had holes rusted through the front fenders by 1974!! I'm not talking surface rust, I'm talking holes you could stick your finger through. I learned how to use body filler and paint on that lemon (yes, it was even bright yellow!).

Matt

Where does the "contaminated" grease exit from? How does it get contaminated if it is sealed? The fastest way to ruin the seal and let contamination in is from overzealous greasing.

Matt

If you grease conservatively, the "boot" just slowly fills with used grease and the joint itself always contains the freshest grease. The used grease in the boot doesn't go anywhere, and you can grease it many times before it fills. But if you do get carried away, its just basically an elastic seal between the stretchy boot and the two halves of the joint so the grease pushes out between the boot and its mating groove in the joint casting/housing.

Exactly. None of those type joints are truly sealed... even the zerkless ones on modern cars. Been there, looked at those after 100k miles of service- they're made EXACTLY the way they were 30 years ago. The boot has to rotate on one part or the other, so the seal isn't 100%. Its GOOD, but not like a precision grease seal in a rotor casting or axle housing. But even if you ASSume that the boot is perfect, the joint contaminates its own grease with metal as it wears.

Nah. They just lift and vent themselves as I described above, then seal back into their grooves.

I remember my 71 Dart Swinger with disk brakes. A moron blew so much grease in it blew thru the seal and contaminated my brake pads.

The trouble is, many folks don't do that as I said earlier. And a car that lasts 200K will likely be greased at least 10 times and probably

1. Even at one pump, that is a lot of grease. I don't think many boots will contain that much.

But that contamination is much less abrasive than dirt getting in and less corrosive than water getting in.

But they don't seal all that well and dirt and water will begin to work they way in the first time you burp the seal.

I currently have vehicles with both "permanent" and greaseable components and the permanent ones have outlasted the greaseable ones almost across the board. Grease away if you like, but I'll take the permanent parts any day.

Matt

Like I said- I've had "permanently lubricated" ball joints sitting right next to old greasable ones, and the seals are *exactly* the same. NONE of them are really and truly "sealed".

And in my fleet of cars, the record-holders are the greasable balljoints on the '66- still good at 270,000 miles. The "sealed" tie rod ends and ball joints on my wife's 93 LH car were replaced at a little short of

There is a big difference. The permanently lubricated ball joint seals have never been compromised by having grease forced out of them. The greaseable joints in all likelihood will at some point will have their seals compromised.

And how much time have you invested in greasing those joints on your 66?

Matt

Sorry, but I disagree. The only thing that holds the seal tight is its elasticity. Once it "burps" some grease out, it goes right back to sealing as well as it ever did.

If I added up every minute I spent greasing the zerks all 4 of my old cars over the past 30 years, I doubt if it would amount to a full workday. Even counting time re-loading the grease gun.