Premature Ball Joint Failure

On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 08:37:40 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Good point. You have an experience most people don't have. I've never replaced ball joints more than once on a vehicle. The originals have lasted from 80k to 150k miles. The second set never gets tested that long before the car is junked. I suspect that's how it is for most people. I always replace with zerked Moogs, but that's because it's "common wisdom." You really can't test the quality of ball joints except by using them. Everything else is speculation and "reputation." If a mfg's quality dives, you'll probably hear about it. I just use Moog mainly because of reputation. Always have. The cost difference over the cheaper ones isn't real great, if you consider your labor. And I used Moog upper ball joints and all tie rod ends on my '97 Lumina at 150k miles a couple years ago, As I recall the total cost was about $100 more that the cheapos. I had the parts guy bring out the 3 brands they carried and the Moog were beefier and looked better-made. Enough so to erase any temptation to save some money. But I'll probably never find out if they're really better, because they won't fail before I junk the car.

ps. My son does the work now, and I mostly watch. He's a pro suspension guy by trade. I've done them myself on a '67 VW Squareback, a '76 Caprice, and a '78 Chevy Beauville van. The right upper on the VW separated as I was driving down a city street at about 35 mph, cars parked on the entire street. It let loose just as I reached an empty bus stop, and the car jerked right into the bus stop, skidding along the curb as I jammed the brakes. I was very lucky. That it happened there, and that it didn't jump the curb and crash into a storefront, or kill somebody. You can imagine the scenarios. The car had given me plenty of warning, rattling and "floating" on bumpy streets, but I knew squat about suspensions and never took my cars to a mech then. Had it towed to the street in front of my apartment and I put 2 new uppers and all tie rod ends on it working on the street, as I often did then. After that I always had suspensions checked occasionally by suspension mechs. But I would do the work - until my son took over. I always do both ball joints and all tie rod ends at the same time. Only once I needed a single tie rod end alone. Probably a lemon from the factory. It's really best to have a pro put the vehicle on the rack and check it out occasionally. Every couple years at least, and immediately if something feels flaky. When a wheel goes sideways, you're at the mercy of luck.

--Vic

Have you ever bought or looked at the

No, but I went and looked, and see what you mean. Tell you the truth, there's more choice than I want. Just give me a good ball joint! (-:

--Vic

For what it is worth, I recently replaced the front suspension on my truck. I went to RockAuto as well, and I himmed and hawwed at the cheap parts vs. name brand. In the end, I decided "these are the parts that hold the front wheels onto the truck as I'm going highway speeds", so I went with the MOOG parts. All in all I think the difference wasn't more than $100, and I didn't miss that money longer than a week.

The MOOG parts were significantly beefier looking than the parts I took off. So much so that I double checked all the parts numbers. I really believe the folks in this thread that say "aftermarket is often better than domestic OEM".

My only regret: The MOOG parts came unpainted but coated with an oily substance. I didn't have time to strip them and paint them (plus it was winter and I didn't have a heated garage or anywhere to paint). Now all my nice new parts are covered in surface rust. Hopefully this won't matter so much and they'll still outlast the truck, which is going on

Best of luck to you, but believe these folks when they say go for name brand.

-J

Spray a little cosmoline on them if you are worried. If it's a good steel with some chrome in it, that surface rust will form a stable film that will prevent any additional rust from forming.

It is amazing how much the quality of parts varies today.

--scott

completely untrue. chrome oxide is the tenacious and "impermeable" layer that protects stainless steel from corroding. if there's not sufficient chromium in the material to prevent rust in the first place, it has no ability to prevent it continuing to happen into the future. and the hydrated iron oxide you see as rust is absolutely no protection whatsoever - to almost any depth.

as is the ability of people to misinform, however well intentioned they may be.

"jim beam" wrote in message news:jm6qdp$c82$ snipped-for-privacy@speranza.aioe.org...

I have questions for you about steel and rust. Story first, then the questions -

On my farm we have an old three point hitch mounted back hoe. It gets used maybe ten days a year, mostly in the fall and spring. The original hydraulic cylinders all had chrome plated activation rods. When the back hoe was approximately ten years old the chrome randomly started dissappeaing from portions of the rods and pits began to form. For a few years we would clean up the rods as best we could with emery cloth and put up with minor leakage. Eventually the missing chrome / pits got bad enough that the seals were damaged. At this point I took the offending cylinders to a local shop to be rebuilt. When I got them back they all had alloy steel, unplated rods. I griped about that to the owner. He claimed I didn't want plated rods becasue they always do exactly what the original rods did - eventually pit out and tear up the seals. His claim was that the unplated rods would rust if I didn't use the cylinders regualrly, but that it would be nice uniform rust that I could easily remove with emry cloth. I went away somewhat unhappy. The first year after I had the cylinders rebuilt, I painted the rods when I parked the back hoe for the winter. In the spring I sanded off the pint. That was a pain. The next year I tried coating everything with grease. It didn't do much good because in the spring, the rods all had a light coating of rust. However, it was easily removed and the rods cleaned up nicely and I had no leakage problems. Since then I just park the back hoe and before I use it. I just clean up the rust. I've been doing it this way for about 6 years.

Here is the question -

The rods rust, but it isn't like some steel rusts. The rust is thin, and easily removed. Other old steel things around the farm often develope deep pits when they rust. Is it a characteristic of "good" steel that it rusts more slowly / uniformly? Or am I just lucky that these rods rust in a somewhat accepatble manner?

To be honest, if I had to do it over again, I'd look for shop that installed chrome plated rods, but it is hard to argue with the results. The nonplated rods are holding up better than the originl chrome plated ones. But then I have to believe the originals were cheap crap. I have other cylinders on the farm that are at least as old that have never pitted out.

Ed

That's generally a characteristic of a steel with a lot of chromium in it. The rust forms a thin layer rather than becoming thick and crumbly like the rust of typical carbon steels.

Nickel plating holds up a lot better than chrome in situations like that, in spite of it being far softer. It doesn't look cool, though, so it has become a rarity.

--scott

what kind of grease? ordinary lithium? you should try a viscous marine grease [with calcium sulfonate in it] and see how that goes. much less permeable because although it still has stearate soaps [which are hydrophilic], the sulfonate adheres the surface more tenaciously.

different steels rust at different rates. and the microstructure of the steel matters a lot to the tiny surface electrolytic cell formation that is part of the rusting mechanism. as does other chemical content like sulfur, and cold work history. but some chromium does help with slowing some rust, even below the "stainless" threshold. so, if your modern unplated rods rust in an "acceptable" way, it's because things like the above have been mitigated a little.

but you know you're still getting ripped off because the proper solution is stainless. the incremental cost to co-extrude a stainless coating onto these rods is trivial, and it would keep the seals intact almost indefinitely. you're witnessing cost-cutting to the extreme. and of course, the opportunity to on-sell into the maintenance market.

indeed. bright chrome isn't much good at rust prevention because it's microporous. it's the nickel [or old school, nickel and copper] beneath is that seals the surface. once nickel started climbing in price, the plating got thinner, and then the chemical issues got more strict... next thing you know, you've got thin porous plating that starts to spall, and just as you say, it shreds seals spectacularly.

that is why many classes of vehicles don't have them. the truth is, if you do failure analysis on failed joints, it's almost always due to foreign matter contamination introduced with the grease injection.

yes, but also in no small degree due to an "unserviced" joint remaining clean and therefore not having to suffer "grinding paste" [contaminated grease] wear.

I assume cosmoline won't do anything to parts that are already coated in rust. If I wanted to remedy the situation, I'm guessing that my only option is to take all the parts off, remove the rust, prime/paint and then reinstall them, right?

My next question is how much of a difference this would make. The rusty parts in question will be lower ball joints (press-fit), upper control arms and tie rod ends. I don't know what kind of steel they are made of, probably something pretty hard (which has nothing to do with rust inhibition). Is this something that will affect the structural integrity of the parts, or will they just look ugly?

Thanks

-J

depends how rusty it is. it'll do a reasonable job of arresting further progress if the rust isn't too bad. assuming it really is cosmoline. i've seen that wax stuff just flake off with the rust underneath it once it's dried.

basically, yes. some paints are much better than others. i know from experience that if you wire brush the loose flaky stuff, then do a thorough job with rustoleum, it protects excellently.

for the most part, they'll just look ugly. the rust has to be really advanced for it to affect structural integrity of components like these. the biggest reason to address the rust issue is that of being able to disassemble again in the future, if you need to. if you're planning on keeping this vehicle for another 20 years, definitely take care of it. if only 5, and you're not into recreational car fixing, probably not. personally for this stuff, i'd go cosmolene.

Different mechanism. Look at Cor-Ten for an extreme case.

--scott

cor-ten's no good for fatigue and is still vulnerable to salt - and therefore no good for this application.

Exactly.. I remember when Cor-Ten first came out, and the first bridge that was made with this material. It builds up a slight protective coat of iron oxide/matrix and after the initial rusting, it settles down and lasts a long time.

Thanks for the mention.