C2 Ball Joint Question

[Eugene B.]

Members,
Spent some time reading about upper and lower ball joints in the archives section, but did not find an answer to my question.

I am ready to install (rivet) ball joints into my upper and lower control arms. I would like to reinstall my original uppers if they are good. Lowers have already been replaced.

Question is: Regarding both upper and lower ball joints, is there a particular replacement ball joint that does better that the rest when it comes to minimum point deduction during judging? If so, who sells these joints?

Thanks,
Gene

[John H.]

Re: C2 Ball Joint Question

Gene -

No currently available ball joints match the appearance of the originals, and I doubt if any particular replacement brand would get any different deduction than any other replacement brand; they're only a point or two each anyway, and any replacement will most likely get the same deduction. I'd stick with a brand name (Moog, TRW, etc.).

[Joe L.]

Re: C2 Ball Joint Question

Gene-----

John's got it exactly right; there is NO current SERVICE ball joint that has a configuration like the originals. Most of the one's on the market have very similar configurations. Like John says, I'd go with a major brand like Moog or TRW.

Also, what year is your car? Do you know the current ball joints to be original (likely if they're rivetted to the a-arms)? Ball joints for 63-E65 Corvettes were different in configuration than those for L65-82 Corvettes.

[Gary B.]

Joe; In what ways were the 63-E65 ball joints...

different from L65-82?

Thanks,

Gary

[Joe L.]

Re: Joe; In what ways were the 63-E65 ball joints.

Gary------

I've not yet been able to confirm this for 100% certain (in fact, I'm hoping that if Gene's car is a 63-E65 with original ball joints, he'll be able to help). However, I believe that 63-E65 used different style ball joints than later. Primarily, I believe the difference involves the seal used. I think that the early style was a non-retained, "hat" style seal similar to that used on many current aftermarket ball joints. The seal was unique, though, inasmuch as it was an amber-colored, translucent plastic of some sort (it gets stained to "black" from grease after long exposure, though) and it's configuration resembles a "Chinese coulee hat". The part number for the seal for the upper ball joint was GM #770982 or 765160. I'm not sure about the lower ball joints; I think thay may have used the same style seal but, obviously, of a different part number and size. I haven't been able to come up with a part number for the seal. I don't think that it was ever available in SERVICE as a seperate part.

Later 1965 through 1982 used ball joints with a different style seal, assuming that I'm correct about the configuration of the 63-E65. For these, the seal was a black rubber seal of "bulbous" configuration. It was retained to the body of the ball stud by a circumferential, thin sheet metal retainer "band". This "band" was pressed over the seal so as to retain it to the body of the ball stud. The same configuration was used for both upper and lower joints. This style seal was never available as a seperate part; it was serviced only as part of the ball stud assembly.

Any observations which can be provided by owners of 63-E65 cars with original ball studs (as likely evidenced by ball studs which appear old AND are rivetted to the a-arms) would be interesting. I don't know when the change occurred in 1965, so observations from known-original 63-64 cars would be the most definitive.

[Eugene B.]

Re: Joe; In what ways were the 63-E65 ball joints.

Joe and Gary,
Thank you both for your reply to my posting. The birthday of my car is March 3 or 4 per the birthday calculator. In my mind, this makes it an early '65.? I drilled out the rivets from the top ball joints to R&R the control arms. Since I've owned this car since '70 and it has 44K miles, I'm sure that the BJ's that I removed are the originals.

I can find no part number on the BJ's. They have the black rubber "bulbous" configuration dust seals that are retained by the thin metal band around the top. On the rubber seal, is a part number 9742132 on both joints. Opposite the P/N is another number. On the driver's side there is a 5 a symbol like a double box and a 12. Passenger's side 4 symbol like a double box 11.

Top of both BJ's have 7 spot welds that hold them together with a deep groove around the spot welds. The inboard 1/4 inch hole is marked with an X. I noted this so that the BJ can be reinstalled in the same postion. It seems to have greater motion in this direction than side to side.

I'm still haven't decided about reusing them. I want to keep the car as original as possible, but I hate to wear out bench-mark, irreplaceable items. Perhaps I will never wear them out, given that the car will not be a daily driver.

Sorry for the long post, but you guys seemed interested and I want to provide as much information as possible for the archives.

Best regards,
Gene

[Joe L.]

Re: Joe; In what ways were the 63-E65 ball joints.

Gene-----

You have the later style ball joints. There are no part numbers on the GM ball joints. The part number on the boot is the part number for just the boot. It was never available as a seperate part, though; just as part of the complete assembly.

As I mentioned, for 1965, I'm not sure what the "breakpoint" is for the early or later style ball joints. In fact, I'm not even sure that the early style joints were EVER used on a 65. It is very possible that the change occurred before production began. In any event, a March-built car would be considered rather late, so I would expect the change, if a change was made during production, to have occurred by that time.

As far as replacing the joints, the upper ones practically never wear out. So, if the car has less than 100,000, or so, miles, I'll bet they're fine. Mostly, the upper ones get replaced as a matter of "routine". Also, if the boots become damaged, there's really no way to repair that other than trying to remove the band and obtain a seal from another donor ball stud assembly (other GM used the same seal and retainer).

The lower ball studs DO wear out. If the car has 100,000+ miles, there's a good chance these need replacing. It's very hard to assess the condition of these old-style ball joints (i.e. without wear indicators) from inspection or off-car manipulation.

[Dave K.]

Re: C2 Ball Joint Question

Several years ago when I started my 66 body off restoration, Joe Lucia was kind enough to furnish the GM part no.s for service replacement ball joints. My local dealer went out on the GM inventory Intranet and found two uppers and two lowers scattered around the country. I obtained the four and had them riveted in by Bair’s Corvette.

Scott Sinclair and John Hinkley arranged for a close to Bow Tie quality 66 coupe to be raised on a lift at the Windsor Conv. for advanced judging school and I inspected the still original joints on this car. By golly, my service replacement joints look almost identical down to the bottom stud on the original lower joints. I don’t know how available the service replacement joints (especially lowers) are now, but that’s the way I would go.

Dave Kitch
33108

[William C.]

Re: Joe; In what ways were the 63-E65 ball joints. *NM*