C2: original U-joints

[Joe R.]

I'd like to know what original C2 U-joints (drive shaft and half shaft) look like. Can someone post a photo?

I recently replaced the U-joints in my 67, and the photo below shows what came out. The drive shaft U-joint is on the left and the half shaft U-joint is on the right.

I have no idea whether these are original, but I have heard something about a "quarter-sized round recess" in the drive shaft U-joint that seems to describe the appearance of the drive shaft U-joint in the photo. I don't have any idea what original half shaft U-joints looked like, other than the fact that they did not have grease fittings.

[Stephen L.]

Re: C2: original U-joints

Both are correct original parts.

[Joe L.]

Re: C2: original U-joints

Joe-----

These are original-configuration u-joints. However, there were some variations in the configuration of the original u-joints, both driveshaft and half-shaft. So, folks should not get the idea that all original u-joints looked exactly like these.

[Joe R.]

Re: C2: original U-joints

Thanks Steve and Joe. I guess I'll keep these around for a possible rebuild and reinstallation if I ever decide to pursue a Duntov (ha ha). These U-joints were not exibiting any problems, but I decided to replace them while I had everything apart. I now have new Spicer U-joints installed, which appear to be high quality units but different in appearance.

[Joe L.]

Re: C2: original U-joints

Joe-----

It's always wise to save used parts like this. However, inspect the bearing surface on the trunnions of the joints (the machined surface on each of the four fingers of the main body of the joint upon which ride the roller bearings in the caps). If any one of the four surfaces on each joint show ANY signs of damage such as brinnelling (slight indentions caused by the roller bearings), the joints are scrap metal (other than for historical reference purposes as to configuration). I know of no way to restore or repair a u-joint that suffers from such wear.

I'd be GREATLY surprised if all 4 of the bearing surfaces on any of your u-joints are in serviceable condition.

[Joe R.]

Re: C2: original U-joints

Yup, I checked and there are signs of slight brinnelling on a couple of the trunnions. I think these U-joints would be fine for a trailer queen, but I agree that it's best not to use them on a car that will be driven a lot. I've always been uncertain about what original U-joints actually looked like, so I think I'll just keep these for reference as "museum pieces."

[Wayne M.]

Here's a '64 low mile example, Joe

Halfshaft U-joints from a 3.70 rear car, removed in 1967-68. No Brinnell-ing, as Joe L.mentions, but the precursor "shine" is there. I hope all 4 are as good.

[Patrick H.]

Re: Here's a '64 low mile example, Joe

Wayne,

I note in your picture that there appears to be a "zerk bump" on that u-joint, although I suspect not drilled and tapped for a zerk. I also see the GM on it.

I thought that original u-joints were "bumpless" and in fact had a "depression" in the middle of the "cross."

Were both types, in fact, correct? I'm used to 70-72s, but my assumption (?) was that it was not limited to those years.

Thanks,

Patrick

[Joe R.]

Re: Here's a '64 low mile example, Joe

Thanks Wayne. That looks pretty much like mine. I think the casting number on the trunnion may be slightly different, but Joe Lucia mentioned that there were slight variations during the C2 years.

[Joe R.]

Re: Here's a '64 low mile example, Joe

Hi Patrick:

I think the description you provide corresponds to the driveshaft U-joints, at least for C2s. Take a look at the photo I included with my original posting. The situation may be different for C3s, though.

[Patrick H.]

Re: Here's a '64 low mile example, Joe

Yes, I did see that too but since I couldn't edit my post, I couldn't refer back to it.

My understanding was that the hollow ones were half shaft u-joints. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know before I judge again on Saturday.

Patrick