If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You must be an NCRS member
before you can post: click the Join NCRS link above to join. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
FWIW in this discussion,the u-joints in my '57 passenger car, which I've had since '66 and which has its original U-joints, do NOT have grease fittings.
So, with all of this said, shouldn't we argue the case that it's very likely that different model years could have used universal joints with the grease fittings? We have owners manuals, low mileage original cars, NOS UV joints, and other well known experts supporting this evidence. Corvette Central's catalog even supports this evidence also. In the catalog, they say they believe that greasable joints were used.
Maybe this research should be taken in to account and the manuals should be revised? Thats what our organization does. We research and provide the most accurate information possible.
My '59 had greaseable u-joints. It is documented in the owner's manual.
I didn't realize that the JG said the u-joints didn't have grease fittings...
By the time I changed the u-joints in my '59 (mid-70s), I was into the "save everything" mode. Here are what I believe to be the originals.
(When the car was passed to me, it still had the original tires, brake linings, shocks, battery and exhaust. None of those wear items had been replaced, and these u-joints were in the car when I got it. I suppose it is possible they aren't original.)
Bill, I am looking at the spiral bound book (NCRS Techanical Information and Judging Guide) with the yellow front and rear cover. What I am reading is on page 84 under the "Driveshaft and Universals" section. It says, "The stencil may be obscured by the blackout which was done after assembly. Original universal joints do not have grease fittings."
Even though this book isn't the actual judging manual, I would assume that since the NCRS produced this book as a guideline then it would be an item covered in the judging process.
I didn't realize that the JG said the u-joints didn't have grease fittings...
By the time I changed the u-joints in my '59 (mid-70s), I was into the "save everything" mode. Here are what I believe to be the originals.
(When the car was passed to me, it still had the original tires, brake linings, shocks, battery and exhaust. None of those wear items had been replaced, and these u-joints were in the car when I got it. I suppose it is possible they aren't original.)
Bill-----
I believe there were multiple suppliers of u-joints during the 50's, 60's and 70's, at least. Unless GM had a specification that grease fittings not be used, some may have been supplied with such fittings. I believe I have some 1280 GM u-joints in the old black/yellow boxes which do have grease fittings (but I'm not going to attempt to dig them out now; those group 5 tote bins are just too heavy).
Notwithstanding the above, the thing that makes me a little suspicious of the pictured u-joints is the "USA" embossment. The vast majority of parts in the 50's and 60's did not have this sort of marking since it was not really necessary-----virtually all automotive parts for American cars were USA-manufactured.
On the other hand, it does seem highly unlikely that a car that still had its original tires would have had the u-joints replaced.
If the trunnions were forged at GM foundries, then how does Spicer fit into this picture? I thought Spicer made the drive shaft and all of its component parts. The transmission yoke for sure is Spicer, and the Corvette yoke is different from pass car yokes.
This is getting very interesting, but like a lot of things, it seems to be raising more new questions than it is answering. The plot thickens.
If the trunnions were forged at GM foundries, then how does Spicer fit into this picture? I thought Spicer made the drive shaft and all of its component parts. The transmission yoke for sure is Spicer, and the Corvette yoke is different from pass car yokes.
This is getting very interesting, but like a lot of things, it seems to be raising more new questions than it is answering. The plot thickens.
-Dan-
Dan------
I think that Spicer was an alternative manufacturer of the u-joints.
However, I don't think that Spicer made the driveshafts, at least for driveshafts using the 1280 series u-joints. The yoke ends of these have forgings with a GM forging number on them. I strongly suspect they were manufactured internally by GM.
The driveshafts using 1330 series u-joints (i.e. 68-70 with THM and most 1971-82) may have been manufactured by Spicer, though.
I don't think that the original transmission yokes for 53-67 Corvettes as well as 68-70 with manual transmission were manufactured by Spicer. The 68-70 with THM as well as most 71-82 may have been manufactured by Spicer, though.
I believe there were multiple suppliers of u-joints during the 50's, 60's and 70's, at least. Unless GM had a specification that grease fittings not be used, some may have been supplied with such fittings. I believe I have some 1280 GM u-joints in the old black/yellow boxes which do have grease fittings (but I'm not going to attempt to dig them out now; those group 5 tote bins are just too heavy).
Notwithstanding the above, the thing that makes me a little suspicious of the pictured u-joints is the "USA" embossment. The vast majority of parts in the 50's and 60's did not have this sort of marking since it was not really necessary-----virtually all automotive parts for American cars were USA-manufactured.
On the other hand, it does seem highly unlikely that a car that still had its original tires would have had the u-joints replaced.
Joe:
Agree. It's unlikely, but possible.
The issue of whether the '59 had greaseable u-joints should be confirmed by the '59 owner's manual. It shows 2 fittings for the driveshaft.
And I remember what a pain it was to grease them with a standard grease gun because the u-joints had to rotated to allow the gun to reach the fitting.
Joe, the transmission yokes have 'Spicer' molded in, and they are longer than pass yokes. 4.75 long, vice 3.5.
-Dan-
Dan-----
I should have been clearer but I was referring to C2 and C3 yokes and driveshafts in my post #24, above. If you're referring to a C1 transmission yoke, it's possible they were manufactured by Spicer. I don't think C2 and C3 1280 yokes were originally Spicer manufactured.
I bought my 61 when it was six years old. The u joints looked original at that time. They have grease fittings and have spicer cast on them. They received deductions every time the car was judged.
Spoke to a fellow who has a '57 passenger car, 283, PG, he bought new. He said he has never replaced U-joints and they do not have zerks. He had son get under and look as he knew he couldn't get up again if he did.
We use cookies to deliver our services, and to analyze site activity. We do not share or sell any personal information about our users. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment