C2 Upper Ball Joint Availablity

[Mark S.]

I have checked with all the major suppliers and it seems that "correct" replacement C2 upper ball joints are not available at this time. Anyone else had the same issue? Another supply verses demand or...at $29.95 guess we'll have to wait.

[Mark D.]

Re: C2 Upper Ball Joint Availablity

Repop lowers are not typical, either. They can be spotted from the other end of the judging field, with an 'NCRS certified' monocular lense.

The good news is, for around 500 bucks or so, you can have a very nice service replacement set from GM. Thing is, there is a subtle difference there with respect to rivet holes.

Ain't this hobby great?

[Mike E.]

Re: C2 Upper Ball Joint Availablity

I had some on order from CC for about 4 months, in the meantime I founds some at LIC for about $80 each (Ouch), I then canceled the CC order. I think the LIC ones are probably better reproductions, still not perfect but pretty close the spot welds are spaced a little different. The black grease zerk isn't right either, but it can be changed with little effort.






Here what they looked like once I riveted them to the control arm.










Mike

[Alan D.]

Re: C2 Upper Ball Joint Availablity

A few more - one original other is NOS. So the LIC looks nice.
As I recall the NOS will still have the GM part number on the boot however since these tend to be very very old NOS the boots may have rotted

[Ron G.]

Re: C2 Upper Ball Joint Availablity

I have an NOS upper ball joint in the bos if you are interested. My email is goduti@att.net. Thanks.

[David L.]

Re: C2 Upper Ball Joint Availablity

I did some research on 1963-1967 Corvette ball joints in the 5 assembly manuals as well as my 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, and 1967 Chevrolet parts catalogs. I assume that there are some minor differences. Apparently the upper ball joints were not sold over the counter from 1963-1967. My 1982 Corvette Parts Catalog (Nov. 1981) only lists the lower ball joints, GM # 3886422, for 1963-1977 Corvette in Gr. 6.174. Are the 3886422 ball joints made in 1966 the same as those made in 1981?

I also have some NOS ball joints that I bought at a swap meet back in the 1980's to keep as spares for my 1966 Corvette. I will try to find them in the next few days.

Dave

[Joe L.]

Re: C2 Upper Ball Joint Availablity

I did some research on 1963-1967 Corvette ball joints in the 5 assembly manuals as well as my 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, and 1967 Chevrolet parts catalogs. I assume that there are some minor differences. Apparently the upper ball joints were not sold over the counter from 1963-1967. My 1982 Corvette Parts Catalog (Nov. 1981) only lists the lower ball joints, GM # 3886422, for 1963-1977 Corvette in Gr. 6.174. Are the 3886422 ball joints made in 1966 the same as those made in 1981?

I also have some NOS ball joints that I bought at a swap meet back in the 1980's to keep as spares for my 1966 Corvette. I will try to find them in the next few days.

Dave

Dave-----


The history of Corvette ball joints, PRODUCTION and SERVICE, is too complicated to get into, especially at the hour I'm posting this. However, I will say this much:

PRODUCTION and SERVICE UPPER ball joints differed in that PRODUCTION had 11/32" holes for rivets whereas SERVICE had 13/32" holes for bolts. Also, the 1963-64 SERVICE upper ball joints and, possibly, SERVICE lower ball joints had a separate, non-captured grease boot. I don't think these were used in PRODUCTION but it's possible that some 1963's did use this style.

Upper and lower ball joints were available in SERVICE during the 1963-67 (and later) period. The 1963-64 upper were GM #3832160 and lower GM #3832162. The 3832160 had the separate grease boot (I have some NOS examples of these joints) and I expect the 3832162 had the separate boot, too (but I don't have any examples to confirm).

1965-67 (as well as 68-82) SERVICE upper ball joints were GM #3865827. I have numerous NOS examples of this ball joint [none for sale] and, as far as I can tell, they are identical to PRODUCTION except for the difference in hole size as described above.

In March, 1982 the GM #3865827 was discontinued from SERVICE and replaced by GM #9762018. I have numerous NOS examples of the latter [none for sale] and, as far as I can tell, they are identical to the 3865827 except that they are supplied with a white, plastic protector (for shipping and storage purposes only; to be removed when part is installed). The 9762018 was discontinued in July, 1997 and replaced by GM #22156979. I have NOS examples of the 22156979[none for sale] and as far as I can tell, it's identical to the 9762018 except that it's not packaged with the white plastic protector. The 22156979 was discontinued 12 years ago.

As far as the lowers go, they were also available during the 63-67 period. 1963-64 were GM #3832162. I believe these were the style with the separate grease boot and unlike those used in PRODUCTION (except, possibly, some 1963). 1965 were GM #3846266 and, later, GM #3865829. 1966 were GM #3865829 and, later, GM #3886420. 1967-82 were GM #3886422. I have numerous NOS examples of the GM #3886422 [none for sale] and, as far as I can tell, they are identical to PRODUCTION. I expect that the 3846266, 3865289, and 3886420 were identical to PRODUCTION, too, but I can't confirm that.

The GM #3886422 was discontinued in November, 1982 and replaced by GM #9762019. I have numerous NOS examples of the latter [none for sale] and they are identical to the 3886422 except they have the white plastic protector as described above. GM #9762019 was discontinued in March, 1999 and replaced by GM #22156980. The latter only "lived" for a few months and was discontinued without supercession later in 1999.

By the way, the part numbers with "38" first digits are Chevrolet part numbers. I believe the part numbers with "974" or "976" first digits are those of some GM parts manufacturing division of the period. They look like Fisher Body Division part numbers to me but I do not understand why Fisher Body would have been manufacturing parts like these. In any event, some of the "38" and "974"/"976" part numbers could have been the different division part numbers for the exact same part.

[David L.]

Re: C2 Upper Ball Joint Availablity

Joe,

I will have to revise my research. I found the upper ball joints listed in Gr. 6.164.
The 3832160 ball joints sold for $7.90 (list) and the 3832162 ball joints sold for $ 8.70 (list) in May 1963 as per the 1963 Chevrolet Dealer Parts and Accessories Price Schedule. These price schedule books make it easy to find the group number.

Thanks,

Dave

[William F.]

Re: C2 Upper Ball Joint Availablity

How 'bout the ones advertised by America's Finest Corvettes in the Driveline? Are they correct?

[Paul O.]

Re: C2 Upper Ball Joint Availablity

William

There has been extensive discussion on the board about those ball joints. The answer would be yes and no some areas look typical but other areas do not. But my biggest issue along with others is what test have been performed on the part to validate there strength in other words would you drive your car with them installed?

[Mike E.]

Re: C2 Upper Ball Joint Availablity

William

There has been extensive discussion on the board about those ball joints. The answer would be yes and no some areas look typical but other areas do not. But my biggest issue along with others is what test have been performed on the part to validate there strength in other words would you drive your car with them installed?

Structural integrity does concern me too. IMO uppers have less stress on them than the lowers. For some reason most folks seem focus on the uppers. The reproduction lowers are not really very close to originals either. The casting shape is different for starters. The nubs near the rivets are obvious when installed and the boot is not correct.




Mike

[Bob J.]

Re: C2 Upper Ball Joint Availablity

Repop lowers are not typical, either. They can be spotted from the other end of the judging field, with an 'NCRS certified' monocular lense.

The good news is, for around 500 bucks or so, you can have a very nice service replacement set from GM. Thing is, there is a subtle difference there with respect to rivet holes.

Mark, thats very true.
There are additional differences in the boot profile, the boot numbers, and the spot welds.
Bob J

[Joe L.]

Re: C2 Upper Ball Joint Availablity

Here are some photos of an NOS GM #3865827 upper ball joint. I also have NOS examples of the earlier GM #3832160 and follow-on GM #9762018 and 22156979 but I could not find them in a quick look (you'd think that I'd have all the ball joints in the same tote-bin; well, I don't).

Also pictured is an NOS GM #9762019 lower ball joint. I also have many of the earlier GM #3886422 (but I couldn't find them quickly, either)

The GM ball joints do have a GM part number of the grease boot but I don't think it would be discernable installed on the car.

By the way, as I mentioned previously, the upper ball joints have different size holes for PRODUCTION and SERVICE. Otherwise, they are identical to each other. However, they would not have the same part number even if they were in all ways identical because the SERVICE ball joint is supplied with an instruction sheet and installation hardware.

The lower SERVICE ball joints are identical in all ways to the PRODUCTION ball joints (the holes are the same size for both). However, once again, they have a different part number because the SERVICE are supplied with instructions and hardware.

I've always wondered why GM considered it OK to use 5/16" rivets for PRODUCTION installation of the upper ball joints but required 3/8" bolts for the SERVICE ball joints. For the lowers, 3/8" rivets were used in PRODUCTION and 3/8" bolts supplied in SERVICE.


DSCN2821.jpgDSCN2822.jpgDSCN2823.jpgDSCN2824.jpg

[Joe L.]

Re: C2 Upper Ball Joint Availablity

Mark, thats very true.
There are additional differences in the boot profile, the boot numbers, and the spot welds.
Bob J

Bob------


I think they copied the boot from a USED ball joint and not an NOS ball joint.

[Bob J.]

Re: C2 Upper Ball Joint Availablity

Very possible Joe,
these are lowers which I have handy.
3832162 on right and the 3886422 on left.
Upper joint boots have differences just as obvious regarding 63 style verse the later ones100_2137.jpg.