New ball joints needed at 30,000 miles?
We have a 2012 Ram 2500. Just turned 30,000 miles. Brought it in for a recall and oil change, and found that both upper and lower ball joints are shot. Does that seem right? We only haul our 5th w...
Forum Discussion
Wes Tausend wrote:FishOnOne wrote:
Hell I agree with your points J2S :B
You can include what most manufacturers are competing at is the overall cost of ownership, but in the end it's a cost cutting measure.
Troy,
I'm not so sure the greaseless ball joints are a cost cutting measure so much as a different design that is not compatable with zerks or having a lube passageway hole. I can't remember where I found it, but I found info on the web that the reason Ford used greaseless zerks was because they use a nylon(?) socket cup to receive the ball in the ball joints. I imagine a cup hole for grease path would even be detrimental.
The reason they use these type joints is because they reduce turning effort and allow caster settings to do their job for better handling. I posted a long saga about how I found this out in this other thread.
By my measurements, I believe Ford factory greaseless balljoints do steer better. If I replace ball joints in my V-10 Excursion, I will spec OEM balljoints. The first ones have exceeded 100k miles. Steel-on-steel may be more durable, but Ford engineered life is plenty good enough for me.
Wes
...
In my opinion the Super Duty's come with the really good grease less ball joints. We have two Super Duty's ('02 and '03) with 7.3's with ~350k combined miles with original ball joints.
My last two personal trucks have been Super Duty's with a combined 250k miles, and I haven't changed ball joints in them either. I agree if ball joints ever have to be replaced, I would go with the Ford OEM parts without question.
