New ball joints needed at 30,000 miles?

FishOnOne wrote:

Wes Tausend wrote:
Then there is the question: Do ball joints always maintain an adequate film of grease on their contact surface?
...

I would think with a thick viscous grease and identical mating surfaces (ball and cup) that there will always be a thin boundary layer of greese. Also I like to use grease that contains moly as that creates a very slippery surface.

Troy,

I'm not so sure that grease always stays in between the mating surfaces indefinately. In the case of a rough road, the grease may suction back and forth, replenishing the lube film. But on a very smooth road, so little "lube distribution" movement may take place as to allow a zero film condition to develop. Then the joint may be dry on some greaseable aftermarket balljoints, steel-on-steel.

One of the reasons a dry contact may occur may be more likely on a solid axle 4x4 Ford (or Dodge) is that there is no rocking motion induced by independent suspension arms compressing vertically because of a wavy (unlevel) road for instance. The only motion that these trapped live-axle type ball joints make is rotational during steering. So no additional "side reservoir" grease is dragged back to the pressure points, once it has squeezed out. City and smooth highway driving may be tougher on aftermarket ball joints than rough roads.

That is why I earlier referred to the mortar-pestle effect. Imagine I am crushing corn into flour. If I do not occasionally raise the pestle to allow more corn to fall under it, I will eventually grind what is there to fine powder, then nothing. The same seems true of Ford ball joints on my trucks. The ballstem is on top like a pestle, the receiving cup under it like a mortar. The ball stem only rotates (steers). Unless some road bump happens to momentarily lift the stem away from the cup, I could just as well be spinning the ball in one place under high pressure and at high speed to accelerate the slower, but eventual, dry contact that I speak of.

And that is why I think maybe Ford has thought this through and now uses the greaseless balljoints with self-lubing plastic cups. These OEM greaseless joints may very well be superior to aftermarket steel-on-steel replacements. Looking at YouTube, NAPA may offer the plastic cups in a greaseable design for those that might agree with me on the virtues of plastic, but still feel better about periodic maintainence lubing.

Anyway, whatever happened to my truck was a very high friction condition until the balljoint spacing re-set perfectly matched the factory tolerance between the axle yoke and spindle yoke. The improper 1st install caused the upper and lower to conflict with one another. In spite of the small contact surfaces, balljoints can and do have high friction associated with them under some conditions. The end goal is the least amount possible friction at all times, however that is achieved.

Does what I'm trying to say make any more sense now?

Here is an interesting YouTube cut-apart of a worn Ford greaseless balljoint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04DJ1R5cSy4

----------------
Concerning using moly grease, I would think that a good chassis grease is required too. From oils to stiff grease, some lubricants do withstand the specific static loads better. One example is the crater compound we used on locomotive drives. It is a thick, black, tarry grease that sticks well to, and drags around on moving surfaces. Locomotives largely avoid gear transmissions because of natural tooth wear under such high torque loads. Torque conversion range, from stall to max speed, is achieved electrically. But they cannot help but have one gear, a pinion gear shrink attached to the traction motor shaft that directly drives the large ring gear on the driven wheel side. Since each motor (of six) puts out well over 600hp, there is a terrific sustained load on this gear mesh. The thick crater compound drags over the teeth which is good. But if the lube containment pan is knocked off by track debris, there is a danger the pinion gear will get so hot for lack of lube, it will expand and slip on the motor shaft.

Wes
...

brooks379 wrote:
Truck dealers can charge a lot of money to replace the cheap Ball/U joint they put in trucks. I have never had to replace a Spicer or Moog grease able joint after I installed them and always used quality grease regularly with them. You can talk until the cows come home but in the end you need.... QUALITY GREASE ABLE BALL/U JOINTS.... We have owned a lot of big semi's and heavy duty pick ups and it all comes down to Quality parts and Quality grease !!

I agree.

Dealerships and shops that do not know how to correctly use a grease gun I try to avoid.

Wes Tausend wrote:

brooks379 wrote:
Truck dealers can charge a lot of money to replace the cheap Ball/U joint they put in trucks. I have never had to replace a Spicer or Moog grease able joint after I installed them and always used quality grease regularly with them. You can talk until the cows come home but in the end you need.... QUALITY GREASE ABLE BALL/U JOINTS.... We have owned a lot of big semi's and heavy duty pick ups and it all comes down to Quality parts and Quality grease !!

Then there is the question: Do ball joints always maintain an adequate film of grease on their contact surface?
...

I would think with a thick viscous grease and identical mating surfaces (ball and cup) that there will always be a thin boundary layer of greese. Also I like to use grease that contains moly as that creates a very slippery surface.

brooks379 wrote:
Truck dealers can charge a lot of money to replace the cheap Ball/U joint they put in trucks. I have never had to replace a Spicer or Moog grease able joint after I installed them and always used quality grease regularly with them. You can talk until the cows come home but in the end you need.... QUALITY GREASE ABLE BALL/U JOINTS.... We have owned a lot of big semi's and heavy duty pick ups and it all comes down to Quality parts and Quality grease !!

I sure agree with having chassis zerks on most items, like u-joints and shaft splines for instance. But there is a good chance that your trucks would conveniently steer slightly better/easier with nylon-cupped ball joints. And I'm not sure plastic (nylon?) cups are compatable with having a hole in them for a grease path. Other than corrosion resistance, is grease even needed with these type joints? Plastic 5th wheel lube-plate washers come to mind, in this case cleaner than gobs of grease. Some grease is needed for corrosion protection of course.

Then there is the question: Do ball joints always maintain an adequate film of grease on their contact surface? On smooth roads, there is often a lot of steady pressure on the tiny ball while it supports the weight of the vehicle. This is akin to a mortar-and-pestle effect. On the other hand, steady bouncing on a rough road might suck grease back in between enough that rough roads are much better off with greasable steel-on-steel.

I now don't mind the steel-on-steel ball joints in my pick-up too much, especially since they have been re-installed correctly. But the steering is just a bit stiffer yet. The easy-steering Excursion still does track just slightly better with original factory greaseless joints. Of course my Excursion has a V-10 rather than the heavier diesel, but I don't believe there is a lot of difference in weight. The Triton engines are some of the heaviest gassers Ford has ever made, I believe with even the 5.4L V8 weighing more than the old 460 cu in.

Wes
...

Truck dealers can charge a lot of money to replace the cheap Ball/U joint they put in trucks. I have never had to replace a Spicer or Moog grease able joint after I installed them and always used quality grease regularly with them. You can talk until the cows come home but in the end you need.... QUALITY GREASE ABLE BALL/U JOINTS.... We have owned a lot of big semi's and heavy duty pick ups and it all comes down to Quality parts and Quality grease !!

The ball joints in my 2003 F-350 were absolutely shot at around 85,000 miles to the point that they were making a tremendous amount of noise while turning and the steering actually locked up a couple of times while backing up the trailer. Replaced them with greasable Spicers and they were much better.

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.

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
...

jus2shy wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

GeoBoy wrote:

brooks379 wrote:
I've seen ball joints wear out in 30,000 mile. They are the non grease able ball joints the big 3 US Auto makers use on trucks .I have a F 350 with only 2 grease zerts on the whole front end. Get them replaced with quality grease able ball joints and u joints while it's apart, grease them with good quality grease and you will probably never replace them again.

A co-worker has a 2015 Ram 3500 dually and no grease fittings, my 2015 GMC Sierra 3500HD dually has 8 grease fittings. Why don't all the truck mfg. have grease fittings on the front suspensions? It cannot be due to cost savings.

Probably due to costs savings... Having said that not all non grease able ball joints are bad.

I rotated the tires on my truck (with no grease able ball joints) with 84k miles and couldn't feel any slop in any ball joints.

Reason why many manufacturers moved away from greasable ball joints is because the current majority of vehicle owners (and probably dealerships) would never utilize them or even utilize them correctly. It cuts down on warranty issues and usually gets the vehicle to the end of the warranty period. Or some of the users that do grease their joints, don't think to clean off the zerk before applying grease (thereby getting dirt and grime into the greased joint). Or some do the opposite and over-grease a ball joint, breaking the rubber seal and getting grease all over the place (guilty of this when I was just a teenager). Hell, there's 1 grease zerk on my RAM that's hard to get to and most dealerships don't even know it exists (it's for the front cardan joint on the forward drive shaft). I also bet most lube techs over-greased joints as well and would break the rubber seal, since many of them are straight out of high school. How often do owners that actually know how to maintain their vehicle have to go and correct the work and correct a "Service Adviser" when it comes to performing certain maintenance tasks? Hell, even ordering coolant for my truck was a pain, FCA changed from a HOAT to an OAT in 2013 and most dealerships weren't aware of that and almost gave me the wrong coolant. Hell, my dealership wasn't aware of a second fuel filter that resides underneath the bed of my vehicle, they kept telling me there was only 1 filter on there until I had them lift my vehicle and I showed them the actual filter, hence laying down the "STFU and gimme my filter".

I had a similar experience with Ford as well, especially when they took issue with me installing a 2nd USB port (That already existed on the F-150). Had to show them that I added no hardware except for a cable before they'd warranty my head unit for acting weird.

It makes sense from the manufacturer's stand point in reducing claims and issues with maintaining vehicles. Less to "Maintain" means less opportunity for screw-ups.

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.

FishOnOne wrote:

GeoBoy wrote:

brooks379 wrote:
I've seen ball joints wear out in 30,000 mile. They are the non grease able ball joints the big 3 US Auto makers use on trucks .I have a F 350 with only 2 grease zerts on the whole front end. Get them replaced with quality grease able ball joints and u joints while it's apart, grease them with good quality grease and you will probably never replace them again.

A co-worker has a 2015 Ram 3500 dually and no grease fittings, my 2015 GMC Sierra 3500HD dually has 8 grease fittings. Why don't all the truck mfg. have grease fittings on the front suspensions? It cannot be due to cost savings.

Probably due to costs savings... Having said that not all non grease able ball joints are bad.

I rotated the tires on my truck (with no grease able ball joints) with 84k miles and couldn't feel any slop in any ball joints.

Reason why many manufacturers moved away from greasable ball joints is because the current majority of vehicle owners (and probably dealerships) would never utilize them or even utilize them correctly. It cuts down on warranty issues and usually gets the vehicle to the end of the warranty period. Or some of the users that do grease their joints, don't think to clean off the zerk before applying grease (thereby getting dirt and grime into the greased joint). Or some do the opposite and over-grease a ball joint, breaking the rubber seal and getting grease all over the place (guilty of this when I was just a teenager). Hell, there's 1 grease zerk on my RAM that's hard to get to and most dealerships don't even know it exists (it's for the front cardan joint on the forward drive shaft). I also bet most lube techs over-greased joints as well and would break the rubber seal, since many of them are straight out of high school. How often do owners that actually know how to maintain their vehicle have to go and correct the work and correct a "Service Adviser" when it comes to performing certain maintenance tasks? Hell, even ordering coolant for my truck was a pain, FCA changed from a HOAT to an OAT in 2013 and most dealerships weren't aware of that and almost gave me the wrong coolant. Hell, my dealership wasn't aware of a second fuel filter that resides underneath the bed of my vehicle, they kept telling me there was only 1 filter on there until I had them lift my vehicle and I showed them the actual filter, hence laying down the "STFU and gimme my filter".

I had a similar experience with Ford as well, especially when they took issue with me installing a 2nd USB port (That already existed on the F-150). Had to show them that I added no hardware except for a cable before they'd warranty my head unit for acting weird.

It makes sense from the manufacturer's stand point in reducing claims and issues with maintaining vehicles. Less to "Maintain" means less opportunity for screw-ups.