nano wrote:
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 wheel about 300 miles total per year. That's the only workout our truck gets.
goducks10 wrote:
Not impossible but kinda rare with those miles if you're running stock tires. I read the Cummins forum and the majority of ball joint issues are guys with larger tires.
Got 32,000 on mine and no BJ issues.
Wes Tausend wrote: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
...
nano wrote:
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 wheel about 300 miles total per year. That's the only workout our truck gets.
nano wrote:
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 wheel about 300 miles total per year. That's the only workout our truck gets.
nano wrote:
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 wheel about 300 miles total per year. That's the only workout our truck gets.
goducks10 wrote:
Not impossible but kinda rare with those miles if you're running stock tires. I read the Cummins forum and the majority of ball joint issues are guys with larger tires.
Got 32,000 on mine and no BJ issues.
goducks10 wrote:
Not impossible but kinda rare with those miles if you're running stock tires. I read the Cummins forum and the majority of ball joint issues are guys with larger tires.
Got 32,000 on mine and no BJ issues.
Wes Tausend wrote: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
...
Wes Tausend wrote: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
...
nano wrote:
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 wheel about 300 miles total per year. That's the only workout our truck gets.
nano wrote:
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 wheel about 300 miles total per year. That's the only workout our truck gets.
