MII ball joint Failure- Read if you have MII

Cool.
'This guy' thanks everybody, hotroddin, badlefihand, for the tech manual references.
Thanks Elpolacko for the explaination pointing out that the median torque specs on a tapered suspension attachment is actually around half of what the max torque would be on a straight shank grade 8 with the same threads. That makes my theory, that tightening to the next notch would result in overtorque, is all wet anyhow.

Not to make excuses, but actually I have never hung a torque wrench on a tapered suspension attachment. Just tightened them up like I meant it, and aligned the cotter pin hole. I do use a torque wrench on con-rod, main bearing, head, flywheel bolts and such.

 

Low and behold, here is the nut,as I have said it broke coming in the garage. Nut looks pretty good except where part of cotter key came through.

 

Another case of reputable rod shop forced to buy and sell that Chinese shit...

 

I started this thread to let H.A.M.B members know of a potential problem with MII ball joints and one that I incountered with the unit that I have installed on my 47 and hope this will bring an awareness to the parts and procedures nessesary to insure a safe installation with this type of front end.
My thanks to Elpolacko for his learned opinion.His knowledge of MII suspension is well known within the H.A.M.B.

Adding to the info- I have no way of knowing the hardness of the ball joint however using a file to mar the surface tells me that the parts seem to be heat treated properly altho the elongation of the cotter key hole is of concern. Checking the taper under a magnifying glass shows a stacked series of rings(tree rings),this indicates that tapered part of ball joint was working within the spindle and was not an immediate failure but worked it selve out as it loosened and destroyed the threads on the ball joint,(note the nut threads seem to show little damage.) In my opinion things that can cause this, poor heat treat ,under torque or a taper that is under size allowing movement and scratching the rings on the taper part of the ball joint.In turn the nut would work it selve loose as the movement destroyed the threads of the ball joint little by little.Comparing the measurments of the unknown joint with the moog joint shows a distinctive differance between parts. All the measurements show the moog joint is made to a much closer tolerance than the unknown ball joint and fits the spindle much tighter. 001 may be acceptable but .010 is a lot of slop in the taper fit. I pulled the cotter key (with some difficulty) and checked the opposite lower ball joint, the torque check showed 20 foot pounds,so that to has same type problem. I would like to add that I have had to work with maintanance manual in hand most of my working life, and I can not remember assm. ball joints with out proper torque or for that matter most other applications that torque is required.

In my opinion the taper fit is destroyed by the tolerances of the unknown ball joint and the taper of the ball joint is undersize.

I would advise to buy control arms from a reputable dealer and question the origin of the ball joints or replace them with a ball joint of known reliability. Thanks,

 

Just a quick question: is it possible that's an SAE nut and metric threads on the ball joint stud? It is possible to put metric and standard threads together and they will sometimes tighten reasonably well, but once there is any load it'll strip off. Looks just like what you have there.
The fact that the nut threads aren't trashed makes me wonder...

 

Yes, I thought of that but I have to get the other side up in the air to remove ball joint to check threads. If threads do not match I will correct post.

 

That's a problem with wheel studs too. The offshore clone manufacturers have a habit of using metric threads/studs and not marking them as such. I had a set of GM 7/16"-20 which had metric studs. The nuts fit on the thread but felt a little loose which is when I replaced them with ARP studs.

Back to M II balljoints. If I ever have a vehicle come in with M II type suspension, I immediately check the front cross member for cracks or any sign of potential stress risers. The everything else gets replaced - heavy duty DOM A-arms from Spartan Rod Works, as mentioned in my earlier post and forged spindles. I used to use Chubby Chassis M II stuff from Howard Kaye before he shut up shop but have found Spartans stuff to be equally industrial strength and run it under a 4000 lb car with no concerns. I really like the Volare screw in balljoints which both of these companies use. I specify Moog if I have a replacement situation.

I also replace all wheel bearings and only use U.S. made bearings from NTN. Chinese bearings are crap and you are just adding an element of potential failure if you use them - throw them out and go with the good stuff. My 0.02c FWIW....

 

Without blowing too much smoke up your ass, I'd respect your opinions or setups over anything that the average catalog grinds out thousands of times per year. What I see is joe average who bought on price vs value and in most cases ends up in trouble. To say you're just a suspension guy would be like saying Oz is just a painter. I know it can work, I got 'louver's message too. 3055# is what I consider a light car. Clearly in today's climate of instant gratification and record profit desired by the manufacturers (import shit) now more than ever EVERYTHING should be checked and double checked and that doesn't happen often enough. Even the fuckin waitress can't get a breakfast order right 1/2 the time and it's probably her kid stockin and buildin these kits. Cynical? Yes. The roads here in MI have holes big enough to hide a mideast sleeper cell. On the road, strength and quality rules. It's not the weight, it's how it goes up exponentially when you hit that hole. Most OEM suspensions take a beating from that shit and I can't visualize a heavy car with lighter suspension doing better. Yes I know how unsprung weight reduction can aid handling and performance, but short of it being engineered by skilled people who truely give a shit (sounds like you) I'd still make it my last choice in a heavy car.

 

That's the trick though, and why I pay attention to matching vehicles and suspensions. I think it would be a safe bet to assume that most people have no clue what their car weighs. Much less what the final weight of a car would be that they are building from scraps.

It's a bit ironic for me over the last few days. I'm working on a quote to re-suspend a 1962 Lincoln Continental. Surprised it "only" weighs in at 5100 pounds! Needless to say, no Mustang II there

 

i always find it funny when China gets blamed for US and Canadian companies ordering parts and haveing them shiped over here that are not up to the job, China or any other country for that matter doesnt make up a bunch of car parts, fills up a container and ships them over here in hopes someone at the dock is waiting to buy them, geez...US and Canadian companies search the world for companies who build auto parts, find one and send them drawings with specs, recive a sample run, check them out to see if they match the specs, order a shipment, setup a quality control system that most likely is pulling x number of parts out of every pallet to see if they match the specs, dont be looking at others to blame for crapy car parts, the problem in right in your backyard,

i have a moog i think lower balljoint new in a box i bought 30 years ago that is so loose it rattles when you shake it, i think i still have it, US made, it just got through the system, i was a dumb ass for not checking it out till 10 years later, i check everything out to see if it was made correctly because sometimes it's not, in this case the nut didnt fit the thread, maybe it was metric?

 

budd, I seriously doubt that U.S. companies call their contacts in China and say "how about you guys building a batch of ball joints so poorly made they kill people". And yes, I do agree that there has been some less than stellar parts built here too. But, the most common problem I see is stuff coming in from China and India where quality control is non existent. And sorry if it bothers you to hear this, but those two countries are the most prominent for this kind of activity. I could go on with this, but it's sort of a moot point. We know where the vast majority of the junk comes from, how not to use it is the question.

 

That's how I ended up with the Jag stuff under my Buick, the track was right, then on further investigation the weight was spot on.

 

we absolutly do order everything that comes into our counrties, its not just auto parts, thats the process, having worked for companies that have parts made in China i know the process, i have seen containers of parts shiped back that were not up to specs, the manufactures have quality control but the quality control for parts being sold rests with the seller, thats us.

 

Steve what are you thinking of using for the front end on the 62 Lincoln? Just curious

 

A bit of info to consider regarding weights: Mustang II
Coupe 2620
Ghia 2866
Fastback 2699
Mach I 2793

Weight Dist. 58 / 42

Light little suckers, I think the earlier ones are over 3000 lbs.

 

http://www.automobilesreview.com/ga...w-bmw-7-series-double-wishbone-front-axle.jpg

I would post the pic but it's huge!

Same for the rear.

 

Continental 7series????
Do you still post project progress pictures on your website.
Might not be good for here, but I want to watch it go in.

 

Yep, sure do!

I'm a bit behind right now but as soon as I have confirmation on the project I will start a blog page about it.

 

A bit off the path but related, I had a 69 mustang, M I suspension, very similar to an M II, I broke both shock towers out of it at the 13 year mark, of the dozen M I's I had several had shock tower problems that made them un alignable, I would say that is catastrophic. I looked at maybe 50 or so and used to part them out and I bet that by year 15 over half of them were failures. I also broke several Moog ball joints back in the 80's before all the imports.

 

This was posted by Lowdown40 over on the Ford Barn;

In the November Street Scene magazine, the member mag for the NSRA, in the "safety first" column, there is mention of problems with the lower ball joints used by many of the aftermarket manufacturers. It seems that many of the aftermarket manufacturers are using upper ball joints in their lower tube control arms. This is a misuse of a component and the failures are starting to show up. This problem was addressed by Ron Ceridono in an article in the August 2003 Street Rodder about the front suspension in his 41 Ford sedan. In the article, he changed the control arms on his front end to units manufactured by us, WEEDETR Street Rod Components, as we have always used a lower ball joint in our control arms. The use of the correct ball joint requires that the lower boss on the Mustang II spindle be reamed to fit. We are offering a special on our website www.weedetrstreetrod.com for December and January to help correct this for those using these control arms with the incorrect ball joints. Considering the amount of weight on the front of most fat fendered Fords, and other makes also, it would seem that there probably are many more failures out there that what have been reported. Comparing the upper and the correct lower ball joints, it is obvious that the lower ball joint is much stronger. If you have a Mustang II style IFS wit tube control arms in your car, it is time to get under and check it out!

 

It appears that a heat treat step was missed. Also that seems to be a lot of torque on the nut.

 

K772 is a Volare' upper but a K719 is visually the same and also fits the same and IS a lower ball joint.

http://www.energysuspensionparts.com/proddetail.asp?prod=MOOG-K719



Here is the K772

http://www.energysuspensionparts.com/proddetail.asp?prod=MOOG-K772

 

Just saw this - Early Mustang (what you re referring to as MI) front suspension is very far removed in design and application compared to MII. The springs mounted on the upper control arm and road in a "Shock Tower" that was a sheet metal component part of the unibody structure. The upper control arm in turn also mounted to the lower part of this tower. The MII had a crossmember that mounted the upper and lower control arms and the spring mounts to the lower control arm and the Spring had that was part of the crossmember. Early Mustang had recirculating ball steering box, MII has a Rack and Pinion. The only thing that is similar is they both had tension rods connected to the lower control arm.
I have owned about a dozen early Mustangs and Falcons (same suspension design) and have NEVER had a shock tower failure or actually seen one in real life ~ only pictures of cars that had been wrecked at some point or were very rusty.
Hell I know a guy who raced a 65 Ranchero Off Road (Including Baja 100) with stock front suspension design and the shock towers held up. In fact AK Miller ran a 68 In Baja as well.
Just haven't seen what you reported

 

Yup I use all don tubing and the screw in style volaire style ball joints and work perfect...lot more money but that's one area you don't want to pinch pennies on..

 

Those look like curb (vehicle plus fuel) weight numbers. I'm pretty sure the GVW (gross vehicle weight) numbers are all over 3000 lbs. I know the Pinto wagons were up around 3500 lbs at GVW. The cars were small, but that front suspension is very rugged.

 

I can point to several california aerospace companies that source parts through china, one in wichita and one in seattle.

Yes, they do shop by price. Spend $10 to save a nickel.

 

Originally post by badlefihand:

"Just wanted to let it be known that some of these parts we buy are NG."

More like NFG. Back in the'80s, when we were starting to fall in love with offshore products, I spent three years in a Porsche/Audi dealer as a line tech, our shop policy was always to replace any suspension nylock nuts we removed with brand-new. We went thru a lot on the Audis at that time, supsension was dropped a lot for various repairs. Parts manager thought he could pad his bottom line by buying offshore nylocks, instead of the factory ones, which technically were offshore too, I guess, just a different shore. First batch stripped out when torqued to factory spec, the steel was so soft. He went back to the factory issues.

 

This is right on , very, very true.

 

leaning on past experience of being a front end specialist in tire stores and dealerships the factory Chrysler product lower ball joints on the rear wheel drive cars had a certain a*ount of slack in the* fro* the factory.
If you check the factory shop *anual it should give the specs for the joints in question.

 

I had a ball joint fail on my wife's 70 chevelle convertible. the tappered shaft broke in half. Luckly I was pulling into a parking lot and only going about 5 miles per hour. I bought the car with the front end already done so I do not know who made the parts. One thing I have always tried to remember is any thing mechanical or electrical can and will fail!