Notices
928 Forum 1978-1995
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by: 928 Specialists

Front upper A arm ball joint construction

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-12-2016, 08:58 AM
  #16  
FredR
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
FredR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oman
Posts: 9,848
Received 724 Likes on 580 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by hwyrnr
I might be off in left field, but why have it machined for threads instead of a groove for a circlip?

James
James,

The problem with these arms is that they are very compact size wise thus presumably why they are forged to optimise strength. The taper section is about 16.3mm in diameter and the ball itself is going to be bigger, presumably a minimum of 20mm diameter. The socket the ball sits in has to be strong enough to retain the assembly [5mm min thick?], the walls of the arm the joints sit in are 19mm high, so one presumes that the joint must be monolithic with the arm thus why they were never intended for refurbishment & need insert of a specific type once opened up.

The nature of such joints is that they usually have an upper and a lower seat and are pre-tensioned by a flat spring or belleville type washer. The geometry thus leaves very little space for sealing up the affair and I presumed that the cap is pressed or bonded into place. When it is refurbished the Company doing this work presumably cut out the existing cover and then re-work the side by threading them with some meat left on the outer wall [but not much] and I would think the new "cap" is radiused on the inboard side to hold the innerds to the correct tension. Thus my thinking is that whereas they can thread for say 5mm they may not be able to groove it such that there is sufficent meat to hold the joint together safely givn the width of the groove and the meat needed above it. Opening up such a joint may confirm whether this presumption is correct or not.

Remember, this joint does not take much in the way of load and its prime purpose is to stabilise the steering knuckle so the load is lateral, not axial.

In my case the passenger side joint now has a pronounced axial movement and whereas I cannot feel any lateral movement, something has clearly worn, that or the spring has failed. Given the seat is spherical in nature and is now enlarged, it is difficult to see how it can possibly have sufficient restraint to do its job as intended thus I figure the joint is shot.

My lesson learned here is that every 5 years one should replace the rubber cover, re-pack with grease and leave it for another 5 years. Had I followed this practice I doubt the joint would have failed but those rubber boots are vulnerable and particularly so in hot climates.

Rgds

Fred
Old 09-12-2016, 11:56 AM
  #17  
hwyrnr
Instructor
 
hwyrnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

That sounds fair enough for me. I'm new to this. I have to do the pass. side of mine "will probably do both sides" but mine is an 84 so I feel a little more fortunate to be able to get a rebuild kit.

James



Quick Reply: Front upper A arm ball joint construction



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 07:46 PM.