Help!!! 67 Dart Upper Balljoint crooked

-
O

OkanaganDart67

New Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2023
Messages
4
Reaction score
5
Location
British Columbia
Hey everyone, this is my first post here. So I’m working on restoring a 67 Dart and currently working on the front end. Replacing upper ball joints passenger side went in nicely and the driver side started good and ended up going crooked, is it okay like this? I can’t get the boot to stay on or is it able to be re done or is the whole control arm basically a throw away. Any help is much appreciated!!

B6C32E08-4297-442D-9FED-6C124C8F0D08.jpeg


60B9F224-188C-4052-80DB-06E26F648339.jpeg
 
No. You should remove it and reinstall it straight. Do you have the correct socket?
 
AS RRR just replied.
Nope, that's not good.
Take it out, and do your best to start it straight.
My thought also, you using the ball joint socket or a large Channel Lock plyer?
 
There are 3 different size ball joint sockets for our Mopars.
I suggest you get online and purchase the one you need.
They aren't that expensive, and are easy to find.
 
Take it out first, to see if you messed up the threads on the ball joint or the control arm. It should screw in fairly easy when installing by hand. If not, then it is crooked
 
@oka, @RustyRatRod is right. The ball joint does need to be re-installed. As you probably know, the upper ball joint has threads and screws into the UCA (upper control arm). That ball joint looks like it was screwed in at an angle, so something is likely cross threaded. The absolute best-case scenario is that the threads on the both the ball joint and the UCA are OK (rather unlikely). Second best is the threads on the ball joint are messed up and the UCA is OK. That way you just can get a new ball joint and install it. worst case is that the threads in both are destroyed. Then you are looking at finding a good used UCA. However, the ball joint can be threaded into the UCA and then welded into place. Do a series of short stitch welds and control the heat as much as possible. It won't look pretty, but it does work. I would definitely look for another UCA, but welding is an option. The special socket mentioned would be the best way to get the ball joint out. However, there is one other possibility if you can't get the socket. Before I knew about the special socket, I got the ones on my 69 Barracuda out with a medium sized (about 10-12 inches long) pipe wrench. Then I threaded the new ball joints in and tightened them with the same pipe wrench with a two foot long cheater pipe on it. I chewed the top of the ball joint up a bit, but it was plenty tight. Good luck. Keep us advised. I think I speak for most members when I say that we really like it when someone asks a question, and the let us know how things worked out.
 
I agree remove and reinstall streight.

As stated get the correct socket.

The FSM has a torque spec. When it is in straight it will either torque to spec or spin. If it spins get a new UCA.
 
There is also this tidbit. The ball joint has self cutting threads. New control arms are not threaded and the ball joint cuts threads as it installs, so, MAYBE you can straighten it up where it will cut the threads straight. You won't know until you try.
 
hemi71x said:
There are 3 different size ball joint sockets for our Mopars.
I suggest you get online and purchase the one you need.
They aren't that expensive, and are easy to find.
Click to expand...
The smallest I’ve been able to find is the 1-59/64 which is too big the ball joint measures 1-51/64 across the flats
 
I believe you will find the small A body ball joint takes a 1 29/32" socket.
 
Also, some guys claim you can tack weld loose ones in no issue. don't overheat
 
All of the following ball joint sockets are the same size, just made by different tool companies. From the 67 service manual, miller c-3714. Equivalent sockets from other tool companies: snap on s6302, mac sc52 and proto 6549. All can be found on Ebay. Prices for buy it now start at $15.00 plus shipping.
 
did it reach the required torque?

If so leave it its not the end of the world you still have the same amount of thread in the arm as you would have had with it straight. at least its in tight.
the arms had a starting thread, that was all. the thread in the arm is cut by the installation of a Joint.

1) its unlikley to have messed up the threads on the balljoint, on OEM ones there are hardly any threads anyway its like somone half did the job. no depth or peak.

2) it will have splayed out the hole in the arm slightly meaning if you do put it in straight next time you probably won't achive the torque setting before it just goes round and round and round and you will then need to buy a new upper arm.

its a balljoint who cares if the case is a little wonky. there is enough movement in the ball to cover suspension travel and-some. So this will make no difference. it will still do its job and if its in tight it won't come out unless you hit a lower control arm bending 6 inch deep pot hole and basically break everything

oooo the centre of the balljoint is no longer bang in the centre of where it should be!!!!! doesn't matter, you cater for that with you cam bolts during alignment its the position of the stub axle that matters.

basically if you take that out huge chance it goes back in, in exactly the same position again no matter how hard you try Or the arm is rendered junk.

having the correct balljoint socket allows you to torque it correctly it does little to assist in getting them in straight

you can start them in a vice: put joint in vice tap arm down to thread wind arm around joint to start the thread
then fit to car and wind the joint in properly 10% chance of a slight wonkyness even with this kinda care... unless you do 10 of these a day its not a nice job and its prone to the odd fffkup


Dave
 
Pull it out and do it right. Sometimes hard to keep it straight when side loading it with a long handle on the socket. On the last wonky one I did, I started it straight a couple of turns. and advanced it through the tight spots with short gentle bursts from an impact. I found it was easier to keep it straight this way.
 
No way in hell is that stayin like it is if it was mine, whether it reached the required torque or not. It's not ALL the torque that keeps the ball joint IN. It's the CONTACT of the ball joint shoulder on the top of the threaded part of the control arm, which the way it's installed, it has NONE. "Leave it like it is" is just wrong and BAD advice.
 
If you cannot tell that that thing is cross threaded and need to show pictures ask others you need to leave your hands off the steering parts of your car.
Having parts installed properly is a must for your safety and others on the road. If you don't have the knowledge and tools then get a friend there who does for your own sake.
 
Well both of mine where like that when i purchased a supposedly restored car in 2001
happy in my ignorance, i drove it like that for 15 years and suffred no ill effect what so ever.

other than it looked rubbish when i actually had a look.

having picked through pleanty of parts, dug stuff out of wrecked cars and assisted with mates cars over the years its quite common to find one a bit wonky. even when in straight you will find inconsistencies in the pressed steel arm hole that mean the edge of the balljoint head does not contact the arm all the way round.

replacing them resulted in two perfectly installed balljoints that would not torque up properly, so i ended up getting replacment arms and starting again.

Whilst i take on the point that some resistance to coming undone is supplied by the head of the balljoint abutting the rasied edge of the pressed in hole. the balljoints are still installed and torqued to a specific torque. Regardless of how the resistance to their turning is achived a specific torque is a specific torque thats just how it is.
The restsiance to turning increased to a specific level that is assumed to be good enough to make sure they don't start to turn back the other way or pop out. rightly or wrongly straight in or crooked that balljoint has cut itself a brand new good solid thread in that arm that is strong enough to achive a torque figure that mopar felt was appropriate.

The top of that joint has been wound down to a stop and its pressing down over a smaller area. the friction between the top of that joint and the arm its in, will be higher... becasue its pressing on a smaller area.

A heavy box will slide over the floor no problem. the force it applies to the floor is spread across the whole base, if the same box has 4 spikes mounted on the base it won't slide across the floor anymore....

look at the underside of a chrylser flyhweel bolt the head is back cut from the stem leaving only the outer rim to press on the flywheel. wind it and a completely flat underside headed bolt in to the same torque, and the chrysler one is less lilely to come undone. there is greater friction between head and flywheel when the head is undercut. they would not have done the extra machining work on the bolt if it wasn't worth it

the picture above shows wrongness but it aint as wrong as you all make out
it offends sensibilities more than it puts the guy at risk of it popping out.
The point i'm making is that the risk of it not achieving the desired torque and the joint popping out increases if you take it out and try and rectify the situation... a set of arms can put up with 1 maybe 2 balljoint replacements and then thats it...scrap, everey rmoval and replacment moves you closer to needing to tack weld the joint to the arm.

looks **** but is solidly mounted
looks great but achived in an arm that has been stretched by the previous intsall
take yer pick


Dave
 
Last edited:
Dave999 said:
Well both of mine where like that when i purchased a supposedly restored car in 2001
happy in my ignorance, i drove it like that for 15 years and suffred no ill effect what so ever.

other than it looked rubbish when i actually had a look.

having picked through pleanty of parts, dug stuff out of wrecked cars and assisted with mates cars over the years its quite common to find one a bit wonky. even when in straight you will find inconsistencies in the pressed steel arm hole that mean the edge of the balljoint head does not contact the arm all the way round.

replacing them resulted in two perfectly installed balljoints that would not torque up properly, so i ended up getting replacment arms and starting again.

Whilst i take on the point that some resistance to coming undone is supplied by the head of the balljoint abutting the rasied edge of the pressed in hole. the balljoints are still installed and torqued to a specific torque. Regardless of how the resistance to their turning is achived a specific torque is a specific torque thats just how it is.
The restsiance to turning increased to a specific level that is assumed to be good enough to make sure they don't start to turn back the other way or pop out. rightly or wrongly straight in or crooked that balljoint has cut itself a brand new good solid thread in that arm that is strong enough to achive a torque figure that mopar felt was appropriate.

The top of that joint has been wound down to a stop and its pressing down over a smaller area. the friction between the top of that joint and the arm its in, will be higher... becasue its pressing on a smaller area.

A heavy box will slide over the floor no problem. the force it applies to the floor is spread across the whole base, if the same box has 4 spikes mounted on the base it won't slide across the floor anymore....

look at the underside of a chrylser flyhweel bolt the head is back cut from the stem leaving only the outer rim to press on the flywheel. wind it and a completely flat underside headed bolt in to the same torque, and the chrysler one is less lilely to come undone. there is greater friction between head and flywheel when the head is undercut. they would not have done the extra machining work on the bolt if it wasn't worth it

the picture above shows wrongness but it aint as wrong as you all make out
it offends sensibilities more than it puts the guy at risk of it popping out.
The point i'm making is that the risk of it not achieving the desired torque and the joint popping out increases if you take it out and try and rectify the situation... a set of arms can put up with 1 maybe 2 balljoint replacements and then thats it...scrap, everey rmoval and replacment moves you closer to needing to tack weld the joint to the arm.

looks **** but is solidly mounted
looks great but achived in an arm that has been stretched by the previous intsall
take yer pick


Dave
Click to expand...
You can talk all around it however you want, but there's no excuse for doing it WRONG.
 
This was posted a while back.......Several on the forum saw no problem with it. I personally couldn't sleep knowing that thing was on my car. I see the same scenario here. It's just not right. Re-do it....If it doesn't torque properly, get another control arm.

f2e8120f-0bd2-4bcd-b0a0-cf248167d922-jpeg.jpg
 
CFD244 said:
This was posted a while back.......Several on the forum saw no problem with it. I personally couldn't sleep knowing that thing was on my car. I see the same scenario here. It's just not right. Re-do it....If it doesn't torque properly, get another control arm.

View attachment 1716065076
Click to expand...
Steering with automobiles is kinda like airplane wings. It needs to be dead right or something REAL BAD might happen. lol
 
Dave999 said:
Well both of mine where like that when i purchased a supposedly restored car in 2001
happy in my ignorance, i drove it like that for 15 years and suffred no ill effect what so ever.

other than it looked rubbish when i actually had a look.

having picked through pleanty of parts, dug stuff out of wrecked cars and assisted with mates cars over the years its quite common to find one a bit wonky. even when in straight you will find inconsistencies in the pressed steel arm hole that mean the edge of the balljoint head does not contact the arm all the way round.

replacing them resulted in two perfectly installed balljoints that would not torque up properly, so i ended up getting replacment arms and starting again.

Whilst i take on the point that some resistance to coming undone is supplied by the head of the balljoint abutting the rasied edge of the pressed in hole. the balljoints are still installed and torqued to a specific torque. Regardless of how the resistance to their turning is achived a specific torque is a specific torque thats just how it is.
The restsiance to turning increased to a specific level that is assumed to be good enough to make sure they don't start to turn back the other way or pop out. rightly or wrongly straight in or crooked that balljoint has cut itself a brand new good solid thread in that arm that is strong enough to achive a torque figure that mopar felt was appropriate.

The top of that joint has been wound down to a stop and its pressing down over a smaller area. the friction between the top of that joint and the arm its in, will be higher... becasue its pressing on a smaller area.

A heavy box will slide over the floor no problem. the force it applies to the floor is spread across the whole base, if the same box has 4 spikes mounted on the base it won't slide across the floor anymore....

look at the underside of a chrylser flyhweel bolt the head is back cut from the stem leaving only the outer rim to press on the flywheel. wind it and a completely flat underside headed bolt in to the same torque, and the chrysler one is less lilely to come undone. there is greater friction between head and flywheel when the head is undercut. they would not have done the extra machining work on the bolt if it wasn't worth it

the picture above shows wrongness but it aint as wrong as you all make out
it offends sensibilities more than it puts the guy at risk of it popping out.
The point i'm making is that the risk of it not achieving the desired torque and the joint popping out increases if you take it out and try and rectify the situation... a set of arms can put up with 1 maybe 2 balljoint replacements and then thats it...scrap, everey rmoval and replacment moves you closer to needing to tack weld the joint to the arm.

looks **** but is solidly mounted
looks great but achived in an arm that has been stretched by the previous intsall
take yer pick


Dave
Click to expand...
Wow, Take another hit.
 
1679143668421.png

I can't imagine the old one was installed as such. You might figure a way to support the a-arm so you can put some down force on it while starting it.

Lol, way back, I took a die grinder to a socket that as I recall, used only once before. Haven't used it since.

1679144134724.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top