57 Buick Ball Joints

[gearhead]

I am converting my 57 Roadmaster to use a lower A arm and ball joint from a 59 Buick. The upper A arm of the 59 will not fit the 57. My suspension will be a hybrid of a 57 upper and a 59 lower.

My question regards the reason for the 57 lower ball joints wearing out prematurely. I know the upper ball joints seem OK, that it is the lower ones that are the problems.

I have looked at both 57 and 58/59 configurations and the cause of the problem is not obvious - at least to me. In both cases, both the upper and lower ball joints are mounted so the stud is down. The attachment of the ball joint to the lower A arm is different, but that should not affect the wear characteristics. The spindles are not interchangeable, but only because the attachment to the backing plate is different. The height dimension is identical and the ball joint attachment is the same. The shape of the lower A arm appears to be identical between the two except for the attachment of the ball joint.

So, I don't get it! If you understand it, I would appreciate your comments. If you want to talk about it, send me a PM with your phone number and I'll give you a call and we can discuss over the phone.

This is a significant enough problem that I would really like to see if I can get to the bottom of it and send in an article to be published in the Buick Bugle.

[Bhigdog]

Your ball joint may not be worn out at all. There is supposed to be .060 play in the bottoms right out of the box. It takes a bit of digging to find this info. I think it's in service bulletins. My books are about a snowy 150 yds and 10 degree weather away so maybe someone else will chime in.................Bob

[Guest Rob McDonald]

It may be an old mechanic's wives' tale but I heard the same story many years ago, when I pondered buying an NOS set of these jewels (was the $300 that I eventually paid too much, do you think?). They seemed awfully sloppy to me but an old GM mechanic friend was with me. He said they were all like that. They will actually clunk unless you keep them pumped full of grease. I believe that is why they were known to fail prematurely - owners were too lazy (or cheap) to keep them lubed.

[TG57Roadmaster]

gearhead,

Maybe this service info for the Product Service Bulletin (BPS 2.424, April 23, 1957) will help.

Larger

I know you're facing an expensive(!) resto, but why complicate things by trying

to make '59 parts fit a '57?

TG

[gearhead]

Thank you all for your input. I'm not sure I really made myself clear in why I was asking the question.

The ball joints on the 57 Buick are a well known weakness, especially the lowers. My question was to why this is the case. I see no apparent fundamental difference between that suspension and the 58/59 suspension. The lower A arm is different, but only in how the ball joint attaches.

As to your question, TG57Roadmaster, the lower A arm of the 58/59 is a direct bolt in and the ball joints can be bought for only $50 or so and these, apparently, don't have the inherent weakness of the 57 design. I say it is a direct bolt in, but the attachment to the body cross member is a larger bolt and it needs to be drilled out larger. Not a difficult conversion by any stretch of the imagination to get an, appartently, more robust front end. All other geometry is identical.

From the first response to my question, there is a lot of play at the lower ball joint. Perhaps the 57 is not really so bad after all, it is just perceived as such due to this end play.

I appreciate all of your comments and input. This is a very thoughtful and helpful forum!!

[Guest Rob McDonald]

TOM, the service bulletin explains this "sloppy" condition very well. I'm sure that there would be instantaneous gaps in the joints during rough service - like trying to navigate the icy ruts in my back lane right now. That's what the dust seals were for, to keep grit from entering the joint and scoring the bearing surfaces. For the same reason, that's why suspension systems and steering joints were greased every couple of months. If you keep the sockets packed, dirt can't get in.

A couple of weeks ago, Dan (CABALLERO2) sent me drawings that he made, describing the dust seals and cupped washers for the '57 Buick ball joints. It's been so miserably cold around here all month, that I haven't felt like prowling the local bearing supply shops, to see if I can find a readily available match. It's supposed to warm up a bit by Friday, so I'll venture out then; will let you all know what I find.

[1957buickjim]

Rob, let me know what you come up with. It is true with the suspension of a 1957 that grease is our friend. Stay warm up there in the REAL north! If you can't find any that match, let's see if we can make them. I would give it a try.

[Fr. Buick]

The lower joint will always wear faster because it carries the weight of the car. The coil spring is bushing down on the joint, and the road is pushing up on it, as it were... The upper joint is there just to hold things steady. This is one reason why the upper A-arm is smaller in length and width.

I am always amused at the thought of my '54 having 26 or so zirks to lube on the front suspension, which I do every two thousand miles when I change the oil and adjust the brakes.

Short story long, whatever you do, keep it lubed!

[buick man]

OK. So here is my question. When you are pumping the grease into the zert at each ball joint, just how much is enough? I ask this because my car came with each ball joint completely covered in grease. Looks like they kept pumping until the grease bleeds right out of the sides and then some. Looks like they then wipe the grease around the entire joint so it is covered with around a 3/8 inch deep coating. My grease was rancid and ancient and while I was cleaning the entire front suspension I removed this coating. I will be pumping grease back into the ball joints so I am asking this question as to get an idea as to how much is enough.

[Bhigdog]

OK. So here is my question. When you are pumping the grease into the zert at each ball joint, just how much is enough? I ask this because my car came with each ball joint completely covered in grease. Looks like they kept pumping until the grease bleeds right out of the sides and then some. Looks like they then wipe the grease around the entire joint so it is covered with around a 3/8 inch deep coating. My grease was rancid and ancient and while I was cleaning the entire front suspension I removed this coating. I will be pumping grease back into the ball joints so I am asking this question as to get an idea as to how much is enough.

I was always taught to grease until excess starts to appear. That's what I do for frequently regreased parts. If it's been awhile I grease until NEW looking grease appears. I don't think you can over grease but you sure can under grease..........Bob

Edited February 14, 2011 by Bhigdog (see edit history)

[Bhigdog]

Finally found it. Page 73 in the 1957 Product Service Bulletin. Title paragraph is

"loose ball stud in lower control arm". It states there is supposed to be approx 1/16" (.062) movement of the ball in it's socket. I was going to scrap mine as worn out until I found this. Mine measured exactly .060 of play. If someone wants to scan and post the page it mite help some folks..........Bob

[buick man]

I think they go on to say how one goes about measuring the runout free play.

How did you you measure it to get .060?

[Bhigdog]

I think they go on to say how one goes about measuring the runout free play.

How did you you measure it to get .060?

Actually they don't say anything in that section about measuring play. In another section they mention the tire having 1/4" of lateral play.

To check mine I wshed the grease out, clamped the joint and measured the amount I could move the stud into and out of it's seat with a dial indicator. Exactly .060". The 1/16 they say a brand new one should have is .062". This method of checking won't work with the joint installed.

I wonder how many guys trashed a perfectly good set of joints?...........Bob

[1957buickjim]

Bob, I bet you are right there! What a shame with the expense of those items.

[buick man]

That's it, they go onto say somewhere else about measuring 1/4 inch lateral play with the suspension supported with a jack under the lower control arm thereby taking off the upward force of compression or some such rhetoric. - I am just going on my total recall capabilities here ( yeah right).

However with that said, I still do not fully comprehend how to go about this. Move what and measure where a 1/4 inch. Besides you had yours on a bench. The book calls for doing this mounted in the car. One would think the different variables here would tend for different readings?

So Does that mean grab the hub at 9:00 and 3:00 and move pulling back and forth first with the right hand then the left all the while watching the ball joint for movement in the cup?? or grabbing the hub and just pulling toward your chest with both hands then pushing toward the car and watching the movement??? - Geezz a german mechanic would gasp on " Dos highly teknical" procedure.

So could anyone clarify this.

[Bhigdog]

I think what they are saying is to check them as you would any ball joint. Jack the car up till the front tires are an inch of so off the ground. Slip a pry bar under the tire and lift. There should be about 1/4" of "slop" or verticle movement AT THE TIRE. That would account for the 1/16" of clearance or play built in. The fly in that ointment is that "lateral" means side to side. I suppose it would be possible to rig a dial indicator between the ball stud and floor to look for the .062 play but any movement or rocking of the car chassis itself would give a false reading.

I think the SB was just a quick and dirty check and to tell the mechanics that some play was normal. Probably lots of customers were getting unneeded joints. Don't forget the mechanics were used to king pins and that much play would be a no no.

BTW. This continues till this day. I recently had new tires put on and an alignment done on my Durango. The store owner called me back, put a tire iron under the tires and lifted. I could hear a slight clunk of "slop". He wanted to put 4 new ball joints in ( $800 ). I took it to the Dodge dealer for a second opinion. His words......."Nah, well within normal tolerance"...............Bob

Edited February 19, 2011 by Bhigdog (see edit history)

[buick man]

Yeah your probably right on there. That's probably why NOS 57 OEM ball joints are so hard to find even though they were year/model specific.

Sometime back I came across a really great 1957 Popular Mechanics Magazine article explaining the operation of upper and lower ball joints. As these were new concepts at the time. It was comparing this with another type of newly designed concept center supported suspension system that was being touted to eliminate any geometric angle changes in the steering suspension during cornering and such. It went on to say in an upper/lower ball joint suspension system, just like our Buicks, camber and toe-in during tracking, suspension travel and cornering, the majority of vertical load flexing is taken up by the upper ball joint where the pivotal and flex forces are taken up and managed by the lower ball joint during cornering where camber comes into play.

So this is probably why the lower ball joint must be checked by a lateral movement method. With that said, I would think then that the pry bar method under the tire would not be sufficient or "iffy" for the lower ball joint check but would work for the upper ball joint as this is the designed stress axis for the upper ball joint. It's too bad they do not go into a proper designed method to accomplish this lateral movement checkout. Another factor is when checked on the vehicle the ball joint cup is filled to capacity with axle grease and not dry as may be the situation on a bench test out of the vehicle.

So how to best design a method to create an accurate test procedure to test for In Vivo lateral movement? I will have to think about that one.

[Bhigdog]

I really don't think, back then, that definative tests to a known standard were considered all that important. That and the "test" equiptment itself was rather crude. A mechanic prying a wheel was seen as "close enough for gov't work".

I was just looking at my Chrysler manual vis-a-vis front end alignments. Toe is checked by scribibg a line on the tires and measuring with a tape. Camber is checked with a bubble level. At the conclusion they say if the car drives and steers OK disregard what ever the test equiptment says. Pretty much par for 50's cars, I'd say....................Bob

[Guest Rob McDonald]

Have a look at the thread, "BUICK POST-WAR, '57 Buick ball joint question - probably not what you expect". We might be close to finding a source for new seals for these essential, but essentially flawed, linkages.

[buick man]

Rob: I cannot find it. Can you post a link to the post you refer to above for the simple minded like me?

[1957buickjim]

David,

It is under BUICK - GENERAL threads. Rob may be right, there may be some out there that will fit the bill without making a tool for them.

[Guest Rob McDonald]

DAVID, sorry, I must learn not to rely on my memory any more. Um, what were we talking about?

[Guest Rob McDonald]

Oh yeah, ball joint seals. I have on order an assortment of tractor tie rod boots, which have dimensions similar to the Buick parts. I'll try them out and let the world know if we've found a readily-available replacement.

[Guest MarkV1941]

Hi can someone tell a lay person what the best thing to do in this case, as Im in England getting Ball Joints rebuilt is even more expensive. So can I change it all and make say the 1958 or 1959 or any other year fit, or can I do the mix and match for the 57 Upper and 59 Lower, and does this still mean an Upper Ball joint rebuild.

Can anyone help walk me through how all this is done.

Also are the Ball Joints model specific, as I have seen adds that say "fits all models" and others that say "series 70 and 60" etc, very confusing

Many thanks

Mark

1957 Super 4DR HT

[tompett]

Mark,

I have several 57 Ball Joints - a set (all 4) very solid used ones or NOS. tompett@online.no

Tom

[Guest Rob McDonald]

MARKV1941, the parts manual is very clear that there was only one set of ball joints for all models of Buick in 1957. That said, there are four different joints, for upper, lower, left, and right. It seems that they weren't very good, sadly, which makes unworn ones terrifically expensive today.

Kanter Auto Parts in New Jersey rebuilds them at $1500 per set but they're then not really original. They use the carriers as mounting brackets for readily available modern ball joints. It's a good solution but New Old Stock and supposedly good used factory Buick ball joints do show up from time to time, for less money. Buyer beware, of course.

Professor Gearhead, who started this thread, was off to a promising start on a bolt-in solution for this common problem. However, he seems to have taken a break from the project. Hellooo, Professor, are you there?

Speaking of lost trains of thought, I did find some new dust seals to fit these ball joints. Despite that the uppers and lowers are different sizes, I found that Part Number ABC369 from Kuhn's Antique Tractors fits all four ball joints. They're actually made for the tie rod ends of a 1950s John Deere tractor. Kuhn's can be found at Antiquetractorsrus -Tractor Parts- Kuhns Equipment Repair and Tractor Parts : Restored Antique Tractors and Tractor Parts and 888-839-5778.