1963 u joints

[Jeff C.]

I am going to replace the drive shaft and axel shaft u joints when I install a rebuilt rear end. Are all 6 the same size?

[Ed S.]

Re: 1963 u joints

No, drive shaft U joints are different than the axle U joints. FYI - a lot of members recommend Spicer U joints because they are really stout - meaning they can take a lot of torque or abuse. If you use Spicer joints you may have to slightly modify the flange (grind away a bit of material) because when it is not straight the U joint could rub on the outer surfaces (perimeter) of the flange. About an equal number of NCRS members recommend Federal Mogul U joints - which are a bit less stout but they appear to be as hefty or as good as OEM U joints - which are no longer available. A few things to consider: 63 U joints did not have grease fittings, both (Spicer & Fed Mogul) carry or manufacture U joints with and without grease fittings. If you are thinking of judging, the Fed Moguls without grease fittings are the closest thing to OEM. Two more things, Fed Mogul U joints are no longer made in the USA, they are made in Mexico - and that is stamped on the box they come in. They make and sell a lot of them so you would think that the Quality control is great - it is, sort of. I installed a set of Fed Moguls in my 64 and I was using original flanges for both the drive shaft and axles. I ran into a slight problem - I could not squeeze the bearing cups together far enough to insert the lock ring. The U joint with caps installed are about 20 thousands too wide - you can get one side in but not the other. I though at first that I had too much grease in the cups - I remove the cups and cleaned out "excess" grease at the end or the bottom of the needle bearing cup - it didn't help. I had to put the U joint on a machine and grind off a few thousands of an inch - clean the part, reassemble and then install the U joint - locking rings went in nicely. If you want part numbers for the Fed Moguls let me know - I can did that info up.

[Joe R.]

Re: 1963 u joints

The TRW or Federal Mogul number for the driveshaft is 20049 and the half shaft (Axle) number is 20054.

JR

[Ed S.]

Re: 1963 u joints

Joe,

Don't know if those are the TRW part numbers but they are not the Fed Mogul part #. FM part #s for the drive shaft is 269, axle U joint # is 231. BTW - the boxes of the FM U joints I got when I ordered them from Summitt Racing had "MOOG" logos on them. FM owns MOOG and a lot of other companies as well.

[Joe R.]

Re: 1963 u joints

Took those numbers off the boxes so they would be right in someones catalog. They said TRW and Federal Mogul on the boxes. Just trying to help and didn't want to rain on your party. Sorry!

JR

[Ed S.]

Re: 1963 u joints

Joe, no rain here - at least none that you caused. The pn # disparity is interesting, sometimes I think these companies, especially those that merger or acquired, find themselves coming and going as far as products that they market are concerned. Just curious, how old (or new) is that box & U joint you show? Wondering if any companies still make them in the USA. Just did a quick internet search, FM acquired TRW in 2014. The U joint in the pic looks identical to the ones I purchased except for the raised cast numbers.

[Alan D.]

Re: 1963 u joints

And here are some originals - just for pictures. These were only used on the production line, no service replacements to my knowledge.

[Richard G.]

Re: 1963 u joints

I just went through the ordering process. My local parts supplier is very diligent and helps me with my strange requests. One of these was for Spicer u-joints sans the grease fitting. He ended up in direct contact with the manufacture (Spicer) They told him they no longer make this part without zerts. I ended up using the Spicer joints with the zerts...
I didn't confirm this directly but I have every reason to believe what he passed on.
Rick

[Richard G.]

Re: 1963 u joints

I could not squeeze the bearing cups together far enough to insert the lock ring. The U joint with caps installed are about 20 thousands too wide - you can get one side in but not the other. I though at first that I had too much grease in the cups - I remove the cups and cleaned out "excess" grease at the end or the bottom of the needle bearing cup - it didn't help. I had to put the U joint on a machine and grind off a few thousands of an inch - clean the part, reassemble and then install the U joint - locking rings went in nicely.

I have run into this same issue in the past. Typically, I was able to mitigate the problem by using a soft punch and tapping back on one or both of the ears of the flange. In my opinion the issue is began with the removal of the old joint. Usually, one or both of the flange ears get pushed together when driving or pressing out the old joint. Tiger tool manufactures a tool that presses only on the bottom trunnion and keeps the two ears from bending towards the middle. Here is a link to the YouTube video;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AUvpvOMsTg

[Ed S.]

Re: 1963 u joints

I could not squeeze the bearing cups together far enough to insert the lock ring. The U joint with caps installed are about 20 thousands too wide - you can get one side in but not the other. I though at first that I had too much grease in the cups - I remove the cups and cleaned out "excess" grease at the end or the bottom of the needle bearing cup - it didn't help. I had to put the U joint on a machine and grind off a few thousands of an inch - clean the part, reassemble and then install the U joint - locking rings went in nicely.

I have run into this same issue in the past. Typically, I was able to mitigate the problem by using a soft punch and tapping back on one or both of the ears of the flange. In my opinion the issue is began with the removal of the old joint. Usually, one or both of the flange ears get pushed together when driving or pressing out the old joint. Tiger tool manufactures a tool that presses only on the bottom trunnion and keeps the two ears from bending towards the middle. Here is a link to the YouTube video;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AUvpvOMsTg

You got my attention and have me thinking. It did occur to me that my flanges many have been bent in just a bit and that is what was causing the fit issue. But I discounted that though because of a few factors. 1. I was keenly aware of the potential damage that could be done to the flange during the removal process. 2) My old (not original) U joints came out pretty easy. very and they went in extremely easy. 3) I supported the flange in a vice in the area where I was tapping with a hammer. 4) I continuously checked the flange with a known strait edge to ensure that it was not bent. When I finally got them in the rotated or moved smoothly, no binding. So.... time will tell, I don't know if I bent the flanges just enough to cause a problem (and not be able to visually see or measure it) or if the U joints were just a tad bit too wide. I will keep a close eye on this knowing that it my be a problem in the future.

[Richard G.]

Re: 1963 u joints

Ed
Sounds like you did a great job. I have had to surface grind the clips to get them to fit just like you did. Just remember to take 1/2 from each clip to keep the drive line in the middle of rotation. Another trick is to use a calipers to measure the distance between the flanges before installing them. And then when installing the joint you can measure/monitor for any crush. Sounds like you are good to go.
Here is a picture of the Spicer joints I used;

Small box was for the drive-line joints.
Both boxes have Made in the USA on them.
Rick

[Joe L.]

Re: 1963 u joints

And here are some originals - just for pictures. These were only used on the production line, no service replacements to my knowledge.

Alan------


These were once available in SERVICE but they have not been for a VERY long time. These were from a time when GM actually manufactured u-joints in their own factories. They were both used in PRODUCTION and available in SERVICE. However, GM ceased internal manufacture of u-joints a long time ago. Although they ceased manufacturing them something like 50+ years ago, it would be impossible for them to make u-joints internally for the past 25+ years as they sold off all their forging operations.

[Joe L.]

Re: 1963 u joints

Took those numbers off the boxes so they would be right in someones catalog. They said TRW and Federal Mogul on the boxes. Just trying to help and didn't want to rain on your party. Sorry!

JR

JR-------

If one looks for TRW u-joints (and TRW part numbers), one is only going to find them in old stock. TRW-branded u-joints have not been available in several years.

[Joe L.]

Re: 1963 u joints

All-----


Here's the deal on u-joints:

GM never used u-joints with zerk fittings on PRODUCTION or SERVICE half shaft u-joints. They may have used u-joints with grease fittings on some driveshaft applications but the vast majority, if not all, did not have grease fittings. Why? Most likely, because they knew that externally lubricateable u-joints were weaker and because the proper way to service u-joints is to remove them for inspection, cleaning and lubrication.

If one chooses to replace Corvette u-joints today with original body style, non-zerk u-joints, I don't know of a currently manufactured source. There may be one but I don't know of it. If one chooses to replace Corvette u-joints with original body style, zerk type u-joints, there are quite a few sources. The Spicer 5-153X and 5-178X are good examples. Federal Mogul/Moog are 369 and 331. These u-joints and other-branded, similar u-joints are quite inexpensive, too. A lot of these are going to be foreign-manufactured.

If one is willing to forego original body configuration, other options are available. The ones I recommend are Dana-Spicer forged powder metal body u-joints. These u-joints are FAR stronger than conventional body u-joints----2 to 3 times as strong. They are available in both zerk type and non-zerk type. However, the zerk type lube through one of the caps, not the body of the joint. This type of lubing enables a stronger u-joint than the type with the zerk fitting in the body. However, it's not quite as strong as the non-zerk type because of the drilled lube passages in the body.

Part numbers for the Dana-Spicer forged, powder metal body u-joints are as follows:

zerk type

driveshaft (55-67 and 68-70 with manual transmission)-----5-13101X

half shaft (all 63-79)--------------------------------------------5-13501X

non-zerk type:

driveshaft (55-67 and 68-70 with manual transmission------5-1310X (I'm not certain if this part is currently being manufactured)

half shaft (all 1963-79)-----------------------------------------5-1350X (also available under GM #89059111)

By the way, the Spicer forged powder metal u-joints are FAR, FAR more expensive than conventional body u-joints---about 2 to 5 times more expensive. You don't suppose that folks are willing to pay 2 to 5 times more because conventional type are just as good, do you?

[Richard G.]

Re: 1963 u joints

I did some quick research and found the GM part 89059111 for
$111.41 on Amazon.
$72.44 on Gmpartsdirect.

Same GM part number on eBay;
$28.50 on Ebay, military packaging. (231736745754) auction numbers.
$15.00 and $6 shipping on eBay. (152686188214) (no SPR cast into the joint) Suspect it is a part not manufactured by Spicer.
Both of these have the retaining clips assortments with the different thickness, I mentioned in my earlier post.
Here is a picture;


I paid something like $25 dollars for the Spicers at my local parts store.
The Spicer is $19.65 at Amazon.
These standard duty automotive joints are twice the money of the China joints.

The professional series are the 5-13501X Grease-able Life Series U-Joint 1350 Series.
Pricing was $85.99 at Jegs, with a low price guarantee.


The current part lacks any zert. However there are differences.
The seals are one, the newer seals are vastly superior to the OEM ones.
And because of this they found no need to include a zert fitting.
The length tolerances, measured assembled from the outside of one cap to the outside of the opposite side.
Pick up four different branded joints and get four different measurements.
The part specification for length is Length: 3.625''
The better the tolerance the closer to the center-line the drive-line will run and the closer to center the better the balance.
Even the type and quality of grease is different.
I believe these are the same quality as the GM joints but I cant prove that.
I am using the fact they include the extra snap rings as my only assessment/comparison.

Also on our Corvettes consider the joint is also part of the suspension and holds the wheel in horizontal position along with the lower struts.
You want to use the best part available for this application.
Joe, thanks for your input on this subject. Truly you get what you pay for and no where is the application more critical than than on the differential to rear axle shafts.
Rick