65 ball joints
Tony what does the new judging manual say about 65 ball joints ? after the car wash today I noticed my upper ball joints are black . were they on the A frame when it was painted ?
-
-
Re: 65 ball joints
Bill-----
The control arms were painted at their manufacturing source. Usually, the very end of the arms where the ball joints install was not painted, although I'm not sure this was the case for all arms as I think some were completely painted. The ball joints were installed at St. Louis, so the ball joints were not painted..In Appreciation of John HinckleyComment
-
Re: 65 ball joints
My experience is that the entire control arm was painted. However, some time in the late seventies or early eighties if you were to purchase an over the counter A-Arm from Chevrolet,the end of the arm where the ball joint resides was not painted. Do not know the reason for this and have never seen a mid year or early shark car with the ends not painted."SOLID LIFTERS MATTER"Comment
-
Re: 65 ball joints
Sorry, I also meant to mention with the exception of 63 - 64 cars. For me that is a gray area."SOLID LIFTERS MATTER"Comment
-
Re: 65 ball joints
Ron,
I think at some point in production in the late 70's or possibly 1980, the outer end of the upper control arm was unpainted. Prior to that, the entire arm was coated, including under the ball joint.
This would be the case for service control arms too. The arms were entirely coated, including the outer end under the ball joint from 63 onward to some point in the late 70's (?) service control arms were unpainted under the ball joint.Comment
-
Re: 65 ball joints
Mike,
That is excactly what I thought my post said. I agree with what you are saying. I don't know much about 63 and 64's, but after attending the John Hinckley seminar last Saturday, it sounds like the majority of all chassis components were painted black."SOLID LIFTERS MATTER"Comment
-
Re: 65 ball joints
This image is from one of John Hinckley's PowerPoints. I'm not much of an expert on SB oil pans, perhaps someone else could tell if this is a 6 quart pan that would indicate this is an L76 which would make the chassis a 1965. In any case it's pretty clear to me at least the upper ball joints were unpainted.
MikeLast edited by Mike E.; November 7, 2013, 08:38 AM.Comment
-
Re: 65 ball joints
Here's a shot of the St Louis assembly line that shows the upper control arm with the ball joint end unpainted. I don't remember if this was taken in 1980 or 81.
The C3 guys may be able to tell us when this method of painting the arm first appeared.
Also of interest is the fact that the upper and lower ball joints ARE lubed as the chassis is traveling down the line.Comment
-
Re: 65 ball joints
Viewing this last photo reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask (and I hope this isn't considered hi-jacking this thread). In the process of recently restoring my '65 A-arms (upper and lower), I decided to sand blast off all of the old paint and rust. I first taped the ball joints off, but I think that with all of the sand flying around under consideration pressure, a small quantity of sand probably entered the ball joints. Since undertaking that task, I have read in the Archives here that any amount of infiltrated sand will quickly destroy the ball joints. Now I wish I hadn't gone that route. I haven't yet re-lubed the joints, and I don't think they have been lubed in over 20 years, But I do know that they are hard to turn now (don't know whether they were hard to turn before as I didn't own the car before and didn't think to check the rotation of the joints before restoration.) Anyway, maybe this is a dumb question, but does anyone here know whether there is a way to "flush" the ball joints, either with grease or some fluid, in such a way as to remove any offending sand debris? Thanks very much.Comment
-
Re: 65 ball joints
Mike,
From my view of the top picture that is a 5 quart oil pan and the car is either a 1966 or 1967 based on the carb choke arrangement on the right side of the carb.
LOOK AT THE MUFFLERS... no blackout paint on the tops of them!!!!
Regards,
James West
This image is from one of John Hinckley's PowerPoints. I'm not much of an expert on SB oil pans, perhaps someone else could tell if this is a 6 quart pan that would indicate this is an L76 which would make the chassis a 1965. In any case it's pretty clear to me at least the upper ball joints were unpainted.
MikeLast edited by James W.; November 7, 2013, 11:24 AM.Comment
-
Re: 65 ball joints
James,
You are correct. It is a five quart oil pan. The chassis is an early 66. The alternator mounting bracket is the 66 and 67 design, not 65, but the single brake line tells us that it isn't a 67.
Final chassis blackout was just about the last operation before body drop so at this point, there wouldn't be any black on the mufflers or front sway bar etc.Comment
-
Re: 65 ball joints
James
All those pretty shiny metal chassis components and those guys at the plant had to go and slop all that black goo all over everything. Could be worse. Could be a 63-64 where nearly everything got the goo treatment. Final goo-out.
Who started all that chassis blackout nonsense anyway?Comment
-
Re: 65 ball joints
Thanks, for the information about the oil pan. I saw the single brake line too so that narrowed it down to '65 or 66. Also in the zoomed image you can see the steering box is painted black and the hub dust cover is sitting on top of it. I think the current 1965 JM says the box was natural and that's the way mine is currently setup. Perhaps that changed from 1965 to 1966?
MikeComment
Comment