[aronhk_md]

Ok, searches here reveal nothing. Searches on the internet reveal 3 camps....those that supposrt using anti-seize on ball joint tapers, those that are vehemently against it, and those who scratch their heads and wonder.

I'm definitely in the 3rd group. While I understand the 2nd group feels the taper joint is one where the friction of the tapered hole and shaft is important.......I'm not sure from a physics standpoint I agree right off the bat. These people claim the torque on the castle nut is only to keep friction on the two tapered surfaces.

Now, if you look at the forces I personally believe the taper is designed to deal with, it would be lateral motion pressing the shaft sides against the hole sides. for both upper and lower ball joints. Then for upward motion it would be the upper ball joint taking the main stress with the taper pressing up into the shaft taper, and for downward motion the lower ball joint does the same.

I just dont see any motion that would require metal to metal high coefficient of friction in that tapered hole/shaft relationship, but I also dont know from an engineering standpoint whether I have thought of all factors. lol

I understand there are lots of mechanics out there who have done thousands of ball joint replacements, but I have seen certified mechanics state BOTH positions. I'd love to hear what those here have to say. Especially if I could get someone with automotive engineering/design background/racing experience, etc. to chime in.

Thanks in advance

[My442]

If the ball joint fastener has the appropriate torque applied, it does not matter.

Once the fastener is at the elastic range, the clamping load is sufficient to hold it securely.

The anti sieze prevents corrosion, and will make the separation easier.

As long as the torque is correct, and the cotter pin is new, no worries....

[GT182]

Times 2. That's what I use on em.

Not fun when you have use a torch to change one out that's frozen in. Anti-Seize makes life so much simpler.

[66Post]

Unless you plan on taking them apart every month a waste of time. Antiseize is for stuff that screws together.

[Skip Fix]

Well since I've pulled two different sets of upper control arms off in a few months I was sure glad I used antiseize. The aftermarket ones added way too much negative camber for a drag car I'm building.

[screamingchief]

Ok,where do I start? LOL

If they're supposed to have anti-sieze on them,,,then someone needs to run right out and go tell all the OEM's that they've been doing it wrong for like the last 50 or so years...

Also,personally I've never had any problems seperating BJ's,but that's also because I'm not remotely affraid of smacking the $#!t outta the spindle with a BFH to break the taper loose.

And yeah,I'm one of those certified mechanics (ASE master) that has done literally thousands & thousands of BJ replacements.

We'd get paid like 20-30 mins. a side to do both of them on a 1/2 ton GM truck or such.

The taper on most BJ's is by it's design intended to be a slight interference fit,and anything that changes that relationship dynamic is likely not going to be all that productive to the function of said BJ.

If Moog or any of the other suspension parts co.s wanted ya'll to use anti-seize on their BJ's,trust me they'd include a small packet of it in the box right along with all the other installation hardware.

Anit seize is meant to prevent thread galling and electrolysis related corrosion in assemblies using dissimilar metals and such (steel threads in aluminum for example).

The only time I could see using anti-seize as a benefit for a BJ install would be when the spindle itself is aluminum and it uses a tapered BJ (which is pretty unusual in OEM vehicles),as then there would be that dissimilar metal/electrolysis dynamic in place that could affect said assembly.

Beyond that,I dont see a need for it.

JMO/FWIW

Bret P.

[aronhk_md]

Hmmm.....where to start chief....lol.....

1st..... engineering of ball joint...where does it state that an interference fit is part of the design, and that antiseize would interfere with that design?

OEM has forgottem to mention AND apply lubricants and antiseize to MANY locations in the build that could use it.....they care little about what corrodes on suspension, especially when it comes to nuts/bolts, or how easy it comes apart.

Manufacturers like Moog often do not include lubricants for parts they sell, or anti-corrosion appliques. While antiseize might have been originally intended and very useful for dissimilar metals.......it is also quite useful to prevent corrosion on similar metals too.

Not arguing chief.......just thinking out loud.......lol

[screamingchief]

Originally Posted by aronhk_md

1st..... engineering of ball joint...where does it state that an interference fit is part of the design, and that antiseize would interfere with that design?

In just about any textbook on the design & engineering of suspension components.

Too many of those to list here,but feel free to seek out such.

It helps to know about that after you've gone to school for such,and have a degree in just this sorta thing.

Originally Posted by aronhk_md

OEM has forgottem to mention AND apply lubricants and antiseize to MANY locations in the build that could use it.....they care little about what corrodes on suspension, especially when it comes to nuts/bolts, or how easy it comes apart.

Utter nonsense,plain and simple,sorry Aron.

You've obviously have NEVER worked in an OEM dealership or such,I can easily tell that by you saying such a silly thing as that.

The OEMs have extremely lengthly lists of required lubricanting points,as well as equally long lists of the specified lubricants required for those said lubricating points,they obsess over that $#!t to the point of being anal-retentive,and frankly working for them and dealing with that sorta thing on a daily basis actually becomes quite annoying @ times.

The OEM's pay an endless number of engineers a kings ransom to figure all that sorta stuff out for every possible system that a car or truck has,no matter how important or menial you or I may think it is.

If a problem pops up on an OEM car or truck,they'll send teams of those guys out to all the various dealerships to inspect the cars,diagnose the problem,and make recommended fixes for that sorta thing.

If you looked long & hard enough in an OEM assembly/service manual,I'll bet $$$$ you can find recommended lube intervals and a specified lube for the ashtray.

They dont miss a thing,,,and if they do,,,they'll likely put out TSB's to correct such an oversight...

Trust me on this,BTDT.

Originally Posted by aronhk_md

Manufacturers like Moog often do not include lubricants for parts they sell, or anti-corrosion appliques.

On a critical component like a load bearing suspension piece they sure do.

Unless they like to be sued for millions of dollars for not doing so...

Sure maybe a spark plug co. does'nt include anti-seize with their plugs,but having a spark plug seize in an aluminum head wont cause an accident that could potentially kill the occupents of said car,like a BJ failure could easily cause.

Again,trust me on this,did this sorta thing for a living for over 20 years now,I've talked to reps for all sorts of parts vendors,brake parts,suspension parts,just about any part you can name,I've likely dealt with one of their techs/reps at one point or another,they aint idiots either,not by a longshot,if something is as important as your suggesting that anti-seize must be,it would absolutely be included with the BJ for sure.

If you just wanna go ahead and pooh-pooh everything I said here because I was a bit lighthearted with my initial comments,that's fine by me.

Could I maybe have been more tactful,sure,but honestly that aint really my strong suit,I call them like I see them,no BS & no nonsense,I get right to the point most of the time.

See I have degree in automotive technology & servicing,the ASE master certification,as well OEM/factory certifications & training too,spent years and years working as a tech,not to mention a good many years working in the parts sector as well,have also been to numerous parts manufacturers seminars and such too,you name it,I've likely BTDT.

One of the areas that I've always specialized in thru all of this has been brakes,suspensions,& alignments,so yeah I'm plenty confident that I know what I'm talking about on this topic.

I've pulled apart probably hundreds of front ends that were well over 20-30 years old and I've never yet seen a BJ that had any corrosion on the taper portion of the BJ stud,furthermore if there ever was any corrosion present on the tapered portion of a BJ,that would be a very clear indication that something is seriously wrong with those parts,because there should be absolutely no room for that to happen,that would almost certainly mean that something was wrong,either the wrong parts were used with each other,or the taper on one of the parts was significantly damaged or such.

Ya'll can take my comment as you choose,I could care less one way or the other,but anyone out there that's telling you that you need to use anti-seize on a tapered BJ stud is full of $#!t plain and simple.

If any of ya'll wanna use anti-seize because it gives you a warm/fuzzy,hell go right ahead I dont really care one way or the other,but it aint really going to help much at all,as all of said anti-seize will almost certainly be squeezed right outta that assembly just as soon as it's assembled and torqued to spec,and anywhere that the anti seize remains afterwards,likely is'nt doing a damn thing to help the ball joint do it's job.

FWIW

Bret P.

[aronhk_md]

Not looking to see the answer I "want"....just wanted a more technical discussion of the whys than I had seen in other forums when searching on the subject. And actually Bret, yours is one of the opinions I respect on this board, so I appreciate you contributing to the discussion. I would love to get a look at some of the engineering explanations in the books you mention. Of course I may find they just say....do it this way.....and not really explain the whys.

I wonder if antiseize is really completely squeezed out of the joint when applied to the surface here because I have seen the ease with which a setup like that came apart after several years assembled. The subject was brought to mind after attempting to pull apart the subframe donating the tubular A-arms and transverse leafspring front suspension to my car. The subframe in question was assembled about 4 years ago but never driven ( tree fell on the roof of the car before it was assembled), so had essentially new Moog balljoints.

I wonder if they are what I'm hearing referred to as "tall" balljoints, because the space between the spindle and the BJ required using 2 BJ forks....it was too wide for just one. The subframe was cut forward and aft of the A-arm mounting points, so I rolled it forward......now it was facing straight down. I put a fork from below braced against the ground, and a fork from above.

It took an 8 pound sledge, PB Blaster, a torch, and 3 hrs to separate 4 BJs....

The interesting part of this discussion is the "WHY" of it all. In other words, from reading you dont hear about balljoint failures anywhere. No discussions about....."Oh, did you hear about Joe? He lubed his BJ's......Yeah, I know.....No, I dont know whats going to happen to his kids...."

And there seem to be plenty of mechanics and others using antiseize. If the taper did manage to rotate in its tapered pocket I cant see that as being a detractor. It cant actually come out of the tapered pocket due to the torqued bolt, and under its greatest stress (hitting a pothole or bump at speed) it is actually being forced into the pocket or against the pocket sides.

Thanks to everyone joining in here...those that werent afraid to express an opinion. We all enjoy our cars, and I enjoy this website and getting to talk to you about subjects like this. PY is an amazing place, and so many people here have so much knowledge.

I do find it interesting that more people didnt join in. I know there are lots of certified mechanics here, certifiable insane people (ME!), and engineers. I'm wondering if there are people afraid to contribute to this subject.

[screamingchief]

The thing is,the tapered stud balljoint is'nt supposed to just "pop out" of the spindle easily,that's contrary to the design and intent of that parts fit & function,anyone that tells you otherwise is just plain wrong.

Originally Posted by aronhk_md

because the space between the spindle and the BJ required using 2 BJ forks....it was too wide for just one.
It took an 8 pound sledge, PB Blaster, a torch, and 3 hrs to separate 4 BJs....

And I'll bet $$$ that I could've had it apart in 5 minutes or less per BJ.

You were doing it wrong,but dont sweat it,tons of other guys do it wrong too.

Especially the "weekend warriors" out there... (JK)

I'm sure you probably would'nt like how I would've gotten that apart so quick,but it's pretty much the most practical way to do it.

And pickle forks are a joke,again sorry to be so blunt,but they're the most useless & un-needed tool in most any mechanics tool box,they're for folks that are affraid of doing the job the way it's supposed to be done.

All a pickle fork is good for is ripping the $#!t outta the dust boot on the BJ,which is NBD if your replacing the BJ,but a major PITA if your taking everything apart for some other reason.

Originally Posted by aronhk_md

The interesting part of this discussion is the "WHY" of it all. In other words, from reading you dont hear about balljoint failures anywhere.

Wanna bet,go over to pro-touring.com,they have numerous & lengthly threads about ball joint failures due to improper fit between the BJ stud and the taper in the spindle,it's actually an extremely common problem.

There are co.s that make special taper reamers for just that very reason.

Originally Posted by aronhk_md

If the taper did manage to rotate in its tapered pocket I cant see that as being a detractor. It cant actually come out of the tapered pocket due to the torqued bolt, and under its greatest stress (hitting a pothole or bump at speed) it is actually being forced into the pocket or against the pocket sides.

Dead wrong...

That's exactly how BJ's fail,they'll break @ the threads just under the nut,that's the classic failure mode of that part,for the very reason you state.

BTW: You should maybe read this PDF from Raybestos.

http://www.raybestoschassis.com/wps/...df?MOD=AJPERES

Especially read the note on the fit of the stud in the taper,and dont forget to look @ the pics at the bottom of the page.

A loose fit in the taper is the absolute last thing you want in a tapered stud BJ.

It supposed to be tight as he!!,like I said,it's an interference fit.

That's how the tapered stud BJ's are designed,anything that disrupts that relationship is not going to help things @ all.

Bret P.

[aronhk_md]

Ok, I see how an improper fit would be dangerous. But we arent talking impoper fit. Improper fit can occur whether a ball joint had antiseize on it or not. Actually I WAS searching over on PT.com, and didnt come up with the good kind of stuff you mention. I'm gonna have to go over again and do a search for BJ failure this time instead. But again, there is potentially a BIG difference between improper fit and antiseize which is essentially an anticorrosive and lube. If there is lateral movement of any kind I can see a failure occuring. But you CAN get a tight fit even with a lubricant. If you couldnt we'd have all kinds of failures inside an engine.

I noticed that the Raybestos bulletin says improper fit, not improper lubrication.....and I see those as being VERY different things, even though I understand that an interference fit could potentially include rotational movement......the only kind that can occur in that joint if the nut is torqued properly AND the fit is proper.

Now if said antiseize is squeezed out in this type of joint......then it wouldnt really be an issue would it? I believe a small amount remains in the pores of the metal.

Also, I'd be VERY interested in knowing how you get BJs apart. You said I wouldnt like it, but maybe thats not true. I can certainly see the forks as being almost useless...lol....and I certainly dont doubt you could do it much faster than I can. You are right....weekend warrior here. Cant say I've a lot of experience in any of this. More capable in some mechanical areas than others too. So now that you've indicated another way I'd like to know.

Bret, this is good discussion material......not trying to be argumentative, just trying to nail down the specifics here. Just as doctors can be wrong about scientific information and change their tune years down the road, engineers and mechanics can be too. In this case, considering the length of time with which BJs have been used, and the number of people doing this on their own, if it was well known or specifically not good to anti-seize BJs I would think there would be a note in every box (you say lube is provided when necessary, but I have also seen warning notes when necessary too), in every Chiltons manual, and every website set up by professionals showing how to change a BJ saying...

WARNING: DO NOT LUBRICATE THE TAPERED SHAFT OR THE SPINDLE SOCKET IT INSERTS INTO. DOING SO COULD LEAD TO BJ FAILURE AND INJURY OR DEATH.

[screamingchief]

Ok,this is getting kinda tedious,I'm not out to try and educate the world or anything like that,take my comments for what they are,or leave them be,does'nt really matter to me.

I said it should all sqeeze out when it is assembled and torqued to spec,but that does'nt necessarily mean that it will all squeeze out when it's assembled.

It is entirely possible that if enough "lube" is present,and it somehow gets "trapped" in there,that it could potentially disrupt said interference fit via a "hydraulic" sorta situation,you are aware of what hydraulics are all about,right?

That's how a 200 lb guy lifts a 4000 pound car,right.

Or how a couple of small bottle jacks can lift a house.

Well,that thin layer of "lube" you seem to feel is so harmless could easily get trapped between those two parts and affect the BJ's interference fit in that taper portion of the spindle,but hey,most anything is possible,especially when a guy goes and makes up his mind that he knows better than everyone else that has come before him.

As for the exact thread I was thinking of,hell it could've be this one @ chevelles.com too,this one comes up when one does a "ball joint failure" search of the web via yahoo or google.

http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198416

I'm not registered over @ pro-touring,so I can't do a search there.

Often a fella wont be warned against doing something,solely because it assumed that he would'nt do anything stupid or unecessary in the first place.

Unfortunately it seems common sense is'nt as common as it used to be.

IE: Why would someone park on a hill w/o putting the car in park or hitting the Ebrake?

Do you really need to be warned to do something like that???

Sigh...

The way to seperate BJ's is to break that interferece fit by momentarily interupting it.

IE: smack the snot outta the spindle with a BFH in the area around the BJ stud.

Guys always freak out when you tell them that,then they'll start arguing that your going to ruin the spindle doing that,yadda,yadda,yadda and then there is a whole bunch more useless debate back & forth,but in the real world that's just how it's done.

Anyhow,this thread seems to be going nowhere I wanna go,amounting to arguing solely for the sake of arguing,and that does nothing for me,so have @ it w/o me from here on.

You wanna prove me wrong,just go ahead and go out there and find me a single reputable suspension parts manufacturer,OEM automotive manufacturer,or any published automotive service manuals or textbookks that recommend lubricating the tapered portion of these BJ studs as part & parcel to installing said BJ.

Call Howe,call Moog,call any BJ Co. and ask them what they think about this.

I already know what their answer will be...

So I stand on what I've already said here,if you dont wanna see the truth here,I cant make you see it.

Bret P.

[aronhk_md]

Again Bret.....not trying to belittle what you are saying. Nor have I decided I will use the stuff when re-assembling. I can see you are getting frustrated with this, and I'm not sure why that would be.....its just a discussion. I'm examining what you say and attempting to understand it from a scientific standpoint. And I DO see what you mean if quantities (who knows how much would cause this?) of antiseize stayed in the joint possibly causing the fit to be off.

I also understand about the lack of warning because people dont always suspect other people will do stupid stuff........which is why warnings get issued at all.....because someone or enough people did the stupid thing and bad things happened. But that brings me back to one of my points.......if bad things happened due to this (and if you've read there are LOTS of people doing it) then I can only imagine there'd be warnings about it.

I've done searches all over the internet and not really found warnings. I've also not found cases listed of failures where it was said...."improper fit caused failure of BJ. Improper fit can be attributed to the possible use of lubricants/antiseize in the taper joint."

All I'm trying to do is put the issue out on the table for discussion and find out whether a friction fit in this case is the intended point for that taper shaft. We know the lower ball joint is friction fit into the A-arm to hold it in place.....but that is NOT a taper joint.

If we were talking about a medical issue...well, there are plenty of things we cant say what the reason is (exactly), but we know the result. Cancer is an example. We may know contributing factors. Some doctors get huffy when questioned about things that are just the accepted norm in medicine if you scientifically follow through with a concept...especially when you are beyond their level of understanding in the subject. But there are plenty of times in recent history when an accepted theory has changed...sometimes over and over...as new scientific info is added. In many cases that info was actually around already.........but doctors just didnt apply it to the specific problem at hand.

Oh, and thanks for the tip on using a BFH on the spindle. Seems acceptable to me. Unless you have aftermarket pretty spindles.

[BruceWilkie]

Originally Posted by screamingchief

The way to seperate BJ's is to break that interferece fit by momentarily interupting it.

IE: smack the snot outta the spindle with a BFH in the area around the BJ stud.

Guys always freak out when you tell them that,then they'll start arguing that your going to ruin the spindle doing that,yadda,yadda,yadda and then there is a whole bunch more useless debate back & forth,but in the real world that's just how it's done. Bret P

Works for me! btw I've never needed anything more than that plus proper placement of my separator tool and a one pound ball peen! And I used to work on upstate NY cars with all kinds of rust corrosion problems.(fortunately not for a living but enough to know where Bret is coming from) Very rare to find much if any corrosion in the interference fit area. Twenty+ year old original ball joints some worn enough you could disengage the ball from the socket. You dont want any chance of bj stud turning in the spindle. If loose there the taper is going to make it try to separate. Far better to wear out the ball joint than wear out bj and spindle! You dont want the stud to start turning if the ball is trying to seize from lack of maintenance.


Very familiar with interference fit taper pins and dry fit is important there too and seen failures where someone lubed them so they'd be easier to get out next time. Sure were, they fell out and created a service call. Dry pins could be difficult to remove especially if not hit hard on first strike. Solution hold punch with pliers line up good and and square and smack HARD/FAST. (when holding punch in your hand fear of missing punch actually slows you and weakens the actual hit.) Rarely took me more than one hit. Seen others struggle getting one pin out in time I could rebuild entire drive unit. Taught them my technique and they couldnt believe it made that much difference plus not get hurt should they miss the punch.

Also 30hp -200+hp snowmobile engines use a clutch that is interference fit on a taper shaft with NO keyway. They are dry fit or they come loose causing loss of drive and shaft/clutch damage. Dry fit requires special tool and slight hammer technique to remove, even if only lightly torqued(well below spec)on. Seen newbies break the removal tool trying to remove the clutch without the hammer.(my kid almost ruined mine but fortunately I caught him in time. I backed the tool out smacked the clutch put the tool in a tid more than hand tight and one smack on the tool the clutch was off. He had been tightening and tightening trying to "press" it off couldnt believe how easy it turned out to be doing it the right way.)

Point of my last two paragraphs is interference taper fit is a design parameter and there are techniques to working with it.

[aronhk_md]

Good info Bruce, and I wasnt arguing with Bret just for arguments sake. Like I said, if this was a dangerous thing I would imagine warnings being around. Its not like BJs are new to the market. There are LOTS of people lubing them as you can see in some of the initial posts. I have been doing searches all over the internet. Have yet to find a manufacturer that recommends using antiseize, but they dont mention it at all including to warn against its use.

Interesting stuff here. But it would have been quite interesting to see you pop these off with a 1lb hammer....lol. I'd have given money to watch it in fact. These were installed about 4 years ago, and never driven on. There was no corrosion in the taper, or anywhere around the BJ for that matter. I used an 8 lb sledge, and I didnt hesitate to swing it, even though I knew if I missed I was going to break my hand. In fact after a while when I started tiring I stopped on purpose.....knowing that tired I was more likely to miss. I used a torch too after trying each one for about 10 min.

Wish I had known about hitting the spindle hard. I would have done it without hesitation. And just maybe they would have popped right off. Now, since I still have to remove the other suspension thats on the car right now I'm going to try that trick. Hopefully it'll go smoothly.

I'm definitely not going to just go antiseize the new stuff going in. As with most things I do I try to research it thoroughly before making a decision.

[HWYSTR455]

Just to throw this out there, Moog and TRW coat their' ball joints from the factory, but believe it's more for preventing corrosion while on the shelf. It's like ammelguard or something, an amber, tacky coating that's used on almost all taper pins, tie rods, etc., and is MIL-SPEC I believe.

From what I understand, a lot of lower ball joint failures occur due to over-tightening the nut, and add extreme or excessive side loads, like the kind 'pro-tour' guys see regularly. I think the most important thing is to make sure the spindle and ball joint are not damaged, and clean, before assembly.

Some areas on cars could benefit from anti-seize, mainly from anticipating a dis-assembly in the future. The factory may chose not to do so for the simple reason that it costs more. One area I feel could certainly benefit from anti-seize would be lower control arm bolts, and they don't come from the factory with the thought they would ever need to be removed. How about exhaust manifold bolts?

I've used anti-seize on ball joints before, but really, I've never had a problem removing them either. I've thought of if it's the right thing to do or not, if it could cause failure or not, and these days, I don't use anti-seize, so not really sure how I settle in my mind on the topic!

.

[geeteeohguy]

Anti-Sieze on a tapered ball joint stud? ABSOLUTELY NOT. It's an engineered interference fit, just like a tapered and keyed axle. NUTS!!

[66Post]

Looks like the "no's" have it. Final answer........

[Sirrotica]

Originally Posted by 66Post

Unless you plan on taking them apart every month a waste of time. Antiseize is for stuff that screws together.

Not true at all, anything that has a pin in it such as the pins used to anchor a hydraulic cylinder should have anti-seize applied prior to assembly or you will be disassembling it with a hydraulic press and a torch. Anyone in the equipment industry will verify this. Many other used for anti-seize other than threaded fasteners.

I see no reason to use anti seize on a tapered assembly (ball joints, tie rod ends), I have never done it myself. A good hit on the outer casting with a 3 lb sledge will most times break the joint apart on the first hit. I rarely use a splitter fork because it ruins the rubber boot and it then needs replacement. Ask any dismantler in a wrecking yard if they even own a splitter fork, I have never seen any that used one.

I agree with Bret, if it took you that much time to remove 4 ball joints you didn't do it the way a flat rate mechanic would. There's a easy way and a hard way to do the job and I think you must have mastered the hard way. Same goes for king pins, You can beat and heat them all day long and not move it. I can (and have) helped someone that could not get a king pin to move with heating and beating for hours, and had the king pin out in less than 5 minutes. It's all in the technique. My dad was a mechanic all his life and I made my living doing it for 40 years and there's many trade secrets to be learned from old timers......LOL I guess at my age I'm now an old timer too.

[Pontirag]

screaminchief got it right. you dont want lube on components that are not suppose to turn. so engineers got it right too. and racing teams got it right too because even if your taking it apart so often you dont want that stud spinning around while your trying to take the nut off. simple answer dont lube the tapered surface.