If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ball joint: TRW or Moog w/o grease fitting or other brand w/ grease fitting?
How good are suspension and steering parts by AC Delco or
Raybestos? My car was built with ball joints that have no grease fittings or holes for them, and the TRW and Moog replacements are also like that. But for the same price I can get AC Delco or Raybestos brand joints with fittings. How good are those brands? I've never used Raybestos parts that aren't for brakes. Also what's the difference between regular Moog ball joints and Moog "Problem Solver" ball joints? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Ball joint: TRW or Moog w/o grease fitting or other brand w/grease fitting?
On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 8:15:39 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> How good are suspension and steering parts by AC Delco or > > Raybestos? > > > > My car was built with ball joints that have no grease fittings > > or holes for them, and the TRW and Moog replacements are also > > like that. But for the same price I can get AC Delco or > > Raybestos brand joints with fittings. How good are those > > brands? I've never used Raybestos parts that aren't for > > brakes. > > > > Also what's the difference between regular Moog ball joints > > and Moog "Problem Solver" ball joints? My memory says that the Problem Solver line is the better quality line, what all Moog used to be like, but confirm that before you take it to the bank. I may have it backwards. nate |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ball joint: TRW or Moog w/o grease fitting or other brand w/grease fitting?
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ball joint: TRW or Moog w/o grease fitting or other brand w/grease fitting?
In article >, Steve W. > wrote:
> >Most of the vehicles out there are built with "lubed for life" parts. >They work and on some vehicles are preferred simply because they don't >have to be a maintenance item. IF you will actually lube them the >greasable joints do have a couple advantages. New grease is a good >thing, and it can drive out crud or contaminates if you needed to. BUT >they are no good if you don't plan on regular service. > >ACDelco pro level are good parts, as are the pro level Raybestos, at >least the ones I've used were. > >The problem solver parts were developed for just that reason. To solve >an perceived issue with the OEM parts. For instance on the S Blazers, >they are known for hub assembly, ball joint and idler arm wear. The PS >idler arm uses a larger pair of pivots with a better bearing design to >make it last longer. The ball joints use a different larger wear surface >as well. Do they work YES, seen the difference on all the ones I've >owned and worked on. I am generally a big fan of the aftermarket greasable joints, if the joint is in a place where you can actually get to it. I had a rear-wheel drive car where the u-joint couldn't be got to without taking the muffler out to get behind the exhaust pipe. On that car, I put a lubed for life joint in as a replacement. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ball joint: TRW or Moog w/o grease fitting or other brand w/grease fitting?
On Thursday, October 16, 2014 1:52:11 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Steve W. > wrote: > > > > > >Most of the vehicles out there are built with "lubed for life" parts. > > >They work and on some vehicles are preferred simply because they don't > > >have to be a maintenance item. IF you will actually lube them the > > >greasable joints do have a couple advantages. New grease is a good > > >thing, and it can drive out crud or contaminates if you needed to. BUT > > >they are no good if you don't plan on regular service. > > > > > >ACDelco pro level are good parts, as are the pro level Raybestos, at > > >least the ones I've used were. > > > > > >The problem solver parts were developed for just that reason. To solve > > >an perceived issue with the OEM parts. For instance on the S Blazers, > > >they are known for hub assembly, ball joint and idler arm wear. The PS > > >idler arm uses a larger pair of pivots with a better bearing design to > > >make it last longer. The ball joints use a different larger wear surface > > >as well. Do they work YES, seen the difference on all the ones I've > > >owned and worked on. > > > > I am generally a big fan of the aftermarket greasable joints, if the joint > > is in a place where you can actually get to it. I had a rear-wheel drive > > car where the u-joint couldn't be got to without taking the muffler out > > to get behind the exhaust pipe. On that car, I put a lubed for life joint > > in as a replacement. > In the specific case of U-joints, most of the big power drag racers or off roaders that I know prefer the non-greasable ones as the spiders are stronger and therefore less likely to break under shock load or overload. nate |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CV joint grease question | Tegger[_2_] | Technology | 7 | August 19th 09 04:36 PM |
Cleaning Dry Crumbly Grease Out of a Ball Joint | Calvin | Technology | 4 | May 22nd 07 07:05 PM |
Ball Joints - grease? | Jon C | Technology | 4 | October 2nd 05 06:08 PM |
CV joint grease flung out - but boot is intact - '88 Voyager | Lhead | Chrysler | 4 | July 13th 05 04:48 AM |
Molybdenum grease - same as CV joint grease? | William Maslin | VW water cooled | 6 | December 17th 04 04:58 PM |