1970 E Body Original Ball Joints?
- Thread starter 193rdsow
- Start date
Grady Cain
Well-Known Member
Hard to say. These are the originals from my T/A and I also attached the page from the 1970 Parts Manual showing the part numbers for them as well (Section 2-10-55) Sorry for the photo from the computer screen but I think you can see it. Possibly different vendors provided these types of parts and may have varied from plant to plant.
Grady,
Thank you for the response! Very interesting. I thought mine were probably just old replacements, but if yours are original... the format on mine are very similar. Dave Wise’s book shows lower ball joints with the part number cast into them. Are you certain that yours are original or is there a possibility that they are old replacements?
Jerry
Grady Cain
Well-Known Member
These are off my 52,000 mile T/A. I have every reason to believe they are original but there is always the possibility that they have been replaced. There are some numbers cast into the opposing side of the ball joints. When I get a minute to go to my shop later this week, I will check to see if they are the same numbers that I see and photographed or different. I can also contact the last 2 owners of the car to see if they ever replaced them. I have tons of old receipts with the car and did not see any replaced front suspension parts on any of them. Again, doesn't prove anything but I will look into it further. Stand by...
Grady Cain
Well-Known Member
Ok so I looked a bit closer at my ball joints today. I too have the Dave Wise books and use them as a guide, not as a bible. There are many inaccurate things in all those pages. That being said, his information makes reference to the part number being cast into the arm and there is a photo of a lower ball joint with a number which has been enhanced with typed in numbers. The part number showing isn't even a good part number according to the chart on the same page for all the E and B body cars. His info also mentions that the early/NOS joints will have the small threads for the break-off grease fittings whereas the newer, replacement parts will have the larger threaded hole for the zirks. Mine definitely have small threaded holes and had the break-off fittings. What do yours have?
The book references a part number on the boot. Does yours have part numbers on the boots or do they have words stamped into the rubber telling you which way to orient the joint? I'd be curious to know.
I also have remnants of green inspection paint on one of mine. Anything like that on yours?
I'm asking all these questions to try to piece together the puzzle about what is or isn't original. The best way to find out is to compare oranges with oranges here and see what we can come up with.
I'll try to get some good photos of these to post...
The book references a part number on the boot. Does yours have part numbers on the boots or do they have words stamped into the rubber telling you which way to orient the joint? I'd be curious to know.
I also have remnants of green inspection paint on one of mine. Anything like that on yours?
I'm asking all these questions to try to piece together the puzzle about what is or isn't original. The best way to find out is to compare oranges with oranges here and see what we can come up with.
I'll try to get some good photos of these to post...
That is interesting and makes me a little hopeful. I am traveling to SC with all my parts for the car and will be looking at everything I dropped off earlier. The inspection marks is very interesting. Can you send a photo? I will keep you posted on what I find Monday morning.
340challconvert
Well-Known Member
Grady
You got me thinking
I dug out the rt side ball joint that I took off my car that I've owned since 1979. Removed it last year
Casting Part number 3402990 followed by 626
Not sure of originality?
I have to find the driver's side I put in storage to check further.
You got me thinking
I dug out the rt side ball joint that I took off my car that I've owned since 1979. Removed it last year
Casting Part number 3402990 followed by 626
Not sure of originality?
I have to find the driver's side I put in storage to check further.
aussiemark
Well-Known Member
Do they have regular zerk fittings or the assembly line grease needle fitting?
340challconvert
Well-Known Member
Not sure of the difference with the grease fittings. What was installed at the factory?
My left side ball joint is similar to my right. Number on the unit 3402991
I would be surprised if someone changed the ball joints on a 9 year old car? You never now
Not sure if they are originals.
My left side ball joint is similar to my right. Number on the unit 3402991
I would be surprised if someone changed the ball joints on a 9 year old car? You never now
Not sure if they are originals.
Grady Cain
Well-Known Member
According to everything I've read regarding the grease fittings on the lower ball joints, the originals had a smaller diameter threaded hole than the common standard fittings and the fitting heads were broken off after lubing at the factory. I have not had a minute to get to my shop to take photos but I will as soon as I can...
340challconvert
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the interest.
I am holding on to the parts I remove right now. I cleaned these up, but I would think 49 year old ball joints would need a rebuild at the least! I went looking for the part numbers on the units and found no correlation w the parts books. My car was early; October 1969. I'm thinking the part was super ceded to a later number from mine?
I am holding on to the parts I remove right now. I cleaned these up, but I would think 49 year old ball joints would need a rebuild at the least! I went looking for the part numbers on the units and found no correlation w the parts books. My car was early; October 1969. I'm thinking the part was super ceded to a later number from mine?
Last edited:
340challconvert
Well-Known Member
That’s a coincidence! I have another question for you. You had a discussion regarding Hemi starters with another guy a while back. I just picked up a starter that is a 2875553 69 date code but the barrel is 4091975. To make this a correct Hemi starter I think I need to find a date coded 2875560 barrel. Would that be correct? I did not get the starter section when I ordered Dave Wises book.
340challconvert
Well-Known Member
I think hemi engines got a "shorter" barrel w a part # 2875560. So the number you quoted would be correct. Other members may have better info then this!
340challconvert
Well-Known Member
This is from my post on starters here on FEBO
This may help (from mmcdetroit.com)
Starters
The factory/ stock classic mopar starters(as seen in the above photo) for 1968-70s era mopars are very heavy and bulky in comparison to today's starters. With this being said when we have not done an OE restoration we have used part number 17466 starters which are smaller and less weight for our big block engines. They even seem to have a stronger start in our experience. I believe this part number might populate a 1994 or so Dodge Ram with a 5.9 v8 engine.
When dealing with the original starters, there were mainly 2 types of starters used from 1962-1987 for the trucks and cars. These were gear reduction type starters. There was a shorter starter 1.5hp part #2875560 and casting #2875553. A 1.3hp short starter was also used in 1973. Its part # 3656650. In 1973 another short starter was 1.5hp part# 3656575 which was a later production date. The second type of starter was the larger starters which were .5 to and 1 inch longer than the 1.5hp starter. They were 1.8hp and introduced in 1975. These part numbers were #3755250, 4091950, and more.
When dealing with 426 Hemi engines in the 1966-69 with a 4 speed they used direct drive starters.(reference, Finer Points of Mopar E body, www.mmcdetroit.com)
Similar threads
