Beware of NAPA Ball Joints - Page 2 - JeepForum.com

 2Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #16 of 42 Old 01-11-2017, 02:49 PM
Trevlaw
Registered User
2002 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Corvallis
Posts: 1,781
Garage
What is the part number on the napa one you have

Trevlaw is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #17 of 42 Old 01-11-2017, 04:03 PM
joe_jeep
Registered User
2005 LJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: hazel park, mi
Posts: 5,987
Garage
I would never put a splined or knurled ball joint in my axle.
It will ruin your inner c's press fit.

I got about 117k on my factory spicers.
They aint failed yet.
joe_jeep is offline  
post #18 of 42 Old 01-11-2017, 11:14 PM Thread Starter
e9sc
Registered User
2004 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Anchorage
Posts: 39
Garage
Got back in there this evening and put the Moog in. Everything looked nice until I pumped it with grease, which pushed the bolt out about half an inch. Which is exactly the length of the gap you see in the picture. It is obvious (maybe not so much in the picture, but when inspecting) that the flat tapered portion is longer than the OEM. The BJ is seated fully, and looked and felt good after putting everything back together and test driving. Is it unsafe to have a Ball Joint that has this gap?
Attached Thumbnails
IMG_0001.jpg  
e9sc is offline  
 
post #19 of 42 Old 01-11-2017, 11:26 PM
Trevlaw
Registered User
2002 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Corvallis
Posts: 1,781
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by e9sc View Post
Got back in there this evening and put the Moog in. Everything looked nice until I pumped it with grease, which pushed the bolt out about half an inch. Which is exactly the length of the gap you see in the picture. It is obvious (maybe not so much in the picture, but when inspecting) that the flat tapered portion is longer than the OEM. The BJ is seated fully, and looked and felt good after putting everything back together and test driving. Is it unsafe to have a Ball Joint that has this gap?
What is the part number of the napa joint and the moog joint

And notice that it seems to drive better and that this joint is seated fully...

I want a J-Series
TJ Build:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Trevlaw is offline  
post #20 of 42 Old 01-12-2017, 12:35 AM Thread Starter
e9sc
Registered User
2004 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Anchorage
Posts: 39
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevlaw View Post
What is the part number of the napa joint and the moog joint

And notice that it seems to drive better and that this joint is seated fully...
Yes, the Moog seated much better than the NAPA, but the question I have about the exposed flat tapered portion remains...

Moog is K3134T

NAPA is PCC 10458
e9sc is offline  
post #21 of 42 Old 01-12-2017, 12:44 AM
Trevlaw
Registered User
2002 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Corvallis
Posts: 1,781
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by e9sc View Post
Yes, the Moog seated much better than the NAPA, but the question I have about the exposed flat tapered portion remains...

Moog is K3134T

NAPA is PCC 10458
I would say the Moog was seated better than the napa one...

That is the correct napa number. Could go in and ask to compare it to a 260-1291. That's the premium parts line, so it's more expensive, but your pcc and moog joints are pretty much the same quality. Assuming your inner C's and knuckles are factory I am not sure what it could be. Just making sure your numbers are correct like the counterman I am. I wouldn't see much harm in running it like that, but I would also await feedback from people like Blaine on this. I had this with my spicer's as well, but after adding grease the boot just barely started to touch the top of the knuckle. What we should have done was measure the distance between the bottom of the C to the top of the knuckle to see if that is indeed changing or if the different joints just have different sized grease boots...


Or the Napa one is the better design because it's the newest and greatest way to lift your jeep...

I want a J-Series
TJ Build:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Trevlaw is offline  
post #22 of 42 Old 01-12-2017, 06:22 AM
mrblaine
Wizard of Brakes
 
mrblaine's Avatar
1999 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Quail Valley
Posts: 31,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by e9sc View Post
Yes, the Moog seated much better than the NAPA, but the question I have about the exposed flat tapered portion remains...

Moog is K3134T

NAPA is PCC 10458
The picture of the lower on the other page shows it isn't seated fully. Can you make sure that the shoulder is against the bottom of the C?

I am Savvy
blackmagicbrakes.com
Knowledge does not equal understanding.
mrblaine is offline  
post #23 of 42 Old 01-12-2017, 08:43 AM
unclechubbs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 16
I agree every one i know that has used napa ball joints has had problems.
unclechubbs is offline  
post #24 of 42 Old 01-12-2017, 09:02 AM
TJnBC
Registered User
2006 LJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by e9sc View Post
Got back in there this evening and put the Moog in. Everything looked nice until I pumped it with grease, which pushed the bolt out about half an inch. Which is exactly the length of the gap you see in the picture. It is obvious (maybe not so much in the picture, but when inspecting) that the flat tapered portion is longer than the OEM. The BJ is seated fully, and looked and felt good after putting everything back together and test driving. Is it unsafe to have a Ball Joint that has this gap?
it doesn't even look like there is a grease boot on there? if there is , compare it to the size of your old grease boot. Like I said earlier, as long as the Joint is IN the taper and you cant spin it , it is fine. If you HAD a grease boot , you would not see that gap as much. My moog has an integrated boot in their new design , exposing a bit of a gap .

if you look at the old design VS the new, the old Boot is MUCH larger to cover up that gap than the new integrated design. So this topic is going to come up ALOT if people are grabbing Moog now...as the gap will be more pronounced now, its an optical illusion
http://www.moog-suspension-parts.com...dust-boots.asp
Attached Images
 
e9sc likes this.

2006 LJR...the madness begins again
TJnBC is offline  
post #25 of 42 Old 01-12-2017, 09:32 AM Thread Starter
e9sc
Registered User
2004 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Anchorage
Posts: 39
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblaine View Post
The picture of the lower on the other page shows it isn't seated fully. Can you make sure that the shoulder is against the bottom of the C?
What you see is the rubber lip of the grease boot. The joint is fully seated and flush with the lower portion of the inner C. I had to do a double take and reinspect when I got back into it last night with a duplicate lower BJ in hand.

What you can see in the pictures of the BJs on the previous page is that the new designs I've gotten my hands on all have either an integrated boot, or in some cases a much smaller boot, leaving more of the long straight portion of the bolt shaft exposed. Steering knuckle is torqued all the way against flat taper on both upper and lower (which are now Moog and Napa, respectively) BJs. Did steering test, test drove, didn't feel anything that concerned me.
e9sc is offline  
post #26 of 42 Old 01-13-2017, 12:18 PM
Airstreamer67
Registered User
2003 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 265
Well, it looks like you're learning all us old dogs all the new tricks.
Airstreamer67 is offline  
post #27 of 42 Old 01-13-2017, 03:23 PM
Mousejockey
Registered User
2002 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Rio Linda
Posts: 876
Quote:
Originally Posted by e9sc View Post
What you see is the rubber lip of the grease boot. The joint is fully seated and flush with the lower portion of the inner C. I had to do a double take and reinspect when I got back into it last night with a duplicate lower BJ in hand.

What you can see in the pictures of the BJs on the previous page is that the new designs I've gotten my hands on all have either an integrated boot, or in some cases a much smaller boot, leaving more of the long straight portion of the bolt shaft exposed. Steering knuckle is torqued all the way against flat taper on both upper and lower (which are now Moog and Napa, respectively) BJs. Did steering test, test drove, didn't feel anything that concerned me.
This is what Blaine is referring to
Attached Images
 
Jerry Bransford likes this.
Mousejockey is offline  
post #28 of 42 Old 01-13-2017, 04:22 PM
Trevlaw
Registered User
2002 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Corvallis
Posts: 1,781
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mousejockey View Post
This is what Blaine is referring to
Blaine was talking about the lower ball joint, that is the upper. I already pointed that out earlier, and some proceeded to continue and say that was fully seated. IMO this thread is very misleading as it leads one to believe the Napa ball joints are the cause of the PO's issues while driving, when really it is improper installation of a joint with a different, yet still safe and effective design. Some could say I'm saying this because I work at NAPA, but I don't even use the NAPA joints on my rig because Spicer's are OEM, they're cheaper, and the NAPA joints being discussed in this thread, the PCC line, are not re-branded MOOG joints, but they are about equal in quality, which is not a good thing, and is why they are sold as the economy line of parts. If I were to use the NAPA joints I would use the NCP line, specifically the number I provided earlier because they are significantly nicer parts, but yet they are still more expensive than Spicers (with my employee discount) I don't understand the newer design of the economy joint, but it could be something along the lines of making that specific joint being compatible with a wider array of vehicles. I am curious to check tomorrow at work if the NCP joint also has a longer stud than factory.

To add to that, cost isn't the only reason I don't use economy parts on my rig, because they are just that economy parts. I don't know if Moog was good before my time, but I have never been impressed with their quality and don't understand the following they have. My front D44 was bought off craigslist, and the PO had replaced the ball joints recently with Moog joints (much to my dismay). Swapped the axle and discovered it wandered a bit more than it used to with factory spicers at 68K. So when I went to replace the joints with new spicers I discovered the PO only replaced one side, so one side had upper and lower Moog and the other side was all factory with unknown miles on the factory joints. The recently replaced Moog joints were already in obviously worse condition upon inspection compared to the factory spicers. Quality parts will always trump a better price for me and I cringe every time someone insists on buying the cheaper economy parts or the cheapest brake pads I have...

I want a J-Series
TJ Build:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Trevlaw is offline  
post #29 of 42 Old 01-13-2017, 06:47 PM
mrblaine
Wizard of Brakes
 
mrblaine's Avatar
1999 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Quail Valley
Posts: 31,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mousejockey View Post
This is what Blaine is referring to
That had already been addressed and it isn't seated but that wouldn't account for the larger gap at the top of the knuckle irrespective of the grease boots. (and I so wish folks would quit judging anything by a rubber boot that moves up and down and that is different from brand to brand.

As stated previous, the height is controlled by the lower. The upper pin is a straight pin and floats up and down in a straight race in the upper body to compensate for the difference in taper heights. So even though the upper isn't fully seated, the issue is with the lower.

I am Savvy
blackmagicbrakes.com
Knowledge does not equal understanding.
mrblaine is offline  
post #30 of 42 Old 01-14-2017, 02:37 PM Thread Starter
e9sc
Registered User
2004 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Anchorage
Posts: 39
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblaine View Post
That had already been addressed and it isn't seated but that wouldn't account for the larger gap at the top of the knuckle irrespective of the grease boots. (and I so wish folks would quit judging anything by a rubber boot that moves up and down and that is different from brand to brand.

As stated previous, the height is controlled by the lower. The upper pin is a straight pin and floats up and down in a straight race in the upper body to compensate for the difference in taper heights. So even though the upper isn't fully seated, the issue is with the lower.
I'm confused at the direction this thread has taken, and I certainly did not have any intention of "learning any of the old dogs new tricks".

The Lower Napa ball joint measured the same as the OEM that came out, and the shoulder is fully seated against the inner C. The shoulderish looking portion of the rubber boot is what appears to be unseated.

The NAPA upper ball joint, regardless of grease boot or new design or whatever, came unseated when torqued, as seen in the very first photo. The Moog, regardless of integrated grease boot, poorer quality, bad brand name, whatever, did not come unseated when torqued properly, as seen in a later photo. The Lower Ball Joint was a constant in this equation.

The Spicer kit Jerry shared early on is in the mail and I will make another attempt as soon as I am able.

I came here for help, and I think I got it. Thank you, all.
e9sc is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the JeepForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid e-mail address for yourself.



Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome