• Welcome to For E Bodies Only !

    We are a community of Plymouth Cuda and Dodge Challenger owners. Join now! Its Free!

1970 E Body Original Ball Joints?

193rdsow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
95
Reaction score
12
B37CD11F-D402-48B7-B26A-4D78B71493D8.jpeg
922EC38A-E40D-4C8F-8795-5469696E19DD.jpeg
can anyone tell me if these ball joints are original E-Body?
 

Grady Cain

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
882
Reaction score
452
Location
NW Connecticut
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.
20190126_145044.jpg
20190126_170729.jpg
 

193rdsow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
95
Reaction score
12
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.
View attachment 56400 View attachment 56402
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
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
882
Reaction score
452
Location
NW Connecticut
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...
 

193rdsow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
95
Reaction score
12
It will be interesting to see. No one seems to remember anymore what would have come with the car originally. I was told TRW was contracted for ball joints. Perhaps our ball joints were manufactured by them.

Jerry
 

Grady Cain

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
882
Reaction score
452
Location
NW Connecticut
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...
 

193rdsow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
95
Reaction score
12
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...


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
Joined
Feb 13, 2011
Messages
5,177
Reaction score
2,707
Location
Parsippany, NJ
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.

Dino2 (1).gif


IMG_4309.jpg
 

340challconvert

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2011
Messages
5,177
Reaction score
2,707
Location
Parsippany, NJ
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.
Dino2 (1).gif


ball joint left 2.jpg


ball joint left.jpg
 

Grady Cain

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
882
Reaction score
452
Location
NW Connecticut
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...
 

193rdsow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
95
Reaction score
12
5065506C-5B2F-436D-8708-B43A6828F8CA.jpeg
865337C2-2DEB-4A68-8BCA-FF0548BDF6AE.jpeg
Looked over the ball joints yesterday and I think they are probably replacements. The grease cups didn’t have Chrysler part numbers on them. They were still attached to the spindles. Regarding grease fittings. My understanding is that they originally had the smaller dirk fittings installed and they were then broken off at the factory. Supposedly they were replaced at the dealership if they were serviced.
 

193rdsow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
95
Reaction score
12
Are your originals worn out? If not, would you be interested in selling them?
 

340challconvert

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2011
Messages
5,177
Reaction score
2,707
Location
Parsippany, NJ
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?
Dino2 (1).gif

Are your originals worn out? If not, would you be interested in selling them?
 
Last edited:

193rdsow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
95
Reaction score
12
It’s possible. Do you know if those ball joints could be rebuilt? M car is also an Oct ‘69 build! Mine is Ob157611 SPD of Oct 13, 1969. How close is your car?
 

193rdsow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
95
Reaction score
12
Close, Just a tad earlier then yours; 152571 with a SPD of October 6th (A06)
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
Joined
Feb 13, 2011
Messages
5,177
Reaction score
2,707
Location
Parsippany, NJ
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
Joined
Feb 13, 2011
Messages
5,177
Reaction score
2,707
Location
Parsippany, NJ
60532c64d1cf3fd982afd5b209ada70f?AccessKeyId=543E310332E6EA2F28E4&disposition=0&alloworigin=1.jpg

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)
 
Back
Top