Tall spindle lower ball joint turning - "case hardened"

[derekf]

I'm in the process (among other things) of doing a tall spindle conversion on my El Camino.

I've got almost everything together - the spindles are assembled; the upper a-arms wait patiently.

The spindles I'm using are from a 96 Impala SS. I had read somewhere (here (http://www.angelfire.com/tx/lonestarclassics/tallspindle.htm), to be specific) that for the 95 and 96 spindles, you needed to use the 96 Imp LBJ, so I did - I picked up a pair of McQuay-Norris FA3000 LBJs for a 96 Impala at Autozone and dropped them off at the machine shop when I dropped off my crank.

The machine shop just called me. Apparently my ball joints are case hardened and cannot be turned down.

So: Is there a better LBJ for me to go pick up? Is the machine shop blowing smoke? (I sure hope not, since I gave them my crank too).. should I pick up a different brand of LBJ?

[Matt@RFR]

Not an answer to your question, but just some information.

With the grades of carbide (among other materials like ceramic) inserts available now days, most any metal, in most any condition, can be machined. The problem with your job is they would have to get case hardened again, which isn't exactly cheap.

Most smaller manual machine shops, especially those that do mainly engine machining, are highly unlikely to stock the type of inserts that would be required to turn very hard metals. Your shop saying it can't be done means either that they aren't aware of the advancements in insert technology as of late, or they have no need to buy inserts that would be required.

[derekf]

Yeah. Their suggestion was that I try having them press-fit into the arms as they sit (.080 larger than the hole). I don't know that I buy that as a valid possibility - that's a heck of an interference-fit.

It does appear that they attempted to machine them; most of the knurls are noticably flatter on one of them (which I guess prevents me from returning one of them if they're not needed)

Not that I like the other possibilities any better at this point - buying different ball joints, reaming out the holes in the lower A-arms, or changing spindles.

[Matt@RFR]

lol .080? Yeah, that won't work. A TIGHT press fit is .005 - .007. The rule of thumb is .001-.0015 of interference for every Ø1".

[parsonsj]

Derek,

I think reaming the spindles is the way to go. I bought reamers to machine my uprights (aka spindles). Any machine shop ought to be able to pull that off.

jp

[MuscleRodz]

.080 interference. NOT!! Reaming would be the best way to go.

Mike

[sinned]

STOP, do not ream the spindles, that will not help and will ruin the spindles. The stock "A" body spindle taper is smaller than the "F" and "B" body which is the reason you need to use the donor cars lower ball joints.

Find a new machine shop, most engine type shops are not set-up for this type of work. You need a find a small shop that does not do engine work but does the more exotic stuff, they will actually be cheaper as they have the know how and tools do this quickly.

[parsonsj]

Hmmm. I guess I'm not following the problem. Here's how I see it: you got a big something trying to fit in a little hole. Either you make the big something smaller, or you make the hole bigger. It seems to me that making the hole bigger is the easier way to go, given a case hardened big something.

This took a while to type ... my mind kept going somewhere else for some reason.

jp

[derekf]

Thanks, y'all. I reckon I'll be calling around to the dirt-track shops around here on Tuesday.

JP: It's the housing that's too big; the tapered shaft-bit is the right size. Opening up the hole in the a-arm for the housing-body-thing would weaken the a-arm more than I'd like.

[MuscleRodz]

How much meat does the spindle have? You can't machine the BJ, so it is either modify the spindle or find another BJ. Or call Marcus at SC&C on Tuesday. I am sure he has dealt with this numerous times.

Mike

[yody]

you guys don't get it, the balljoint won't fit inot the A ARM not the spindle, reaming the spinlde will jsut make it too big. He is trying to machine down the housing of the ball joint so it will fit in the hole of the lower a arm

[MuscleRodz]

:banghead: Call Marcus and see if his modular BJ's will work.

Mike

[parsonsj]

the balljoint won't fit inot the A ARM not the spindle

Yody, you're right. It never occurred to me that the A-arm was the problem. I should have thought of that with my own interference fit ball joints.

Derek, got a pic?

jp

[shep]

Global west has the B body ball joint already turned down. http://www.globalwest.net/1964-72%20A-BODIES.htm#Now%20Shipping%20New%20Tubular%20Upper% 20&%20Lower%20Control%20Arms%20For%20%2062-72%20Chevelle,%20GTO,%20Buick%20GS,442,%20A-Body about 1/4 the way down the page "You will also need a pair of special machined lower ball joints part #2005 because the new spindle has a different taper."

[79T/Aman]

I think the GW turned down ball joints are the old B-body style that have a smaller pin the later B-bodies have a biger pin and body so yes go see the circle track guys there is a bal joint sleeve made for that ball joint that can be welded on your lower arm but you'll have to make the hole bigger first to fit it

[paul67]

What i found when I when I used late vette spindle was that the ball joint was metric and the lower arm was english so I just used a flap wheel to open up till the ball fitted, what I call a flap wheel is a spindle with loads of sanding strips on, only took a couple of mins to do.
paul67

[79T/Aman]

must read, he has .080 too small hole in the a-arm, would never get it done with a flat wheel

[sinned]

Derek, send them to me. My machinist gets 10/ea to turn them down. I have already had a few sets done.

[derekf]

Yup. I'll call Marcus on Tuesday (unless he chimes in here before then).

JP: your requested pic. The area that needs turned is the area I marked in red.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2005/09/100_0317-1.jpg

[andrewb70]

I am using the Impala spindles on my GTO with the GW ball joints. It all fits together very nicely. I also have the GW lower control arms that are built specifically for the swap, so the ball joints do not need to be turned down.

Andrew

[parsonsj]

OK, got it. The hardened steel is because it provides the platform for the actual pivoting of the stud, and so the whole thing is hardened. No harm done by removing the hardened outer layer on the a-arm side ... hardening isn't needed there anyway.

Thanks for the pic!

jp

[Matt@RFR]

But if it's case hardened there, which is a localised process, then some engineer somewhere wanted it that way for a reason. I'd look into it further if you still want it to be turned down.

[parsonsj]

Matt,

I hear ya. It's more likely just heat treated, rather than case hardened. I'm thinking the hardening on the outside is a side effect of the hardening done in the ball joint seat.

jp

[paul67]

If you remove the nurl and press fit after a time the joint will come loose, if you need to turn down joint I would plus an extra 4 thou ,I would heat the arm up and freeze the joint and then press it. But if you open the arm up when you change the ball joint it will not have to be machined to fit its just like fitting to a normal car. Do NOT hand ream it out.
paul67

[72SSAbody]

Derek,
My best advice to you, after doing this swap on my a-bodies, is to send your lower ball joints to Dennis and let his machinist work his magic.

My website show's how I did it.

www.geocities.com/diels12000/BrakesII.html

Good luck and if you have any questions feel free to PM me.

Joe

[Marcus SC&C]

Seems like an awful lot of hassle to go through to mess up the steering geometry (a major downside of the B swap on either A or G bodys). Not me car though. ;)
Dennis has the cheapest solution. I`m sure I can supply modulat LBJs for the swap that`ll be direct fit but I`ll need some measurments since the `96 style LBJs aren`t listed by application in our components. I can probably supply them with a taller than stock stud(or pin) to help minimize the damage to the steering geometry too. I sell quite a few of those for folks who have done the typical B swap and hate the extra bumpsteer. They`re not cheap parts but the quality and durability are outstanding. MUCH BETTER than OE stuff. Give me a call at the shop tomorrow I`m happy to help out. Marcus

[sinned]

Marcus...how is increasing the ball joint height and thus the overall spindle height going to help with the bump steer/turning radius/slower steering response? Just curious.

[Marcus SC&C]

Denny,I dunno if his Elky is an A or G body but in either case the steering arm of the B spindle is way too low. The tall LBJ raises the spindle AND steering arm and helps the bumpsteer quite a bit. It still ends up slightly worse than stock (which is already pretty bad) and it won`t help with the other steering issues at all which are worse on A body than G body. The combination is less than optimum in regard to camber gain and RC height too. Make no mistake it`s a bandaid but for someone who already has the B spindles swapped on the car it helps the driveability. Of course IMO the only `73-`77 ElCaminos should be running "B" spindles. ;) Marcus

[sinned]

Denny,I dunno if his Elky is an A or G body but in either case the steering arm of the B spindle is way too low.MarcusAnd too long and with too much pos Ackerman, but I can see how a taller LBJ may possibly help a teeny bit.

It's an "A" body just FYI and I agree the "B" spindles belong on chassis that already came with tall spindles.