TCCoA Forums banner
41 - 48 of 48 Posts
Discussion starter · #45 ·
Why not just drill a hole in the bottom of the ball joint and add a grease zerk yourself?
1. Interference with the ball. The real (original) Supreme right side that I was sent has a bulge on the cap to accommodate the threaded portion of the Zerk.
2. Even if there were zero interference, read back through the thread and you'll see that the fake (newer) Supreme arm has an inferior poly (plastic) bearing, so I don't want that arm in the first place.
 
Discussion starter · #46 · (Edited)
I noticed O'Reilly is selling "Precision" brand arms. I contacted Precision via their website and mentioned it looks like the Mevotech arm. Guess who replied via email. Yep, Mevotech! The agent said they manufacture the Precision brand, so it's the same arm. So, O'Reilly is also guilty of false advertisement, as they show and spec their Precision branded arm to be greaseable (however, they ALSO show the non-greaseable version). :rolleyes:
I mentioned to the Mevotech agent that they have still not corrected their specs on their own website after I had discussed the issue with their tech support some time ago. Well, they FINALLY updated their specs on their site to remove the claim that it's greaseable. It's obviously going to take some time for their distributors to make the change, if ever. I can believe hardly anyone is ordering these arms anymore, or there would be such a large volume of returns due to incorrect specs that most or all sellers would have updated their specs by now.

Also, Moog has discontinued their CK(K) line (Problem-Solver with Zerk) and now the non-Zerk is listed as CK on various sites, including Amazon. And, just like with Mevotech, some sellers still spec the arm as greaseable when the images clearly show a solid, non-Zerk cap. And, just like Mevotech, you'd have to luck out to find a NOS CK arm.

All of this has caused me to give up on both Mevotech and Moog. I've wasted too much time on this already and I've got to get this car fixed or the damn wheels are gonna collapse under me. At least it passed the quick safety inspection and the guy didn't want to drive it, so I was lucky there.

I see the SKP SK80053 and Dorman CB80053PR arms are supposedly serviceable.
RockAuto lists the SKP in the economy section and claims it has a sintered bearing, but SKP's site does not claim this, so one is left wondering what the truth is.
The Dorman is listed in the daily driver section on RA, and neither RA nor Dorman claim it has a metal bearing. The video on the Dorman site on the CB80053PR page hypes up the superiority of their ball joints, but then they show and talk about polymer bearings and not once do they say anything about their Premium joints being sintered metal. Maybe they were once, but aren't anymore? Here again, one is left wondering what the truth is.

Now, you may be tempted to think all greaseable joints necessarily have metal bearings, that manufacturers aren't going to bother adding a Zerk to poly bearing models.
That seems to make sense, but Dorman confuses the issue with their video and PDF on the CB80053PR part page. The video only shows a briefly addressed poly bearing and the PDF states they use poly bearings and shows only solid (non-Zerk) caps. It seems to me that if their Premium parts use metal bearings and have Zerk fittings, they should have a separate PDF (and video) relevant to their Premium line.

I guess I'll have to waste even more time contacting Dorman and SKP for info, and then decide whether to believe it. :confused:

Does anyone here have recent experience with SKP and/or Dorman lower arms? The SKP is half the price of the Dorman, and it has a 1-year warranty, while the Dorman has lifetime. Do they actually have a Zerk (or are at least machined Zerk-ready)? Have you had a look inside and verified they have metal bearings? How's the fitment, durability, lifespan?
 
Does anyone here have experience with SKP and/or Dorman lower arms? The SKP is half the price of the Dorman, and it has a 1-year warranty, while the Dorman has lifetime. Do they actually have a Zerk (or are at least machined Zerk-ready)? Have you had a look inside and verified they have metal bearings? How's the fitment, durability, lifespan?
I haven't installed them yet, or verified the bearing material, but I have one Dorman Premium and one SKP lower arm. They both have zerks and look identical.
 
Discussion starter · #48 ·
Follow-up after the rebuild:

The Mevotech supreme lower arm that I kept (the one that came with Zerk as advertised), inner and outer tie rods, and stabilizer links fit well and seem well made.

The Mevotech supreme upper arm ball joint pins/stems/studs aren't machined properly. They friction fit in the knuckle clamp, but they are too large diameter for the knuckle clamp bolt to be inserted past them. I had to grind down the pins a bit on the bolt side.
Yes, each pin has 2 diameters, but even the smaller diameter lower half of the pin impedes the bolt. Also, I wanted the pin inserted into the clamp fully, like the previous arms, rather than half way, for maximum clamp grip and so that the boots will sit on the knuckle for maximum sealing efficacy. Yes, this does mean the arm bushings experience about half an inch worth of additional torsional stress/preload vs. mounting only the lower half (smaller diameter) of the pins, but I doubt this will cause premature wear on the bushings. If, after doing the rear end rebuild soon, getting new tires and 4-wheel alignment, I feel this pin mounting is causing reduced stability, I can back them off and clamp only the smaller diameter half (assuming the clamp can be squeezed in that much).

The cotter pins Mevotech supplied with the outer rods are nearly impossible to get inserted into the bolt holes. One side absolutely refused to go in, despite the bolt hole being in perfect alignment with the castle nut crenellation after the "torqued to spec plus nearest" rule. I ended up breaking off half of that cotter pin and using only one half. I may go back in and use a slightly smaller pin later, but I doubt there will be problems with this one as-is.

One of the upper arm boots was damaged (cut) at the factory, right at the retaining ring, and I didn't see it until I opened the plastic bag the arm came in – a reminder to always fully examine items as soon as you receive them. Hopefully, keeping the joint well lubed will help prevent debris/water incursion and it won't suffer premature failure. I suppose I could smear some gasket compound on the outside of the boot and see whether that sticks to the boot. Is there a better way to seal up a cut boot? It probably doesn't flex much at that location, so perhaps weatherproof tape with super sticky adhesive might work as well as gasket compound. I'm not going to waste time trying to get a replacement boot from Mevotech, or going through the hell of removing the arm and replacing the boot (or trying to replace it on-vehicle), even in the extremely unlikely event that Mevotech were to cooperate.

The SKP lower arm from RockAuto did come with Zerk, and the arm fit well on the car. It seems as well made as the Mevotech supreme arm.

The original '96 rack boots are still in great shape, so I reused them instead of the new Mevotech supreme boots I purchased.

Everything's nice and tight up front now. There seems to be some oversteer, but it could just be that I'm used to driving with such dangerously loose suspension components and now it's normally much more responsive instead. Some perceived instability is likely due to my eyeballed camber (looks to be slightly positive still), combined with uneven tread wear from the worn suspension. I'll probably tinker with the camber to try to rough it in a bit more accurately. Or, this instability could be due to the rear suspension being totally shot and that's throwing the car around. Or, it could be due to how I clamped the upper arm pins – perhaps bushing resistance/wind-up is trying to lift the wheels? I'll find out when I get the rear end rebuilt.
 
41 - 48 of 48 Posts