Chevy Impala SS Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,027 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Been readin and want to hear from the auto cross/road course guys.

I put my car together bout 8 years ago and being young i forgot that the spindles/ball joints on my 94 frame were different than my 96 body had. Im debating on finding a set of 96 arms/spindles to get the bigger bj's. The car will basically be my garage queen if i get her done before i die but i when i take her out i want to beat on her a lil runnin the old state routes and county roads around here that are twisty and wild.

Will it be fine (with new parts) to run the 94 9/16 bj's or should i play it safe n get the 5/8 bj's?

Anyone had a 9/16 fail while pushin the car hard?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,484 Posts
I am not going to argue the 5/8" BJ is better than the 9/16" as it is bigger thus stronger.....

with that said after 20 years and a great deal of "canyon carving" with my 9/16" BJ SS...no broken BJ

I have not heard of a reported BJ breaking
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,044 Posts
Ball joint breakage is usually due to lack of grease on a regular basis. If you use a top name brand, like MOOG, you should not have a problem. Cheapies are not made of the higher grade metal, and more subject to fracturing from stress. You can get the 5/8 inch spindles and arms from any 9C1 between 93-96.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,027 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Well crap. Thanks fred. The chassis i used is a 94 9C1. Guess i didnt have to worry. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Most of the failures were actually due to insufficient torque on the castle nut as delivered from the factory. But as long as you've got the torque right, and the spindle taper hasn't deformed, you'll be fine with a 9/16" joint.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,587 Posts
5/8 bj

Ball joint breakage is usually due to lack of grease on a regular basis. If you use a top name brand, like MOOG, you should not have a problem. Cheapies are not made of the higher grade metal, and more subject to fracturing from stress. You can get the 5/8 inch spindles and arms from any 9C1 between 93-96.
Fred, I appreciate your knowledge on our cars but have to disagree to this one item. I have a 93 9C1 and I went out after reading your reply. and measured mine to be sure. I had bought MOOG BJs for my rebuild and thought "Well Shyt." They are 9/16ths. I believe the 5/8 inch came out in late 95 and on 96s. If I'm wrong here then I guess my lower control arms were replaced somewhere along the line.


Mark: Snowman-33
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,027 Posts
Discussion Starter #7 (Edited)
Wel i looked it up on rock auto. I know parts stores aint the beat way to get info but it did show police package 5/8 for 94 and showed 2 different moogs for 93. Not sayin either of u r wrong tho. Guess ill measure when i tear it down here in few days. Actually while we are one it does anyone know the size of the balljoint housing on lower arm if its different?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,587 Posts
BJ

Wel i looked it up on rock auto. I know parts stores aint the beat way to get info but it did show police package 5/8 for 94 and showed 2 different moogs for 93. Not sayin either of u r wrong tho. Guess ill measure when i tear it down here in few days. Actually while we are one it does anyone know the size of the balljoint housing on lower arm if its different?
I stand corrected. I just looked at RA site and it shows the 5/8 bj on the 94 9c1. My 93 does take the 9/16 though and it's correct for the year. I guess I should go back and scrounge a little more off the two 94 9C1s I have been getting parts from. I love to learn, weather I'm right or wrong. I've learned so much here. Thanks SH:grin2:


Mark: Snowman-33
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,505 Posts
regardless of all the speculation and misinformation so far, only very late '95 and '96 9c1's have 5/8 Ball joints. Anything to the contrary is wrong.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
regardless of all the speculation and misinformation so far, only very late '95 and '96 9c1's have 5/8 Ball joints. Anything to the contrary is wrong.
AND 1A2 Police Package Wagons from late 1995-1996 also and NOTHING else B-Body!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,986 Posts
Been readin and want to hear from the auto cross/road course guys.

I put my car together bout 8 years ago and being young i forgot that the spindles/ball joints on my 94 frame were different than my 96 body had. Im debating on finding a set of 96 arms/spindles to get the bigger bj's. The car will basically be my garage queen if i get her done before i die but i when i take her out i want to beat on her a lil runnin the old state routes and county roads around here that are twisty and wild.

Will it be fine (with new parts) to run the 94 9/16 bj's or should i play it safe n get the 5/8 bj's?

Anyone had a 9/16 fail while pushin the car hard?
Im not an auto cross/road course guy but have done the upgrade to 5/8" ball joints. I only chose to do this for the added piece of mind this brought me and the fact I was able to source parts at the time. Cost was an obvious factor but could not NOT DO IT based on cost only and the fear of breakage was my sole reason for doing this. The locating of parts could be more difficult and expensive now.

If you search here, you will find a few threads where guys have experienced breakage of the BJ and it's a scary experience that I did not want to risk. Maybe you could follow up with them on the reason(s) this may have happened and what they ultimately did to fix it. NOT saying because they had 9/16" BJs that is the reason they failed, just relaying that info if you want to follow up with them. There are a lot of other factors at play here that could cause breakage and one of those could be improper replacement/inspection done over the many years, miles and numerous owners most of these cars have had.

While I'm aware that GM did post the wrong torque values and have read in other places that this may have caused breakage/damage, I'm just not sure I believe that is the sole reason. In using that logic, why did GM only go with a larger BJ on later 95 and 96 9C1 cars? If that was the case, you would think they would upgrade all model B-body cars and especially the Impala with larger wheels and tires. I've read (this is also speculation by someone) that the cop cars were having breakage issues during some HS pursuits and GM decided to upgrade them for this reason. Now is this true?....I dunno, but seems like a reasonable explanation. A lot of parts on the 9C1 Caprice were upgraded or different from that of the Impala or Caprice of similar years. If the torque values were wrong and damaged the Spindle and/or the control arm....WHY did GM just not just replace the CA and Spindle with a new 9/16" setup with the correct torque and call it a day. Instead they chose to design a different spindle and CA to use a larger BAlljoint AND THEN only use them on the 9C1 cars? Just doesn't make sense to me but sometimes manufacturers do things that don't make sense. :smile2:

I would think tHe larger wheel/tire combo of the Impala would have to put more stress on the suspension. So why did they not upgrade the suspension on all the Caprices and Imaplas? It's based on this question alone that I can't believe this was solely due to torque settings on those cars BJ's being incorrect....IMHO. But in the end, it doesn't matter to me why GM developed this upgrade. Like many upgrades/modifications I've done over the years, there are numerous reasons why I chose to do them or not. Some were based on cost, availability, improvements, performance or just flat out "piece of mind".

In any case, this thread has good info on the upgrade and some post from Bill that should set the record straight on when GM switched over on the 9C1.

http://www.impalassforum.com/vBulletin/17-suspension/234245-5-8-spindles-steering-knuckles-discontinued.html

Not sure this clears up the reasons for or answers your question but provides even more speculation. >:)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,294 Posts
......A lot of parts on the 9C1 Caprice were upgraded or different from that of the Impala or Caprice of similar years........WHY did GM just not just replace the CA and Spindle with a new 9/16" setup with the correct torque and call it a day. Instead they chose to design a different spindle and CA to use a larger BAlljoint AND THEN only use them on the 9C1 cars? Just doesn't make sense to me but sometimes manufacturers do things that don't make sense......
More than likelym they had too many 9/16" parts sitting in crates to just 'let them go. In any case, there were other vehicles at the time using 5/8" ball-joints....so no 'new' design work or tooling was required to make this 'conversion'.

......I would think tHe larger wheel/tire combo of the Impala would have to put more stress on the suspension. So why did they not upgrade the suspension on all the Caprices and Imaplas?......
I agree.....Impalas should have gotten any 'heavy duty' parts that GM saw fit to put on the 9C1's. I mean, they really put the 'shake-and-fake' on us with the impala.

Exact same engine/drivetrain as other LT1 B-bodies;
Same crappy exhaust;
Same crappy tune;
Crappy suspension;
Sh1tty rear gear ratio (3.08 instead of 3.73....or at least 3.42);
Same crappy posi unit;
Etc.........

OK.....I'm just venting, now. cwm6

KW
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,027 Posts
Discussion Starter #14 (Edited)
Ok. Well i guess im gonna wait til i got daylight n im ginna compare my 92 RMS lowers to my 94 9c1 chassis lowers. Never thought about that during this discussion. Ill let u know what i find but as usual a used car could have had parts replaced (referring to my mix breed 9c1) but from paper work i got on the chassis, the car it was under was retired and cloned not long after auction. After that was left in storage and wrecked into, 3 storage bins deep. Then i proceeded to cut car in half after bad relationship :D
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top