Balljoint spacers w/SN95 spindles

4G-KDMP · Jun 13, 2008

Shakerhood said:
I took the measurements on a pair that I have. the thickness is .335, the Inside hole is 5/8" and the Outside Diameter is 1 1/2". I ended up using my M-2300-K ones on my car and these ones were fabbed up as I wanted to have extras of everything in case supplies ever dried up for anything. Hope this helps you out!

I've always read that is was .330 and now I'm finding out .335 also works
:OT:
But the part I'm lost at with is this... if the inside dia. of the hole is 5/8" and the outside dia. of the bushing is 1-1/2" so why can't the thickness of the bushing be 11/32 or 3/8 instead of .330 and now .335 if tolerances don't need to be that close?
What I'm trying to find out, is if the thickness needs to be .330 + or - why aren't the inside and out dia. that bushing that critical?

Mustang5L5 · Jun 13, 2008

4G-KDMP said:
I've always read that is was .330 and now I'm finding out .335 also works
:OT:
But the part I'm lost at with is this... if the inside dia. of the hole is 5/8" and the outside dia. of the bushing is 1-1/2" so why can't the thickness of the bushing be 11/32 or 3/8 instead of .330 and now .335 if tolerances don't need to be that close?
What I'm trying to find out, is if the thickness needs to be .330 + or - why aren't the inside and out dia. that bushing that critical?

Because the part will be in compression. There isn't any lateral movement. If the OD is off a few thousandths it's not gonna matter. Same with the ID. How accurate you go just dictates how snug to the bolt it will be.

The critical dimension is just the height. Even this dimension isn't all that critical. 0.005 is TINY. The difference between 0.330 and 0.335 is maybe 1/8th of a turn of the castle nut. If anything, the larger dimension is better because it will prevent the nut from bottoming out on the non-threaded portion of the balljoint.

This spacer is in compression only..so you want to use a metal that will not mushroom under load over time.

Blown331LX · Jun 13, 2008

Mustang5L5 said:
I'm gonna machine up a pait of spacers for a friend. Anyone know the dimensions i should make them?

I know they need to be 0.330" in height and slip over a 5/8" diameter shaft. What should I make the OD? 1"?

Why would you take the time to do that, just use SN95 ball joints they press right in and much cleaner and safer install.

4G-KDMP · Jun 13, 2008

Mustang5L5 said:
Because the part will be in compression. There isn't any lateral movement. If the OD is off a few thousandths it's not gonna matter. Same with the ID. How accurate you go just dictates how snug to the bolt it will be.

The critical dimension is just the height. Even this dimension isn't all that critical. 0.005 is TINY. The difference between 0.330 and 0.335 is maybe 1/8th of a turn of the castle nut. If anything, the larger dimension is better because it will prevent the nut from bottoming out on the non-threaded portion of the balljoint.

This spacer is in compression only..so you want to use a metal that will not mushroom under load over time.

Unless I'm not understanding what your saying .
So you as an engineer will sign off on a part and then send it down to manufacturing and as long as the thickness of that part is correct because that part is under compression, then the rest of the part can be within a 1/16 -1/8 of an inch?
I've read where you can use washers to take up the thickness or use a .330 spacer, and we've all seen washers at the parts store in the same bend that you can see are not all the exact same thickness.

I thought as an engineer you would be more critical of all the dimensions and not just the thickness since you may have signed the part off for manufacturing.

I learn something new ever day, thanks for all the info.

stang&2Birds · Jun 13, 2008

4G-KDMP said:
I thought as an engineer you would be more critical of all the dimensions and not just the thickness since you may have signed the part off for manufacturing.

Well, it's clear that you're not an engineer. So, what makes you think that you know about Engineering? That's also an honest question, I think.

You see, there are those of us (Engineers) that design and live in the real world. Then, there are the zillion people that "know better" than we do. Hmm, I wonder what they make a year? The typical Engineer makes between $80K and $140K/year. That's well above the typical pay for a two income family. So, I think people should consider that.

If you honestly want to know, in the *real-world* accuracy costs money and time. So, mechanical drawings specify the accuracy for each dimension. If the accuracy for the outer and inner diameter can be reduced, then that reduces time and cost. Also, if you want you ****ing "carbon credits", reducing accuracy also takes less energy because of the tools, checking, time, etc involved.

Yea, let's spec the TPS voltage at idle to 0.000001V. Who cares that the EEC has accuracy many orders of magnitude less.

Shakerhood · Jun 14, 2008

4G-KDMP said:
Unless I'm not understanding what your saying .
So you as an engineer will sign off on a part and then send it down to manufacturing and as long as the thickness of that part is correct because that part is under compression, then the rest of the part can be within a 1/16 -1/8 of an inch?
I've read where you can use washers to take up the thickness or use a .330 spacer, and we've all seen washers at the parts store in the same bend that you can see are not all the exact same thickness.

I thought as an engineer you would be more critical of all the dimensions and not just the thickness since you may have signed the part off for manufacturing.

I learn something new ever day, thanks for all the info.

Parts usually have a + or - Tolerance, .005" is no big deal. Even in Torque Specs you will get a Low Number and a High Number and you set your Wrench to hit it in the middle.

Shakerhood · Jun 14, 2008

dbdragracing said:
My goal this summer is to go through the underneath of my '89 Gt and replace/refresh/undercoat everything before I paint the car. Would I be better off to replace my front lower control arms or just repaint them and install new bushings/ball joints? Is there any advantages of installing new lca? Thanks.

I used Ford Racing Lower A Arms, at the time I bought them they were not very expensive and it would have been a waste of time to press new BJs and new Bushings in them.

stang&2Birds · Jun 14, 2008

dbdragracing said:
My goal this summer is to go through the underneath of my '89 Gt and replace/refresh/undercoat everything before I paint the car. Would I be better off to replace my front lower control arms or just repaint them and install new bushings/ball joints? Is there any advantages of installing new lca? Thanks.

You're much better off with the new FRPP FCAs, or at least "rebuilding" your FCA with new Ford parts. But, they have gone up in price. The new FRPP FCAs have the "forever" ball-joints. Even after ~200K miles, they show very little wear. Also, the Fox FRPP FCAs have *new* and firmer bushings.

You can replace the ball joints with the Ford replacement ball-joints. And, get *only FORD*! And, you can also replace the FCA bushings with Ford bushings (again get *only* Ford!). But, it's easier to just replace the whole FCA in one swap.

They're ~$310 now! Ouch! I repeat OUCH!!
http://store.summitracing.com/partd...+150+4294908331+4294908282+4294925008+400070+

Ford Racing M-3075-A

$306.95
Estimated Ship Date: Monday

Brand:Ford Racing Product Line:Ford Racing Front Lower Control Arm Kits Part Type:Control Arms Part Number: FMS-M-3075-A Control Arm Style: Stamped Adjustable: No Hardware Included: No Control Arm Material: Steel Control Arm Finish: Black powdercoated Bushings Included: Yes Bushing Material: Hard durometer rubber Quantity: Sold as a pair. Notes: The ball joints in the kit have been upgraded. They have an improved nylon bearing to futher reduce impact harshness. Control Arms, Stamped, Front, Lower, Steel, Black Powdercoated, Ford/Mercury, Mustang/Capri, Pair

Check to make sure this part fits your application

Modernize the front-end of your Ford.
These front lower control arm kits enable the owners of Ford vehicles to upgrade them with low-friction ball joints and improved inner bushings. They feature a higher quality nylon bearing that dramatically improves impact harshness, resulting in a better ride. These kits are recommended when heavy-duty suspension components are added. They include left and right lower control arm assemblies, cotter pins, and instructions.

stang&2Birds · Jun 14, 2008

stang&2Birds said:
They're ~$310 now! Ouch! I repeat OUCH!!
http://store.summitracing.com/partd...+150+4294908331+4294908282+4294925008+400070+

One more time... OUCH!!
The sn95 FCAs are still ~$170. That's approx what I paid for my Fox FRPP FCAs.

Again.... ~$310? OUCH!!!!!!!!!!

SVT32VDOHC · Jun 14, 2008

Mustangs Unlimited had the fox LCA's much cheaper than 50resto at one time. They were 189.99. I just checked and they now are 304.95.....WOW...OUCH from me too.

I had all MOOG bushings, and BJ's installed for 250 at a local ap store. 50 was labor. I didn't feel like messing the the bushings.

4G-KDMP · Jun 14, 2008

stang&2Birds said:
Well, it's clear that you're not an engineer..

You are right, I am not an engineer.

So, what makes you think that you know about Engineering? That's also an honest question, I think.

I didn't say I knew anything about engineer, I was just asking what I hear my Mom say at dinner about the engineers she works with and what tight spec they have on there Gov projects

You see, there are those of us (Engineers) that design and live in the real world. Then, there are the zillion people that "know better" than we do. Hmm, I wonder what they make a year? The typical Engineer makes between $80K and $140K/year. That's well above the typical pay for a two income family. So, I think people should consider that.

That's exactly what my Mom say about engineers; there arrogant, talk about how much money you make, and how much better you are than everyone else in your own mind.

Mustang5L5 · Jun 14, 2008

4G-KDMP said:
Unless I'm not understanding what your saying .
So you as an engineer will sign off on a part and then send it down to manufacturing and as long as the thickness of that part is correct because that part is under compression, then the rest of the part can be within a 1/16 -1/8 of an inch?
I've read where you can use washers to take up the thickness or use a .330 spacer, and we've all seen washers at the parts store in the same bend that you can see are not all the exact same thickness.

I thought as an engineer you would be more critical of all the dimensions and not just the thickness since you may have signed the part off for manufacturing.

I learn something new ever day, thanks for all the info.

Well I wasn't aware I was producing a production part here. Yes you are right. My drawings that i create for parts that I have manufactured are dimensioned and toleranced thouroughly.

But, this is a spacer. It's not a high precision machined component here. Guys typically just use 5/8" Grade 8 washers to accomplish the same deal. I just thought I'd machnine up some spacers as an excuse to use our CNC lathe.

I would never call out a tolerance as 1.0" +/- 1/8". That's just too broad of a range.

If i call the OD 1.0" that gives me a +/- of 0.20". That means i can call it out as 1.0 and expect anything from .98 - 1.02 back from the machinist. That's a loose range by engineering spec. If i wanted it tighter, i'd call it out to more decimal places.

WHen you call out a dimension to 0.xxx, it's generally understood the tolerance is +/- 0.005. That means if you spec out .330, you are going to get anywhere from 0.325 to 0.335 back from the machinist.

Again, for this part, this is perfectly acceptable since the part is just used to take up dead space on the balljpoint and allow the castle nut to press down on the spindle. When you call out very tight tolerances, it takes longer for the machninist to make the part since he has to be very carful with what he is doing. That's why you need to think carefully how necessary the tolerance be at a certain dimension. You could call out the entire drawing to 0.XXX and get a very expensive part to machnine. There are other styles of dimensioning I could use as well, but it would take forever to explain how I would use them. For the ID i would prob call out a min dimension (0.625) and then give a + 0.20/- 0.00 range or something like that.

I'm not trying to say dimensions don't matter at all. They are critical. However for this part you do have a lot of wiggle room when you think about how it will be used.

Think about it...it's just a substitute for a stack of parts store washers.

4G-KDMP · Jun 14, 2008

Mustang5L5 said:
I'm not trying to say dimensions don't matter at all. They are critical. However for this part you do have a lot of wiggle room when you think about how it will be used.

Think about it...it's just a substitute for a stack of parts store washers.

And that makes perfectly good since to me, especially the wiggle room you're talking about.
Thanks for clearing things up.

Balljoint spacers w/SN95 spindles

4G-KDMP

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

Blown331LX

Member

4G-KDMP

stang&2Birds

Shakerhood

Shakerhood

stang&2Birds

stang&2Birds

SVT32VDOHC

waiting for the next hack atta

4G-KDMP

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

4G-KDMP

Similar threads

Balljoint spacers w/SN95 spindles

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

Member

waiting for the next hack atta

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency