Mustang II lower ball joints

L

Lowdown40

Member
In the November Street Scene magazine, the member mag for the NSRA, in the "safety first" column, there is mention of problems with the lower ball joints used by many of the aftermarket manufacturers. It seems that many of the aftermarket manufacturers are using upper ball joints in their lower tube control arms. This is a misuse of a component and the failures are starting to show up. This problem was addressed by Ron Ceridono in an article in the August 2003 Street Rodder about the front suspension in his 41 Ford sedan. In the article, he changed the control arms on his front end to units manufactured by us, WEEDETR Street Rod Components, as we have always used a lower ball joint in our control arms. The use of the correct ball joint requires that the lower boss on the Mustang II spindle be reamed to fit. We are offering a special on our website www.weedetrstreetrod.com for December and January to help correct this for those using these control arms with the incorrect ball joints. Considering the amount of weight on the front of most fat fendered Fords, and other makes also, it would seem that there probably are many more failures out there that what have been reported. Comparing the upper and the correct lower ball joints, it is obvious that the lower ball joint is much stronger. If you have a Mustang II style IFS wit tube control arms in your car, it is time to get under and check it out!:eek:
 
Are the pressed steel lower arms stronger. I'm getting ready to put a mustang II in a 40 ford, and have the wider, lower arms that don't require the strut rod. What's your input on these? Thanks Chuck.
 
Why would the spindle have to be reamed for the "correct" ball joint if the original one was correct and fit? Not being critical, but don't understand. I used Heidt's pressed steel arms and the stud seemed to fit to spindle boss. Are you saying they are joints for the top because they fit without reaming? thanks for the heads up, but some clarification is needed.
 
The spindles need to be reamed to fit the CORRECT lower ball joints that are being used in the TUBE control arms. The OEM ball joint in the Mustang II control arm has a smaller pin than the ones used in the tube control arms. The stock stamped arms with the strut rods are adequate for most cars. The tube control arms are actually stronger but not always necessary. This is mainly for those that have the tube control arms or are planning to use tube "A" arms on their cars. The upper joints that have been used have been so because they fit the spindle without reaming them but the design of an upper ball joint is such that it will not support the weight of the front of the car. THESE ARE THE SCREW IN TYPE BALL JOINT
 
This is a perfect example of how this "street rod" stuff is not always the upgrade they want you to think. The original old tech stuff was at least engineered for the specific job. Upper and lower ball joints are different animals, playing around with this stuff can be dangerous. Also, don't forget that the Mustang 2 was adapted from the Pinto design and neither of these were very heavy or rugged vehicles.
 
I've put together several Mustang II tubular a-frames without the strut(Heidt's,TCI.etc.)and never had to ream the spindle with either the 2 inch dropped spindle and the stock spindle.You may have to use a spacer between the ball joint nut and the spindle.I seems to me that most of the companies making the tubular a-frames are using a pressed in Dodge ball joint,but don't quote me.
 
Last edited:
Here's a fact, of the stock mustang front suspensions 90% failed, shock towers collapsed, if you had the export brace installed from day one you had a better chance, this is regardless of struts or any other thing that may be said. Stock Ford vans E series, ALL, look at them, they all dog at the five year mark, this is caused by catastrophic upper ball joint failure, lift one up, you can shake the front end a good 2 inches. It falls upon you, regardless of how old how new how NOS, how stock to jack the front end up and do a full and thorough inspection of your equipment. If you don't you will surely have a problem. No one ever built a car to last 70 years, in most cases not even five. As far as pointing the finger at a product from 2003, yup at this point it most likely is at it's life's end, figure a safe service life of 5 years. We want these cars to be at optimum performance don't we? Why have it if it's not in good working order?
 
Sounded a lot like a commercial to me. I checked the website. Price way to steep for as pair of ball joints and about 15 minutes, if that, of work. Maybe their parts are better,maybe not. But of all the thousands of M II kits sold and in use, percentage of failure probably isn't any higher than factory OEM failures. What constitutes a failed ball joint? Worn out or sheared pin? I don't have any statistics to back my thoughts. I hope he does to back his.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top