Many of you are aware that my grandson and I have been working on the
Yellow Peril, a 1973 145E with an abused engine.

We started in again today. I took the upper balljoints out months ago and
replaced them with a pair I had bought on ebay, manufactured by the Brit
parts king, Quentin-Hazell (sp?). They fit right into the upper A-frames
so we thought everything was fine. Today we tried to install the front
spindle forgings/hubs/rotors/calipers and found the tapered pin of the
ball joints to be VERY loose in the tapered hole in the spindle forging, and
in fact much smaller than the OEM ball joints we removed (in desperately bad
shape).

Specifics of the tapered pins are as follows:

OEM ball joint:
Threaded portion: 1/2"-20 UNF
Tapered portion tapers from 0.570" to 0.654" over a distance of 11/16".

Q-H ball joint:
Threaded portion: 7/16"-20 UNF
Tapered portion tapers from 0.485" to 0.574: over a distance of 11/16".

I attempted to put a spacer between the nut and the spindle forging tapered
hole on one side and was able to tighten it up but rather than tightening on
the taper it was tightening on the inside of the ball joint socket and would
not swivel.

Have any of you ever experienced this problem with misfit ball joints?
Most of the Q-H parts I have used were generally OK but needed more grease
before installation - they seem to come without lubricant in them.

Do you suppose these ball joints are for some other car and just happen to
be the same outside diameter as the Volvo item, or perhaps they were
assembled with the wrong components?

If anyone has a spare pair of upper ball joints for a 140/164 at a bargain
price I'd love to hear from you!
--
George Downs, Bartlesville, Oklahoma, Central US

I too bought some QH upper ball joints on ebay - this was for my 74 144. What stood out on these joints were:
1. First of all the diameter was too small so they plain didn't fit
2. There was no serration (or vertical splines) on the mating surface compared to the ones I removed.
3. There was no indentation on the cap to mark the angle. If you look in the Volvo manual, the ball joints are supposed to be installed in a particular angle. Who knows how to do it with the QH's.

I contacted the ebay seller and he took them in return and refunded me - a very nice guy. I bought new ones from VLVworld which where the cheapest I found, about $24 each. They were made by TRW and fit perfectly. I noticed VLV has since raised the price on these joints.

Kåre

The ones I had were OK except (I have concluded) for an earlier model.
I had previously been unaware that they came in 2 pin sizes, but mine did
have the orientation mark and the serrations on the body where it presses
into the control arm. I had previously used QH parts and found them OK but
without enough grease in them as received. I have since found a pair on
ebay and asked the fellow to measure them, which he did and the size he
reports are correct. He took them off the auction and I am sending him the
money for them today, a very good price. I believe I'll do better this time.

Not sure what to say about the ones you got other than they were either
defective or maybe for a different application. It might be that they
were lower ones which are not orientation-sensitive. (The lower ones are
ring-shaped and the upper ones have a longitudinal slot so front-rear motion
is limited). If they fit right (tight enough) I'm not sure the serrations
are an absolute requirement, although I did have an A-frame on my 164 which
had been bent and straightened, in which the ball joint was not tight enough
and would come out if I tried to jack it up by the A-frame. I've since
replaced it. I suspect that maybe both lower ones on that might have been
from a 144 since they take the 66375 bushings that are somewhat smaller,
like used on the 122. If I find a bargain set of huskier A-frames I might
change them if for no other reason, for durability of the bushings.
--
George Downs, Bartlesville, Oklahoma, Central US

George,
You are in the exactly opposite position I was in last Sunday evening when I decided to change the upper ball joint in my wifes 68 142. After I had pressed the new unit into the upper control arm I noticed that the taper was much to big for the spindle that the shank had to enter.
This was not a complete surprize to me as I do know of the differances between the early and late suspensions as it relates to interchangability. You must have the early version of the upper ball joint. I am of the understanding that this joint is no longer available and I think that the only solution you may have, if you do indeed intend to use this joint, is to make a sleeve. This should work fine and would be quite easy to do with the compound slide on any common engine lathe.
I was forced to find another method for my problem. In my Millwright tool kit was a bridge reamer that I had used for enlarging holes in the field when there was a misalignment situation. The taper is by chance just about right on and it was quite easy to enlarge the upper spindle hole to suit. My assumption is that I will use up every early style part I have and then convert as required into the future.
Let me know if you can look after this machining job locally without any difficulty, if not I am sure I can help.

I have tracked down a set of the ones I need at a bargain price.
If you are interested in the ones I will be taking off I will also
make you a bargain price on them - unused but at least one and maybe
both boots are damaged. The joints themselves are OK though.
These DO have the alignment marks and serrations like they are
supposed to, unlike those that Kare got.
e-mail me offline if interested
--
George Downs, Bartlesville, Oklahoma, Central US

Yea I have heard of these different sizes. A friend of mine gave me a set of tie rods and I had to chage out my idler arm as to fit the shafts of the ball joints. The 140's changed that stuff around 72-73 and so there is a difference is size relative to the design changes in those years. I can get the particular year if that would be helpfull.

'67-'69 140's had smaller top balljoints & smaller tie rod ends & drag link ends. Also, the bottom wisbone bushes are smaller & solid rubber. In my '69 car I threw the whole front end away including the idler arm & pitman arm & put later stuff in. Interestingly, the smaller tie rod size that Volvo considers too small is the same size as on six banger Valiants from the same era, I'd guess they are a standard S.A.E. size.

Cheers,
Paul.

Also, QH use to make fairly average parts. OEM are TRW, I believe that Volvo were probably one of the first to use TRW's 'new fangled' sealed for life, no greasing required ball joints.

Cheers,
Paul.