GREASABLE U-JOINT??

[PEANUTGRWR]

DO ANY OF YOU KNOW WHERE I COULD FIND A GREASABLE REPLACEMENT U-JOINT??? IM GETTING TIRED OF PAYING $80 FOR GM JUNK THAT ONLY LASTS A YEAR. IVE REPLACED THE SAME ONE TWICE IN THE PAST TWO YEARS :mad:

[Maverick]

Same here. Replaced the rear on the rear drive shaft twice.

None yet. GM hasn't released it to be reproduced by the aftermarket. Hopefully soon.

I also heard something about the u-joint weaking because of the drilled threaded holes for the zert fitting. Don't know if thats true or not.

[PEANUTGRWR]

YEA IVE HEARD THE SAME BS ABOUT THE HOLES MAKING THEM WEAK :rolleyes: IVE NEVER SEEN ONE THAT BROKE DUE TO BEING GREASABLE. LOOKS LIKE SOME TYPE OF EQUIPMENT WOULD USE THE SAME SIZE U-JOINT. WISHED I HAD SAVED MY OLD ONE TO TAKE TO A INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY PLACE AND CHECK IT OUT

[big dipper]

Hey guys, I have never heard that they weaken because of the hole, but more likely because people forget to grease them. This is probably the most common reason that the sealed ones last longer than the greasable ones. Spicer has always been my brand of choice. Hard to believe they don't have one yet.

George

[a64pilot]

You guy's that are wearing out U joints. Are your trucks suspensions stock?
Peanutgrwr,
Your one the right track. If your dealer would let you borrow one for a little while I'm sure a bearings and drive shop could match it. I don't like not being able to lube the things myself. Seems to be the trend though. The Frau's SS Camaro dosen't have any zerks on it. Apparently nothing needs grease?

[Maverick]

You guy's that are wearing out U joints. Are your trucks suspensions stock?
Yep.

[Professor]

Precision U-Joints should have them. GM doesn

[PEANUTGRWR]

YES MY SUSPENSION IS STOCK AS WELL.

[a64pilot]

Sorry to be bothersome, but I'm curious. Is it the same U joint that gets chewed up? Is it the one nearest the rear end? Last question, Do you guy's have the "telephone pole" driveshaft?

[Whitefire]

I've heard this among some dragrace friends and it semms to make sense. If you put the zerk in compression the U-joint is stronger than the otherway-round.

[PEANUTGRWR]

NOT BOTHERSOME AT ALL A-64. THE ONE I KEEP HAVING TROUBLE WITH IS THE AT THE VERY BACK OF THE SHAFT. I DUNNO EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE MEANING WHEN YOU SAY "TELEPHONE POLE" SHAFT MY TRUCK IS A REG CAB LONG BED 4X4. ALSO ITS A ONE PIECE SHAFT.

[a64pilot]

PEANUTGRWR,
Alot of the 01 trucks originally came with two piece driveshafts that had a hanger bearing in the middle. I believe the two piece drive shaft would flex at the hanger bearing at low speeds and high torque and the truck would have "launch shudder". The fix was to install a one piece shaft. I think the one piece shaft is made of aluminum.
Now I'm theorizing here so stay with me OK. I don't believe GM would have put in a two piece shaft if there wasn't a good reason. Two piece has to be more expensive, more parts etc.
I believe the one piece "telephone pole" drive shaft may be heavier than what you would want for U joint life and pinion bearings. I think excessive weight is the reason the one piece shaft is made of aluminum.
Like I said this is all theory, but if I'm right then you will have to live with short U joint life. Hopefully the pinion bearing is stout enough not to have a problem.
Of course I could be full of it and the one piece shaft may not be loading the U joint any more than the 2 piece.

[PEANUTGRWR]

A-64, MY DRIVESHAFT IS A ONE PIECE STEAL SHAFT. IT REALLY DOESNT SEEM MUCH IF ANY HEAVIER THAN ANY OTHER SHAFT I HAVE SEEN. SO I DOUBT THAT IT BEING TO HEAVY IS THE PROBLEM. BUT WHO KNOWS :confused:

[Modified]

Could these failures be caused by improper driveshaft angles? I talked a little to JK about a year ago, and don't know if this was ever posted. I'm no expert, but here's what I understand, and read in Helms 2002, p.0-118 thru 0-122.
The angle developed between the transmission output shaft and the drive shaft, and the angle developed between drive shaft and the drive axil pinion should be <4 deg., and >0 deg. Ideally, these angles should be equal within 1/2 deg., opposite, and the smaller the better.
The angles need to be opposite, so that the driveshaft will rotate on its axis. If the angles are not opposite, this may allow the driveshaft to "jump rope". The angles also need to be >0, or premature U-joint wear due to lack of rotation of the needle bearings in the U-joint, which prevents proper lubrication.
I measured my angles on my 2002 long box X-cab with the single driveshaft. My front angle was quite a bit at about 3 to 3.5 deg. The rear angle was about .5 deg. These angles were not opposite, as desired. These angles may change, depending on load, or suspension mods. JK's site mentions how he shimmed his transfer case and rear axil to improve the angles.
These failures may be caused by too small of an angle on this rear U-joint, which is causing improper lubrication. Just a thought. JK knows much more.

[SoMnDMAX]

I'm using U-joints from a '90s F350 Ford truck. NAPA didn't list a part number for the 2500HD, and the tech lines didn't help either.

I can't remember the exact NAPA part #, but with the dimensions, your parts dude should be able to hook you up.

Cap diameter 1 3/16
Width (over caps) 4 3/16
OUTBOARD clips.

Both joints were under $40.

My rear joint failed @ 37,000 miles.

On edit: corrected the incorrect measurement over the caps. redface.gif

[ 07-22-2003, 01:24 AM: Message edited by: SoMnDMAX ]

[Black Dog]

Cap diameter 1 3/16
Width (over caps) 4 5/16 (will double check)
OUTBOARD clips.
If the width over the caps is 4 3/16 (where they seat into the yokes), that is a normal 1410 series U-joint. I hope that is what it is, and not something new they dreamed up.

[ 07-21-2003, 05:58 AM: Message edited by: Black Dog ]

[TEXASTOUGHDMAX]

When mine went out only one cup was dry; the needle bearings turned to powder. The other three looked perfect.

My theory: A rock (or some other object) hit the seal on that one cup, thus allowing dust infiltration, leading to failure.

My driveshaft is a 2-piece.

What failure modes did ya'll see?

[Professor]

U-Joint Part Numbers

I had a chance to stop by my old part-time job at the auto parts store today and thought about the u-joints question.

As per the 2003 Precision catalog:

01-03 Allison Trans
Part Number 330 (Spicer 1410 series) 1 3/16 caps 4 3/16 Outside measurement.
The also make a greaseable severe duty joint part number 295 for this application.
It is not available in the non-greasable severe duty.

01-03 6 Speed
Part Number 351 (Spicer 1480 series) 1 3/8 caps 4 3/16 Outside measurement
The is the only version they show available in this size


I also found something I had not seen previously. The 330 joint is available as a 330C. It is a coated bearing cap version for use in aluminum drive shafts to prevent Galvanic Reaction. How you keep the coating on when pressing it in, I wouldn

[PEANUTGRWR]

HEY THANKS FOR ALL THE HELP GUYS. IM SEEING THE SAME TYPE OF FAILER AS METIONED ABOUT ONLY ONE OF THE CUPS WILL BE DRY AND THE OTHER 3 WILL BE IN GOOD SHAPE.

[dmaxalliTech]

Originally posted by a64pilot:
PEANUTGRWR,

I believe the one piece "telephone pole" drive shaft may be heavier than what you would want for U joint life and pinion bearings. I think excessive weight is the reason the one piece shaft is made of aluminum.
actually the telephone pole is quite light weight compared to what it looks like. much lighter then the two piece it replaces

[Maverick]

My last two had one dry cup also.
I have a one piece drive shaft also.

[SoMnDMAX]

Originally posted by Black Dog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
If the width over the caps is 4 3/16 (where they seat into the yokes), that is a normal 1410 series U-joint. I hope that is what it is, and not something new they dreamed up. </font>[/QUOTE]Tim, I was going to post a correction, but you got it right. The correct measurement is 4 3/16", not 4 5/16 as I previously posted.

I apologize for the incorrect info.

IIRC, the part number for the Napa (Precision) Ujoint is 330, as Professor posted.