VCCA Home Forums TECHNICAL - GENERAL Mechanical - Engine, Trans, etc Universal Joint - How to tell if it's good?

I'm getting ready to install my U-Joint (1931)... I have pieces from two of them to pick from. With the roller balls dry, there is a fair amount of slop when they are on the four spindles. What I'm trying to figure out, is, "how much slop is too much?"

This is something that I don't want to have to replace again later. Should these be "firm" when assembled?

--Bill Barker

Bill
I am not sure about the enclosed type universals but with the open driveline units if it swivels freely and smooth without any rotational play they are generally serviceable. Someone with more knowledge on the enclosed type may correct me.
Tony

Bill,
They should be firm but not tight. Most of the noticeable wear will be on the trunnions. The inside of the balls also wear but at a slower rate. If necessary the trunnions can be built up and ground back down. Much harder to work on the balls.

It is far better to get it done now versus later. Loose U-joints and ball assemblies produce drive line vibration and weird noises. When the U-joint wear gets bad enough you can also feel it in the gear shift lever. 600W oil helps to quiet worn parts.

The inside diameter of the trunnion balls, on one end only, has a radius so make sure you put them on correctly.

Okay, guys. Thanks... I think that I'd better take this to the next step.

Now -- does anyone know of a good place to get replacements? I looked at Billy Possum's, Chev of the 40's and The Filling Station. No luck. Maybe Moffitts?

--Bill B

Bill,
Every once in a while one shows up on eBay. Good used ones are not plentiful. I take parts from several different U-joints (various years) and make up good ones when I need one. Running out of the early ones. I am about to the point that I need to go the machine shop route to repair what I have.

Turning down the trunnions to accept a thin stainless sleeve should be easily done. Just need to find a retired machinist or hobbyist (Bob Hughes?) to do the job.

Oh, the sleeve idea sounds interesting. Never thought of that before.

Also, they are not tapered. I can fit them on the shafts using either side.

Bill
Looking at the photo I would be doing the stainless sleeve trick as the pins on the left look worn and I guess the inside of the bushes are as well. I would hone the bushes lightly then sleeve the pins to suit
I have seen seriously damaged crankshaft journals that have been "metal sprayed" that have given no further trouble but I dont know what the process is.
Tony

Bill,
If you want a NOS one then E-mail me at bwbugay@aol.com

Thanks everybody... I made some progress today... Found a 1932 U-Joint and figured out how to make it work for my purposes (1931). I'll write it up and post it on the http://1931chevrolet.com site.

Bruce, I might hit you up for one for my OTHER car! Now that I'm into it, its obvious where some of the "clunks" are coming from. Ha!

And a photo summary of my solution.
Bill's 1931 Chev web site

Thanks again everyone who responded!!

As I posted above, I have done a similar "repair" several times before. Just make sure that you put the balls on the trunnions correctly so they get the proper lubrication.

For the life of me, I can't see any difference in the trunnion positioning.

Can you elaborate? A casual glance didn't find any difference... but I'll use a magnifying glass tomorrow for sure!!

Posted on December 4th:

Posted on Dec 7th:



ha ha... okay, I think that you're saying that one EDGE of the bearing is beveled. Okay - point to Skipper.

BUT -- Which side does it go on??!?!?!? ha ha. My abundance of engineering training and common sense would suggest that it goes on the 'outside'.... correct?

Bill
Skip probably should correct me but I would put the rounded edge in as that would retain more lubricant for the joint.
Tony

I also vote inside to act as a reservoir for lubricant. Any other votes?

I agree, the chamfered inner radius goes toward the inside, but not because of lubrication. It's that way because the shafts the bearings fit onto have a slightly rounded inner edge (for stress relief probably) and when new, if you put them on with the chamfer facing out, they will bind on the cross. Why they didn't make the bearings with both sides chamfered so you couldn't get it wrong is another one of thos imponderables.

That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

All the Best, Chip

Well, dang it... now I wish that I had taken a picture of them today before I bolted them in... BUT, I'll tear the dang thing apart tomorrow just so I can do it.

Yes, the trunnion bearing is different on the two sides. Turns out I had three of them facing one way, and the fourth facing the other way. (That blows the law of averages! Ha!)

One side of the bearing has a fairly large flat surface, while the other side slopes down quicker and the flat surface is a little smaller. When I matched them to the yoke shaft, the larger flat surface seemed to fit perfectly with the inside face of the yoke shaft. And that would tend to led me to believe that they should be placed against each other?!?!?

TRUNNION FACING INSIDE


TRUNNION FACING OUTSIDE

The inside diameter of the trunnion bearing with the radius goes towards the inside for the reason that Chip stated.

I have a question....Are the 33 standard u joint parts the same size as the 33 master?I know the yoke is different,but are all the other parts interchangeable?It seems everyone has u joint parts for a standard,but I haven't found a single one for a master.

Mike,
I have had the same problem, there are all kinds of standard u joints on ebay but never found one for a master. I finally took parts from about 3 u joints and picked out the best parts and it works OK but I would really rather have a new one.

Hi Ed,thanks for the reply.I have a friend I work with who is a great machinist.We have kicked the idea around for ways to improve this u joint.I know it will not be origional,I am keeping my car as origional as I can.He can machine the yoke ends smaller and make the bushings thicker.Thats 1 idea.We are currently looking to machine the "I.D. of the bushings larger and fit them with needle bearing inserts.What are your thoughts?By the way,you got a nice looking car!Where in Iowa are you?Our parent company is in Marshalltown Iowa.

The original U joints were made well and could last 80,000 miles with proper lubrication. This means not allowing the transmission to run low on gear oil.
The 1932 and 1933 Master and 1/2 ton trucks used the same U joints. The 1934-1936 Master had the same joint except for the rear yoke.

Hi Mike,
I agree with Gene, there is nothing wrong with the original design of the u joints. The parts are a little hard to come by because of the limited use of just '32 & '33. I am about 90 miles N. of DesMoines and I bought my '33 from Colefax or Colo?( I get them mixed up} in 1979 as a basket case, so not too far from you're parent company. Thanks for the complement on the car, we enjoy it but it is just a driver, not a show car. What company are you with?

Fisher Control Valves.A large part of the population in Marshalltown works for them.We build control valves for steam,chemicals....anything that flows through a pipeline,we make a valve for.And as for being a driver.....thats what it's all about!If you have a show car you probably wouldn't drive it.Enjoy it.I'm just having a blast driving mine around.

OK Mike,
Glad you're having fun with your coupe! Back to the u joints, I have always thought it was strange that there are so many standard u joints around. They made a lot more masters than standards in '33 but I think the standard u joints were used on more years.

And if you had a Standard all you would find is Master U joints. Thats the way it goes. The Standard was not a popular in 1933 and 1934 but the dealers must have stocked the same amount of parts for both models. I found that through the years the Standard parts I aquired sold much slower that the Master. Infact I threw out some of the Standard parts I had and could not sell.

My experience with uni for Chev 4,s has been select the trunnions with the biggest diameter, and then the smallest diameter with the balls. In the past that has resulted in finding uni's to get fellow Chev 4's back on the road.

In my own case three years ago, during a rebuild I purchased a nos uni from a later model Chev (splines at both ends), pulled it apart and was able to use the tailshaft end, which was identical to the original Chev 4. For the gearbox end, I had a larger trunnion version (I think from a truck etc) and had a machinist turn the trunnions down to fit the balls.

Since then, I have been able to pick up several sets of NOS balls that come up from time to time on Ebay. The part number is 351888, which I believe also fits Pontiac 33 to 36.

Regards

Ray