The boot is pretty crushed and all I did was slip it on w/out tightening the nut.  I don't have the original ball joint to compare the taper to these ball joints.  I guess I'll have to make a trip up to Dallas Mustang to measure the ball joint stud on one of their arms. 

If the ball joint you have is the Chrysler upper as the part number reflects, then what you have is pretty normal.  I have done that on my 66.  For mine, I need one or two thick washers between the spindle and the castle nut to raise the nut up high enough to catch the cotter key hole.  It looks OK to me.  If you prefer you could attempt to drill a new cotter key hole but the washers will be fine.  I read a lenghty thread on another site if they need to be hardened or not.  You are pulling a tapered pin into the spindle and the required torque is not going to put an extreme load on the washer.  However, if your local Ace hardware is similar to mine, they have "heavy duty" grade 8 washers in one of the bins.  They are considerably thicker than a standard washer and if I recall, I need two to get the castle nut aligned.

GPatrick wrote:

If the ball joint you have is the Chrysler upper as the part number reflects, then what you have is pretty normal.  I have done that on my 66.  For mine, I need one or two thick washers between the spindle and the castle nut to raise the nut up high enough to catch the cotter key hole.  It looks OK to me.  If you prefer you could attempt to drill a new cotter key hole but the washers will be fine.  I read a lenghty thread on another site if they need to be hardened or not.  You are pulling a tapered pin into the spindle and the required torque is not going to put an extreme load on the washer.  However, if your local Ace hardware is similar to mine, they have "heavy duty" grade 8 washers in one of the bins.  They are considerably thicker than a standard washer and if I recall, I need two to get the castle nut aligned.

Thanks. I guess I was expecting the taper on the Afco ball joint stud to be the same as the original ball joint but I guess it's not.  Is your ball joint boot pretty crushed?  I'm just wondering if that's going to be an issue in the future.  If you've seen a thread somewhere that discusses this issue, would you mind point me to it?  Thanks.
 

Thanks I'd appreciate seeing your pics.  So you have been driving the car w/ no problem?

Had the same issue with the CPP control arms where the Spindle was way to low on the ball joint.  They have a tappered bushing that goes between the spindle and ball joint that brings it up higher.  To me the boot doesn't look to bad.  Do you have anymore pics of the boot below the spindle.  When I went with Street or Track they have a similar Chrysler Ball Joint.   Theres sat fine on the ball joint but I had a lot of thread left on top.  They supplied a think spacer that goes between the Top of the spindle and Nut.  That would fix your problem from what I see.

Steve69

Yours didn't look as bad as mine.   This is why I needed the sleeves.

Steve69

 

Last edited by Steve69 (2/18/2014 8:28 AM)

From what I found on-line regarding CPP, the issue was the threaded sleeve height compared to the AFCO/stock sleeve height.  When the ball joint is threaded into the CPP units, it doesn't sit high enough because the theaded sleeve is too tall.  There were a few heated discussions I stumbled across last night when searching for links on this subject.  If you use the correct AFCO threaded sleeve, it all works well. 

I have a similar problem with the CPP setup. I have emailed them yesterday about the tapered bushing. Someone on another forum told me about those bushings yesterday, and also said CPP charged them 6 bucks apiece for those bushings, which I will pay if I have to but seems to me like they should be providing them free of charge to fix a problem with their product. I emailed them yesterday and got no answer, so I will call them today. 

Like you, I've done a lot of googling about this problem and reading about using that Mopar ball joint, but it's very interesting reading in this thread that the problem is the threaded sleeve for the ball joint, as well as the ball joint itself. I had assumed at one point that if I couldn't get help from CPP I would try those ball joints, but now it sounds like that wouldn't address the issue anyway. I'm hopeful CPP will make this right. 

In the pics below, you can see the spacer they provided me for the castle nut, which is not even quite tall enough after we torqued them down correctly. I'm very concerned about the ball joints binding as the suspension moves. The first pic was taken when the rear end was off the ground, so the suspension is compressed. The second was taken with the front off the ground, so full extension. 




Bob

 

Those sleeves will bring your spindles right up Bob.  Here's a pic after I intalled the sleeves.  I had a problem with the Ball Joint and it took 2 months for the CPP to send me a new one during prime summer driving that my car sat.  I pulled there stuff off and went another direction.  I felt after I bought there stuff I was completely on my own.   Then that shim thing made me mad.  I wasted a lot of time screwing around with that listening to them make excuses.  You know this happened to me in 2009.  They've known about the problem with the spindle not fitting there ball joint properly back then.  You sure would of thought they would include those sleeves with every kit they sold by 2014.  Steve69

Steve69 wrote:

That picture looks like it would eat up that boot in about 3 nanoseconds as the suspension moves around.  Does it actually work like that?  Maybe this is the BEFORE picture?

Thanks.  Just spend some time admiring your work on photobucket.

MustangSteve wrote:

Steve69 wrote:

That picture looks like it would eat up that boot in about 3 nanoseconds as the suspension moves around.  Does it actually work like that?  Maybe this is the BEFORE picture?

That was the before picture after you told me theres no way in Hell you would drive it like that.  I think I took that pic in 2009.  Steve69