Greasable U-joints

[greybrick]

Just wondering if many replace or modify their various U-joints, ball joints, wheel bearings, and CV joints to a greaseable type, the ones provided on this truck are all non-serviceable. I haven't changed out or modified any yet but would like to avoid failure problems offroad and maybe extend the useable component life at the same time, so I guess my question is what's better, serviceable or not.

.

 

[goodtimes]

I use servicable joints on the driveshafts, but not on the axle shafts.

Theories abound regarding what is best...but here is my take on it:

Servicable joints have grease passages through the cross...non-servicable joints do not. This makes servicable joints weaker due to the loss of material (exceptions do exist--ox joints, etc). But, you get the opportunity to get fresh (clean) grease to the needle bearings with relative ease compared to the non-servicable joints (which require disassembly to re-grease the bearings).

FWIW, I have never had a non-servicable joint fail...but I have had servicable joints fail (probably due to lack of maintenance and to much abuse when I was a teenager....). I do carry spares though....

 

[762X39]

I just had the rear u-joint on my 2004 Heritage F150 replaced at 200,000 km because it dried out and was ready to fail (it helps that I noticed something was wrong instead of pulling a FIDO).It was non servicable while the replacement has a grease fitting. I think greasable everything is better (my mog has about 26 grease fittings on the front end alone) but only if you strictly adhere to a regimen of routine inspection and service. 90% of vehicle owners (including people on this list) do not or cannot perform routine inspection and service so the new vehicle manufacturer's make everthing non servicable.

 

[ntsqd]

The big problem with a greaseable U-J in the steering joint of a front axle isn't the hole up through the middle of each pin on the cross, it's the hole for the zerk. The hole up through the pins is insignificant to the strength of them. The hole in the corner of the cross for the zerk is in the highest stress zone of the part. I've seen U-J's with the zerk hole in the center of the cross that used a 90* zerk, but I've never seen one of those in a steering joint. Applications that can use them usually have to be designed around them.

 

[stevenmd]

Serviceable Spicer all the way for me.

 

[madizell]

The big problem with a greaseable U-J in the steering joint of a front axle isn't the hole up through the middle of each pin on the cross, it's the hole for the zerk. The hole up through the pins is insignificant to the strength of them. The hole in the corner of the cross for the zerk is in the highest stress zone of the part. I've seen U-J's with the zerk hole in the center of the cross that used a 90* zerk, but I've never seen one of those in a steering joint. Applications that can use them usually have to be designed around them.

Use joints with the service port in the end cap, not the cross, and you avoid that issue, plus with the cap port, there is only a very low profile insert, not the traditional nipple zerk fitting. Service is done with a needle fitting on the grease gun, and the joint is far easier to service because the cap is in plain sight, not hidden in the cross. Particularly useful for Cardon joints where cross fitted zerks are almost impossible to get a gun on without taking the shaft down on one end. Further, if the fitting being out there on the business end of the cap will be an issue for you (damage from contact with debris) you can remove the fitting and use an end plug once service is done.

 

[MaddBaggins]

I use servicable joints on the driveshafts, but not on the axle shafts.

Theories abound regarding what is best...but here is my take on it:

Servicable joints have grease passages through the cross...non-servicable joints do not. This makes servicable joints weaker due to the loss of material (exceptions do exist--ox joints, etc). But, you get the opportunity to get fresh (clean) grease to the needle bearings with relative ease compared to the non-servicable joints (which require disassembly to re-grease the bearings).

FWIW, I have never had a non-servicable joint fail...but I have had servicable joints fail (probably due to lack of maintenance and to much abuse when I was a teenager....). I do carry spares though....

And in line with serviceable joints being weaker, I like the idea of my u-joints being the weakest link. I would rather replace a ujoint on the trail than have to replace a birf or pull an axle.
I grease my ujoints about 6-8 times a year.

 

[madizell]

Well, replacing a u-joint in the driveshaft is not bad, but replacing a front axle u-joint as found in Jeeps and such is a royal pain on the trail, unless you are in no particular hurry and have a joint press. I prefer when they don't break. If you want to build in a break point, hub fuses work pretty well, and are far easier to repair on the trail.

 

[MaddBaggins]

Well, replacing a u-joint in the driveshaft is not bad, but replacing a front axle u-joint as found in Jeeps and such is a royal pain on the trail, unless you are in no particular hurry and have a joint press. I prefer when they don't break. If you want to build in a break point, hub fuses work pretty well, and are far easier to repair on the trail.

Thats something I don't have experience with. The only u-joints I have are in the driveshafts. Birfields my friend, big, greasy Birfields!