| Author |
Message |
pittwagen
Samba Member
Joined: November 08, 2005
Posts: 765
Location: North of the 49th parallel
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Wildthings
Samba Member
Joined: March 13, 2005
Posts: 50338
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2020 10:30 am Post subject: Re: Ball joint and Tie rod rubber boots FAQ |
 |
|
| pittwagen wrote: |
| Does anyone have any experience with these ball joint boots from Custom and Commercial in the UK? |
A link would help, a picture by itself doesn't tell one much |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pittwagen
Samba Member
Joined: November 08, 2005
Posts: 765
Location: North of the 49th parallel
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2020 9:11 am Post subject: Re: Ball joint and Tie rod rubber boots FAQ |
|
|
Does anyone have any experience with these ball joint boots from Custom and Commercial in the UK?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
type36
Samba Member
Joined: July 21, 2015
Posts: 22
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:02 am Post subject: Re: Ball joint and Tie rod rubber boots FAQ |
|
|
| ivwshane wrote: |
| Do you have any pics of yours installed. |
Here's a pic of one installed, worked like a charm
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
type36
Samba Member
Joined: July 21, 2015
Posts: 22
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:29 am Post subject: Re: Ball joint and Tie rod rubber boots FAQ |
|
|
type36,
Thanks for the information. Just a fleeting thought...do you suppose the ball joints are a similar size too? If so, part numbers that might correlate? I wonder if they would be compatible, given weight etc.?
Cheers
a.[/quote]
Had a chance to check today, Mercedes Ball joint boots are not the same, outside measurement on the retaining clip is 47mm for merc, 57mm for bay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
type36
Samba Member
Joined: July 21, 2015
Posts: 22
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2018 1:17 am Post subject: Re: Ball joint and Tie rod rubber boots FAQ |
|
|
type36,
Thanks for the information. Just a fleeting thought...do you suppose the ball joints are a similar size too? If so, part numbers that might correlate? I wonder if they would be compatible, given weight etc.?
Cheers
a.[/quote]
I would suspect they are near identical, same style of tie rod with a split end and clamp (only difference may be in the angle of the rod end) I don't have any that are not fitted to a car and the shop space is full with a few to may projects  , I will be working on the merc again but not till after christmas, the W116 is a bit like the kombi, in that there is cheap nasty shit out there too, but I have usually found a good supply of OEM or original is available for generally reasonable prices, some stuff is scary expensive, like OEM door seals at $750 plus a set but they are identical to original, so should last another 40 years...
hoping that these boots will fix the bays split boot replacement every other year.. we'll see |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
type36
Samba Member
Joined: July 21, 2015
Posts: 22
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2018 1:09 am Post subject: Re: Ball joint and Tie rod rubber boots FAQ |
|
|
| ivwshane wrote: |
| Do you have any pics of yours installed. |
No not yet, will post when done may be a couple of weeks away yet, off on a trip next week |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
white74westy
Samba Member
Joined: May 02, 2011
Posts: 777
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:50 pm Post subject: Re: Ball joint and Tie rod rubber boots FAQ |
|
|
| type36 wrote: |
Hi Guys,
In the process of replacing the failed tie rod boots on the bay (near new tie rods) and remember reading this post and the lack pf a decent outcome on alternative boots.
On a hunch, i.e. was pretty sure the dimensions were similar last time i looked from memory...
I have a 78 Merc W116 450SEL and checked the boot dimensions and went and removed a cracked boot on the bay Tie rod and drag link, identical.. 
You can still buy OEM and original mercedes boots for around 34USD for a set of 4 with new retainers
Merc part number is 000-330-04-85-M22
TRW part number TRW 022-0002-914-009c (dimensions: large hole 28mm, small hole 12mm, uncompressed height 22mm)
(Exact part here at Pelican parts: http://www.pelicanparts.com/cgi-bin/...g_description=) Mercedes ? # 000-330-04-85-M22
and also multiple suppliers on ebay in US and Latvia...
just bought a few sets.. |
type36,
Thanks for the information. Just a fleeting thought...do you suppose the ball joints are a similar size too? If so, part numbers that might correlate? I wonder if they would be compatible, given weight etc.?
Cheers
a. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
airschooled
Air-Schooled
Joined: April 04, 2012
Posts: 12721
Location: on a bike ride somewhere
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:52 am Post subject: Re: Ball joint and Tie rod rubber boots FAQ |
|
|
| type36 wrote: |
Merc part number is 000-330-04-85-M22
TRW part number TRW 022-0002-914-009c (dimensions: large hole 28mm, small hole 12mm, uncompressed height 22mm)
(Exact part here at Pelican parts: http://www.pelicanparts.com/cgi-bin/...g_description=) Mercedes ? # 000-330-04-85-M22 |
Very nice!
If anyone else has a hard time getting that link to work, just copy-paste the Mercedes part number in the Pelican search bar. You'll get something like this:
_________________
Learn how your vintage VW works. And why it doesn't!
One-on-one tech help for your Volkswagen:
www.airschooled.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ivwshane
Samba Member
Joined: May 19, 2011
Posts: 1920
Location: Sacramento ca
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:20 am Post subject: Re: Ball joint and Tie rod rubber boots FAQ |
|
|
Do you have any pics of yours installed.
_________________
77 westy 2.0 FI
69 ghia coup 1600dp
70 single cab |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
type36
Samba Member
Joined: July 21, 2015
Posts: 22
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:42 am Post subject: Re: Ball joint and Tie rod rubber boots FAQ |
|
|
Hi Guys,
In the process of replacing the failed tie rod boots on the bay (near new tie rods) and remember reading this post and the lack pf a decent outcome on alternative boots.
On a hunch, i.e. was pretty sure the dimensions were similar last time i looked from memory...
I have a 78 Merc W116 450SEL and checked the boot dimensions and went and removed a cracked boot on the bay Tie rod and drag link, identical..
You can still buy OEM and original mercedes boots for around 34USD for a set of 4 with new retainers
Merc part number is 000-330-04-85-M22
TRW part number TRW 022-0002-914-009c (dimensions: large hole 28mm, small hole 12mm, uncompressed height 22mm)
(Exact part here at Pelican parts: http://www.pelicanparts.com/cgi-bin/...g_description=) Mercedes ? # 000-330-04-85-M22
and also multiple suppliers on ebay in US and Latvia...
just bought a few sets.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
69BahamaYellow
Samba Member
Joined: April 22, 2011
Posts: 536
Location: Talbott, TN
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:31 pm Post subject: Re: question on ball joint and tie rod rubber boots |
|
|
| 69BahamaYellow wrote: |
I just installed 1 of these to replace a split boot.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/2-X-High-Quality-Rubber-Du...2749.l2649
The fit is pretty close to the Febi-Bilstein boot that it replaced, except that the inner hole is slightly bigger and the outer hole is slightly smaller. The new boot does not have as much pleated rubber as the old one, but it will still handle the full range of motion of the ball joint shaft. I recycled the retainer clips from my old boot for the new one.
One thing I like about this new boot is that the larger inner hole lets the boot rotate on the inner shaft when you turn the steering. The old boot would not rotate on the shaft so the whole thing would just twist whenever you turn the steering, which put a lot of stress on the boot. That's probably why it finally tore. There was no evidence of rubber cracking like you see on the Chinese boots.... Time will tell how well this boot I found on eBay holds up, but I've used the Bus Depot Chinese ones and they did not last a year before the rubber disintegrated. |
After 1 year in service and around 7,000 miles, I checked the condition of this boot to see how it's holding up. It still looks brand new. No chalky surface, no cracking, no leaking. None of the previous replacement boots have lasted this long, so perhaps we may have a winner! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raygreenwood
Samba Member
Joined: November 24, 2008
Posts: 21513
Location: Oklahoma City
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:48 pm Post subject: Re: question on ball joint and tie rod rubber boots |
|
|
| VWDog wrote: |
| raygreenwood wrote: |
| In a week or so I will start a thread to post results over a period of time. Ray |
Did you ever do this Ray? I looked but could not find. My SC's boots that I was "forced" to buy from CIP1 after Bus Boys closed shop(apparently theirs were the ones to get), were well disintegrated at the just over 2 year mark. I am looking for a solution.... 
Thanks,
Don |
My grease testimg with various rubber products is still cooking along. Its been added to by the "main" client. After I deliver what they paid for.....I can start posting details of "my" parts of the testing. Possibly August.
Some interesting things though.....all I can say is that its clear several greases have problems with several rubber types. Is it the grease's fault.....or the rubber quality? Tough question. All I am working toward on my end is what grease /oil should not,be used with what rubber. Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VWDog
Samba Member
Joined: June 24, 2005
Posts: 617
Location: Ladysmith, BC
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:57 pm Post subject: Re: question on ball joint and tie rod rubber boots |
|
|
| raygreenwood wrote: |
| In a week or so I will start a thread to post results over a period of time. Ray |
Did you ever do this Ray? I looked but could not find. My SC's boots that I was "forced" to buy from CIP1 after Bus Boys closed shop(apparently theirs were the ones to get), were well disintegrated at the just over 2 year mark. I am looking for a solution....
Thanks,
Don
_________________
1970 Lotus White Single Cab 2015- , 1979 Sage Green 2014-2015, 1978 Dakota Beige Westy 2012-2015, 1978 Neptune Blue Riviera 2012-2017 , 1970 Neptune Blue Bus 2010-2012, 1970 Deluxe Savannah Beige 2010-2012, 1985 Iltis 2010- , 1962 Single Cab 2010-2013, 1975 Brasilia? Bay/Split Kombi from Brazil 2008-2011, 1985 DoKa 1999-2009, 1971 Bus 1999-2000, 1968 Double Cab 1991-1998, 1965 Ghia 1987-1991, 1970 Westfalia-bought by Mum and Dad in 1970, sold by me in 1993 why-oh-why :_(
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raygreenwood
Samba Member
Joined: November 24, 2008
Posts: 21513
Location: Oklahoma City
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:02 am Post subject: Re: Ball joint and Tie rod rubber boots FAQ |
|
|
| 69BahamaYellow wrote: |
Thank you for sharing that, Ray. It's frustrating to see that any new car you buy is supplied with tie rod, ball, and CV joint boots that will easily last 10 years, but most anything available for a bus wont last a year; I think you nailed all the reasons for that.....
Now the good news is that these boots from Polyboots.com (available on eBay), may indeed be a viable alternative to the Chinese garbage we currently have to choose from; only time will tell.
I can confirm the 22-44-32 size polyurethane boot they offer fits a 1978 bus ball joint. They also have some explanation for why that material is a good choice on their website. I saw similar arguments from a farm machinery rebuilder that polyurethane was an excellent choice for ball joint boots because of it's tear and abrasion resistance and resistance to various petroleum grease and ozone.
https://polyboots.com/why-polyurethane-dust-boots
I also get what you're saying about Silicone Grease. I checked with this manufacturer of Silicone Grease, and they did not recommend it for ball joints, unless you were using a "natural rubber" boot, or something that was attacked by petroleum oils. In that case, anything is better than water and sand from having a disintegrated boot. They recommended their synthetic grease for ball joints, which is compatible with polyurethane
http://www.super-lube.com/files/pdfs/Super_Lube_Compatibility_Chart.pdf |
Ok....I will try not to be ugly here to any company.
I have seen polyboot quite some time ago.
There are so many patently incorrect and sales oriented BS statements on that page you linked to....that is litdrally pisses me off.
1. Polyurethane is the absolute WORST material for boots on the market. THE WORST!.
Show me ANY....even just 1.....OEM using PU for any elastomer....anywhere on suspension or drivetrain. There is not a single one....ever.
PU....polyurethane....has great ozone, water, abrasion resistance and pretty damn good oil resistance.....oil....not hydrocarbon. There is a difference. BUT...... in order to have required flexibility for even a ball joint boot....the durometer....after casting.....must be below 35 shore A.
PU below 60 shore A (bearing in mind that the average boot material in Viton or Nitrile is about 40A- 45A and tires are 55A)......has absolutely crappy tear resistance.
So.....virtually all CAST PU parts (remember that term)...are a minimum of 70A hardness.
This is far too hard for boot flexibility and they have no flex and they pop loose from the joint. PU ball joint and tie rod end boots have been on the market for decades from Energy and other companies....and they flat out suck.
2. From the above info.....you will find that a year after installation.....that 70 Durometer boot....which is already too stiff.....will now be 75 durometer. Year 2 it will be 80 durometer. Bearing in mind that normal boots are 40-45A.
3. Do not be baffled by the BS on that site.....the terminology between polysilloxane and silicone is BS. Siloxane is hydrolyzed silicone. All silicone products are siloxane compounds. Polysilloxane simply means silicone compound.
No one has "prettied up" anything. Calling attention to a worthless fact is the prime mark of a marketing department.
4. Their reasons of note for NOT usong silicones in boots......are only peripherally correct and not accurate. Just like urethanes.....there are literally thousands of silicones from pourable, to injection molding, two part cure with three different mechanism, RTVs.....and ranging from basic silicones to impregnated silicones to hard and ultra skin soft silicones and fluoroelastomer silicones.
Silicones are superb for these boots. The abrasion resistsnce issue .....is a non issue. That is a very poor laymans way of saying that the softer silicones have too much surface traction they have a tendency to grab on to very smooth surfaces.
There are silicones that rival urethanes in tear resistance. Keeping in mind....that the orange tropical flywheel seals on type 4 engines....are silicone....and last 100k miles.
Virtually all silicones SURPASS any urethane in temperature range by a minimum of 200F.
Its all in the formulation. Those formulations are sophisticated.
The reason that virtually none of the boot manufacturers of any mind.....use silicone.....is purely for the cost. In order to work with the type of grease required....and work with ozone.....it has to be a fluorosilicone. That is more expensive than just using straight viton.
5. The grease. I am the biggest fan of Super Lube products. Search this site...and more often than not my name comes up because ai mention it a lot.
But....it is a pure synthetic with EP properties.....but I have found it just barely adequate cor wheel bearings because its drop point is too low. It will work well for tie rods. I have used it.
BUT.....its teflon filler is not adequate for the extreme scuff pressure in either large ball jlints like the bus....or CV joints.
They specified this grease.....because using the normal greases with urethane boots......will cause accelerated hardening  .
6. The reason they are using polyurethane.....is because it can be CAST.....there is that word....with no expensive molds from a simple two part resin. Its the most common "garage level" rubber on the market......not the best. It has its place. There are parts that cwn only be made correctly....of urethane. This is not one of them.
In reality......what is required from what I am seeing and other industry people are seeing....is a multilayered boot construction for ball joint, tie rod and CV boots.
Ideally...a thin (so its less expensive) main inner layer of fluorosilicone.....good to about 550 whether you need it or not....perfect for any grease.....but not ideal by itself for tear resistance and fuels or solvents......coupled with an outer layer of a normal fluoroelastomer layer like viton which is perfect for ozone, salt spray, heat, fuel, oil....again....thin to keep cost down. Between the two layers you get normal boot thickness. In between the plies.....just like how they build fuel line....should be reinforcing.
This type of dual layer construction is getting more common. A very good example is the strut boots sold under the Duralast brand at,Autozone. They have a polyethylene outside and chloroprene inside. Cheap....great against outer abrasion....great for inner heat and oil.
Just remember that someone described this type of boot to you.....
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
69BahamaYellow
Samba Member
Joined: April 22, 2011
Posts: 536
Location: Talbott, TN
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:48 am Post subject: Re: Ball joint and Tie rod rubber boots FAQ |
|
|
Thank you for sharing that, Ray. It's frustrating to see that any new car you buy is supplied with tie rod, ball, and CV joint boots that will easily last 10 years, but most anything available for a bus wont last a year; I think you nailed all the reasons for that.....
Now the good news is that these boots from Polyboots.com (available on eBay), may indeed be a viable alternative to the Chinese garbage we currently have to choose from; only time will tell.
I can confirm the 22-44-32 size polyurethane boot they offer fits a 1978 bus ball joint. They also have some explanation for why that material is a good choice on their website. I saw similar arguments from a farm machinery rebuilder that polyurethane was an excellent choice for ball joint boots because of it's tear and abrasion resistance and resistance to various petroleum grease and ozone.
https://polyboots.com/why-polyurethane-dust-boots
I also get what you're saying about Silicone Grease. I checked with this manufacturer of Silicone Grease, and they did not recommend it for ball joints, unless you were using a "natural rubber" boot, or something that was attacked by petroleum oils. In that case, anything is better than water and sand from having a disintegrated boot. They recommended their synthetic grease for ball joints, which is compatible with polyurethane
http://www.super-lube.com/files/pdfs/Super_Lube_Compatibility_Chart.pdf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raygreenwood
Samba Member
Joined: November 24, 2008
Posts: 21513
Location: Oklahoma City
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:48 am Post subject: Re: question on ball joint and tie rod rubber boots |
|
|
| 69BahamaYellow wrote: |
| 69BahamaYellow wrote: |
I just installed 1 of these to replace a split boot.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/2-X-High-Quality-Rubber-Du...2749.l2649
The fit is pretty close to the Febi-Bilstein boot that it replaced, except that the inner hole is slightly bigger and the outer hole is slightly smaller. The new boot does not have as much pleated rubber as the old one, but it will still handle the full range of motion of the ball joint shaft. I recycled the retainer clips from my old boot for the new one.
One thing I like about this new boot is that the larger inner hole lets the boot rotate on the inner shaft when you turn the steering. The old boot would not rotate on the shaft so the whole thing would just twist whenever you turn the steering, which put a lot of stress on the boot. That's probably why it finally tore. There was no evidence of rubber cracking like you see on the Chinese boots.... Time will tell how well this boot I found on eBay holds up, but I've used the Bus Depot Chinese ones and they did not last a year before the rubber disintegrated. |
CORRECTION - Use these boots instead.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/2x-Polyboots-Track-Contro...2749.l2649
The natural Rubber boots can be used also, but you should only use Silicone Grease with them, since standard lithium grease will attack rubber.
The Polyurethane boots are compatible with most all grease and are ozone resistant |
Thats the problem right there.....You cannot use a silicone grease in a ball joint, tie rod end or CV unless its heavily infused with molybdenum disulphide and/or graphite or lead (old school grease).
The ball joints and tie rod ends make hard contact with the swaged or machined (depending on construction method) flange on the ball stud side. Without extreme EP grease....they will wear fast at this outer flange. Also....what are you calling "natural rubber"?
I have never seen any automotive rubber part North of the 1950s made of "Natural rubber". Buna N....nitrile.....replaced virtually all of the use or anything natural.
Polyurethane.....is very poor for a boot. There are two basic chemical methods used to make it with zillions of recipes. Both of them increase their hardness by a factor of 5% per year under CONTROLLED conditions. In contact with any hydrocarbon they can increase hardness by a factor of 3X or 15% per year. Urethane also does not do well with molybdenum djsulphide grease.....which is why urethane bushings are sold with special silicone non-EP grease.
Urethane is cast resin. Its actual total initial cure time after demolding is about 150 hours. During that time it shrinks by about 3%. As it hardens over its lifetime it continues to shrink.
However....what you note as natural rubber which is usually Buna-N.....works very well with moly grease.....but has virtually no ozone resistance.....and does not,work well with synthetic esters....so you have to be careful what is actually in the grease you use. A lot of modern greases.....I am finding.....have some small amounts of synthetic additives even when they are not listed as synthetic.
You also find a lot of these boots being made with neoprene.....which works well with ozone.....but horrible with moly grease (because of the VOC's/ hydrocarbons most have).....so neoprene requires a synthetic grease base.....so that means you have to find a synthetic EP grease made for joints that has either MDS, graphite or at bare minimum....a lot of teflon.
A few boots I have seen....are made with EPDM....which is really odd......and expensive. EPDM has the most ozone protection, but cannot work with hydrocarbons at all. They must have silicone based oils or some ester based oils and greases.
For reference.....EPDM is what windhield gaskets and brake cylinder seals are made of.
In reality.....these boots should be made of one of the numerous vitons out there....or one of the other fluoroelastomer rubbers on the market.
Along with the changes in rubber formulation we have been seeing over about 10 years....there has been a large change in the formulation of greases. Some of the application engineers I have been speaking to at some of my automotive clients.....have the same opinion I do and have been seeing sone of the same issues I have. The quality of rubber formulations is a big factor...yes....and its not just a "China" problem.....manufacturers here and in Europe changed their formulations in response to scarcity and cost of several chemicals......but added to that...changes in grease/oil formulations are also affecting these rubber formulations.
I am listing this information because over the last month I started helping one client to make up samples....contact patches on quartz plates.... of various rubbers and grease....for their weather-ometer units.
Since I am also working on a similar/parallel project....I started a contact patch test of my own. In a week or so I will start a thread to post results over a period of time. Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
69BahamaYellow
Samba Member
Joined: April 22, 2011
Posts: 536
Location: Talbott, TN
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 6:58 am Post subject: Re: question on ball joint and tie rod rubber boots |
|
|
| 69BahamaYellow wrote: |
I just installed 1 of these to replace a split boot.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/2-X-High-Quality-Rubber-Du...2749.l2649
The fit is pretty close to the Febi-Bilstein boot that it replaced, except that the inner hole is slightly bigger and the outer hole is slightly smaller. The new boot does not have as much pleated rubber as the old one, but it will still handle the full range of motion of the ball joint shaft. I recycled the retainer clips from my old boot for the new one.
One thing I like about this new boot is that the larger inner hole lets the boot rotate on the inner shaft when you turn the steering. The old boot would not rotate on the shaft so the whole thing would just twist whenever you turn the steering, which put a lot of stress on the boot. That's probably why it finally tore. There was no evidence of rubber cracking like you see on the Chinese boots.... Time will tell how well this boot I found on eBay holds up, but I've used the Bus Depot Chinese ones and they did not last a year before the rubber disintegrated. |
CORRECTION - Use these boots instead.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/2x-Polyboots-Track-Contro...2749.l2649
The natural Rubber boots can be used also, but you should only use Silicone Grease with them, since standard lithium grease will attack rubber.
The Polyurethane boots are compatible with most all grease and are ozone resistant |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raygreenwood
Samba Member
Joined: November 24, 2008
Posts: 21513
Location: Oklahoma City
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:27 am Post subject: Re: Ball joint and Tie rod rubber boots FAQ |
|
|
| Wildthings wrote: |
Here is a bus balljoint sitting next to a 411/412 balljoint, the bus boot is at 1/4" larger on the big end than the 411/412 boot and also quite a bit larger on the small end.
Here is an even smaller in size 411/412 balljoint. The boot is about 1/2" smaller on the big end than the bus boot.
411/412 ball joint
Bus ball joint:
The bus ball joint also articulates more in use than the 411/412 boots as the bus swing arms are much shorter than the arms on the 411/412. |
As I noted....these boots are not from or for a 412.
And thats not actually a 411/412 stock joint. Thats the repop joint by Rare parts it has a smaller ball and outer neck. Its actually from a Volvo....but works for the most part.
From the measurements that Tcash posted. The new boots I picked up should fit a bus with no issue. They are actually much larger than the stock 412 boot especially in length.... but fit because they are thicker than,stock and have a large end with a 3/16 cast in groove to use a wire tie or band clamp.
I will post actual measurments when I get back in town. Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wildthings
Samba Member
Joined: March 13, 2005
Posts: 50338
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:45 pm Post subject: Re: Ball joint and Tie rod rubber boots FAQ |
|
|
Here is a bus balljoint sitting next to a 411/412 balljoint, the bus boot is at 1/4" larger on the big end than the 411/412 boot and also quite a bit larger on the small end.
Here is an even smaller in size 411/412 balljoint. The boot is about 1/2" smaller on the big end than the bus boot.
411/412 ball joint
Bus ball joint:
The bus ball joint also articulates more in use than the 411/412 boots as the bus swing arms are much shorter than the arms on the 411/412. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
