Drill grease nipples in sealed ball joints or not?

[Fitz98]

One thing that has always disturbed me is these "sealed" ball joints?
My truck has 150K miles on it and I find it hard to believe that the grease in the lubricated joints does not breakdown over time.
Is it worth it to drill and tap in grease fittings on these original joints, or will I just be asking for more trouble and should wait until they start to fail and replace with parts with fittings?
If recommended to add nipples, do you have a proceedure to do it without getting metal into the joint during drill and tap?
There doesn't appear to be any problems right now, but I do have some extra time on my hands, so if there is an advantage to this, it may be worth doing.

 

[Torino]

In my opinion, not worth the effort. As long as the seals are intact the life of those joints is VERY long. John--Las Vegas

 

[demarpaint]

I'm sure someone has already done it. I think its more trobule that its worth especially when the joints already have 150K on them. I'd wait till they are in need of replacement.

 

[4x4chevydude]

My buddies Dakota got a squeek coming from them with very low miles so what I did it I took a grease needle and punctures a small hole in the boot and filled them with grease to stop the squeek.

 

[tom slick]

So you're not having any problems, the joints are still working great at 150k miles, and you think they are somehow inadequate and need grease?

How long did the last set of grease-able ball joints last for you?

 

[Eddie]

Absolutly don't drill it. You will damage the joint for sure. If it is dry and is rough, replace it.

 

[Fitz98]

Well, you sir bring up a good argument.
What used to be considered routine maintenance is no longer, so maybe they use better grease and with better boots to seal out contaminants?
Whichever it is the concensus is to leave it, so I will.
This comes on the heels of replacing a bad sealed wheel bearing, and other bearings are starting to sound a little less lubricated than new as well, so I just thought that there must be a grease lifespan. Just trying to do preventative maintenance, rather than replacing parts.
If it aint broke - don't fix it I guess!
Thanks to all for your input.

 

[onion]

I drilled 'sealed' ball joints once. And IMO it's not only unnecessary, it's likely detrimental.

This was quite a few years ago- maybe 1998 or thereabouts. I had a 1984 F250 with the Twin Traction Beam front suspension (4wd). The ball joints were worn out, so I went to the local Napa to buy some. Well they didn't have a full set in the same brand- I don't remember what brand these were, but regardless I had greasable upper and lower ball joints for the driver's side, and non-greasable (sealed) ball joints for the passenger side. Just for the [censored] of it, I decided to drill the two non-greasable joints for zerks... so that the two sides would match.

I used my drill press, and it was a good thing... because the metal was hard as [censored]. I had to bring home a cobalt bit just to drill the holes, and even THAT was thoroughly dull once I'd drilled out the two joints. Of course there's no way to entirely prevent metal chips from getting into the grease when you do this, but I think I kept it to a minimum. The metal was so hard that my self-tapping zerks couldn't even start threads- I had to start some threads with a tap. That worked ok, but didn't look great. The grease inside these joints was MUCH thicker than standard chassis grease FWIW.

So anyhow I got the zerks put in, and got all the ball joints installed. Then I went to grease them. The two greasable ball joints took grease just like you'd expect them to- no problems. But the non-greasable joints were truly SEALED. I tried to pump grease in there, and very little would even go in before the grease gun pump just locked up due to pressure. There were no provisions in the seals to let out air and/or old grease and let in new grease. IOW, it was a complete waste of time, and likely did more harm than good. Even with zerks installed, the ball joints were still not 'greasable' in any practical sense.

I sold that truck to a friend of mine 11 years ago, and he still has it. The ball joints are still intact (although this truck doesn't see a whole lot of use). So my little experiment didn't totally ruin the ball joints. It was just a waste of time and effort.

In my experience since then, sealed ball joints hold up better anyway. I had a '94 Corsica with greasable ball joints and tie rod ends- they were getting a little loose at 180,000 miles. But I have a 2001 Chevy Lumina nowadays with sealed joints. And at 231,000 miles I can't detect any looseness yet.

 

[Fitz98]

That's a great story.
That sets it in stone for me. I'm leaving them alone.
Thanks to everyone for their feedback.

 

[antonmnster]

I've done it. The shell around the joint was aluminum, so it was easy to drill through and stop once it hit the hard steel of the ball. I screwed in a zerk, flushed out the shavings by pumping a bunch of grease through, and called it good.

 

[51Plymouth]

Here are my grease nipple installation horror stories. I hope no one tries to copy my mistakes!

'89 Mitsubishi Galant - Some replacement ball joints have grease nipples, some do not. Not sure what OEM is. I think none. Bought car used and ended up having a greasable ball joint on one side and a non-greasable one on the other. Thought I would be smart and drill ball joint. Bottom cover of joint where the nipple usually is are pretty thin on these joints. Not enough material to thread in a nipple because I thought it would hit the ball. Joint was off the car so I decided to MIG weld on a 1/4-28" nut to thread my grease nipple into. I welded as lightly and as quickly as I could. Old grease from the joint expanded and came out and made the welding difficult. Got the nut welded on but when I threaded in the nipple to tighten it this thin metal cover spun around in a circle. Guess it isn't crimped on too tightly. When I greased it, it worked, but some grease squeezed out around where I welded the nut and the crimp of this bottom cover.

I thought the previous experience was fairly successful so during some front end work on my '95 Intrepid I drilled the lower ball joints. They were previously fine so I shouldn't have bothered. The metal was thin so when I went to weld on a 1/4-28" nut some nylonish material inside must have melted and oozed out the hole in the nut. The joints still feel fine and tight but I am not sure how safe they would be or how long they would last. I haven't used the car since anyways for other reasons.

A success story was when I had my wife's 2005 Toyota Echo front end apart for wheel bearing replacement. I added grease to the sealed joints by using a needle and put it between the tapered part and the rubber while the joint was apart. I did not stab the rubber. The sealed joints looked pretty empty of grease. Since the grease I was adding was on top of the ball, I used thin grease which hopefully will work its way around the ball.

I also have a '51 Plymouth car, and all of its front end joints appear to be original. Of course everything has grease nipples. Interestingly, the tie rod ends and such are drilled and tapped on the thicker metal on the side of the joints, instead of the thin part at the bottom like new joints.

I feel that if you are going to keep your car a long time, and especially if you live in an area where they use road salt, nothing is better than greasable joints that are regularly greased (every couple of months).

 

[Fitz98]

Does anyone know if the grease is any better in sealed joints, or is it just the fact that there is more resistance to leakage and contamination that gives them longer life. I was convinced it was a money thing...saving all that machining and cost of nipples during production and lubrication during assembly. Multiply that cost over millions of cars and you save a lot by saving a few cents per part.
If you had to replace them, and had a choice, would you replace with sealed again, or with fittings if available?

 

[Merkava_4]

A lot of times the aftermarket ball joints like Moog will already
come with grease zerks; if they didn't, I wouldn't buy them.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: onion
I drilled 'sealed' ball joints once. And IMO it's not only unnecessary, it's likely detrimental.

This was quite a few years ago- maybe 1998 or thereabouts. I had a 1984 F250 with the Twin Traction Beam front suspension (4wd). The ball joints were worn out, so I went to the local Napa to buy some. Well they didn't have a full set in the same brand- I don't remember what brand these were, but regardless I had greasable upper and lower ball joints for the driver's side, and non-greasable (sealed) ball joints for the passenger side. Just for the [censored] of it, I decided to drill the two non-greasable joints for zerks... so that the two sides would match.

I used my drill press, and it was a good thing... because the metal was hard as [censored]. I had to bring home a cobalt bit just to drill the holes, and even THAT was thoroughly dull once I'd drilled out the two joints. Of course there's no way to entirely prevent metal chips from getting into the grease when you do this, but I think I kept it to a minimum. The metal was so hard that my self-tapping zerks couldn't even start threads- I had to start some threads with a tap. That worked ok, but didn't look great. The grease inside these joints was MUCH thicker than standard chassis grease FWIW.

So anyhow I got the zerks put in, and got all the ball joints installed. Then I went to grease them. The two greasable ball joints took grease just like you'd expect them to- no problems. But the non-greasable joints were truly SEALED. I tried to pump grease in there, and very little would even go in before the grease gun pump just locked up due to pressure. There were no provisions in the seals to let out air and/or old grease and let in new grease. IOW, it was a complete waste of time, and likely did more harm than good. Even with zerks installed, the ball joints were still not 'greasable' in any practical sense.

I sold that truck to a friend of mine 11 years ago, and he still has it. The ball joints are still intact (although this truck doesn't see a whole lot of use). So my little experiment didn't totally ruin the ball joints. It was just a waste of time and effort.

In my experience since then, sealed ball joints hold up better anyway. I had a '94 Corsica with greasable ball joints and tie rod ends- they were getting a little loose at 180,000 miles. But I have a 2001 Chevy Lumina nowadays with sealed joints. And at 231,000 miles I can't detect any looseness yet.


Great story, the moral, leave well enough alone!

 

[Colt45ws]

I would personally stay with sealed. They tend to last about as long. Not many people bother to grease them, or if they do they just shove the gun on the zerk and let 'er rip until the bag pops and spews all the grease out. Push all the dirt that had built up on the zerk right up into the joint AND you now have to worry about water washout. REAL good for it Im sure.

 

[Shannow]

British mags used to show how to drill the new ungreasable joints, while Mum and Dad's Renault were sealed. Seems like the early sealed for life Brit units were the same old joints, being trielled by the public in sealed for life, while the Frogs had their gear together, and got good life.

These days, if it's undrilled, I'd leave it that way.

Same for wheel bearings.