New control arms (Savvy versus Metalcloak)

the engineers at my shop are idiots and i do as much cutting and grinding as i do welding. i cannot disagree with the ability for that to happen. but having witness the rubber transfer to the casing from the dry socket i don't think the rubber would last long enough to ruin the socket, just my opinion. but i can surely be wrong.

with the maintenance i see evident to keep them lubed it'd take neglect to get there.
 
i honestly can't see any attempt to bond it to the ball, unless this 1 is a F-up and was not made correctly.
it looks like they just dipped the bushing ends in liquid tape kinda. if anything it'd be a failed attempt to seal the center bushing from crap slippin by more than a bonding agent. it's left me more confused than b4 seeing it.
To me, it looks like the outer part locked in the barrel somehow and then the rotation of the ball tore the rubber element. That is due to the ball center actually being bonded to the rubber element. Look at it again from that perspective and see if that makes sense.
 
i don't give a rats ass what joints yall run. it's no intended contest, just what i'm finding funky about these joints.
if you run these joints grease them often. or any other for that matter.

you got a 1/4" of rubber on each side of that ball.
the rubber weld is only to the shaft of the ball not the ball itself (cheesy). so it's just a dry socket away from tearing any one of them.

View attachment 181721

View attachment 181722

View attachment 181723
That would be nearly impossible to do. Not impossible but no one, not even MC would purposely design that in or try to do it that way. The entire viability of that joint depends wholly on a proper bond between the rubber element and the ball. You just have one that managed to not get bonded for some reason or the bond was weak and with the outer shell low on lubricity, the leverage won. The outer shell has a lot more surface area in contact with the barrel so when you articulated, the movement of the ball inside the element broke the bond loose. It isn't supposed to be that way, just a simple manufacturing defect that resulted in the failure you see.
 
had i been more diligent at lubing them, it may not have occurred. i myself was unaware they needed a more aggressive maintenance schedule.
and i'm not contesting the idea of i just got a bad joint.
but i can't hide my question of the sufficiency of the rubbers durometer being a bit on the soft side, or lets give them right to the brink of soft.
 
had i been more diligent at lubing them, it may not have occurred. i myself was unaware they needed a more aggressive maintenance schedule.
and i'm not contesting the idea of i just got a bad joint.
but i can't hide my question of the sufficiency of the rubbers durometer being a bit on the soft side, or lets give them right to the brink of soft.
If your marketing is that you can solve harsh ride characteristics with a soft joint, then you have to make a soft joint however flawed that premise is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjvw
go up a couple #'s on that durometer and get rid of the truck springs and stiff shocks, it'd (their sys) do better.

the sporting industry has well proven the ability for soft compounds to absorb shock and vibrations. so i understand the idea.
 
go up a couple #'s on that durometer and get rid of the truck springs and stiff shocks, it'd (their sys) do better.

the sporting industry has well proven the ability for soft compounds to absorb shock and vibrations. so i understand the idea.
Again though, the challenge in anything like this is to find the balance between durability and durometer. If the element is too soft, it will not provide much durability under the same loads that a higher durometer will provide.
 
The last pair of lowers that I purchased didn't have grease. I just so happened to of put them on the vise to make sure they moved freely, and they sounded like a brand new 24.5 steer tire on a hot truck bed floor as you try to drag it out of the bed. I took them apart, lubed them, and went about my business.
 
my snap ring pliers are at work but yall made me get at this now.
this had to be torn because it dried and could not move. only way i can think it could happen.
the casing is not any issue. and i've mentioned b4 if you run these joints grease them at least 2x a yr or more if you run in dirty terrain.
casing is spotless. i did also have some rubber transfer in a couple.
i can crush the rubber with pliers in my left hand, hmmmm.

View attachment 181704

View attachment 181705

View attachment 181706

View attachment 181707

View attachment 181708
Sorry to be so late on this. But is this a MC joint?
 
yep, the center of 1.
Did you replace your duroflex joints with JJ's? My tear in front frame side upper control looks very similar to your tear. I'm trying to decide if I replace with MC rebuild or try a JJ if I can find one that will fit the Metalcloak control arm.
 
Last edited:
The MC arm is not worth trying to retain when upgrading to Currie Johnny Joints.
Not sure i understand why its not worth retaining the arm. It's an aluminum double adjustable arm. Nothing wrong with the arm just the joint. And only one joint to replace on the uppers.
 
The MC arm is not worth trying to retain when upgrading to Currie Johnny Joints.
What makes the arm any better? Swapping joints seems like a fairly reasonable option. Unless the joints ended up being the same price as the arms that is.
 
What makes the arm any better? Swapping joints seems like a fairly reasonable option. Unless the joints ended up being the same price as the arms that is.
I sure hope the joints don't cost the price of a new arm. 🤪
 
I sure hope the joints don't cost the price of a new arm. 🤪
Threads seem different.
Screenshot_20210809-204434_Chrome.jpg
Screenshot_20210809-204152_Chrome.jpg



Jerry's right...