Replacement parts and continuing problems

[dailysleaze]

Where were they bought from/what brand?

[Mr Noisy]

Hi chaps

Firstly, Nigel, I run 15x10 wheels with a -50mm offset so the swivel balls get a hard time all the time.

Bill, the ball is sadly long gone a few months ago, but for sure the metal appeared very 'dry' and cheap, I best likened it to the cheap metal used on die cast toy cars when I was a kid

Both the swivel balls I have broken were Britpart supplied

After the first breakage I asked my parts supplier at the time for a replacement but didn't chase it any further

After the second (the other side) I spoke to Britpart directly (no longer had dealings with that parts supplier anyway) and the man I spoke to was very keen to not take responsibility, another swivel ball was sent a small amount of complaint.

I don't blame Britpart for this tbh because they are not manufacturing the product and I do not expect there is more than one quality available

My contact did try quite hard to convince me my part was not a Britpart unit though because apparently the machined type I was using (the recess inside to allow for the brass bush on a 10 spline discovery shaft) was only just made available by themselves thus I could not have purchased it from them a couple of years previous

This is rubbish if course, the parts people I was dealing with solely supplied Britpart!

Anyway as above after some persuasion the part was replaced FOC

In fact I remember now, I had to send the broken unit to Britpart "for inspection"

Regards my friend, his units were bearmach supplied but otherwise identical

It cost him £920 for a recovery situation in the desert

Bearmach have agreed to refund all of his costs if they decide it was their fault and seem to be currevtly taking the matter with at least an element of concern

No definite action yet however.

Anyhow, I have now fitted a pair of original LR chrome balls purchased on eBay at great expense bearing in mind their excellent condition, in the hope that they will be far stronger and thus reliable

Gwyn Lewis confirms that the modern Teflon balls are prone to breakage and chrome balls are the only way to go!

[bill van snorkle]

To put some perspective on how poor Mr Noisey's busted balls are....In my former life I have seen the result of quite a few LR/RR front ends after severe mishaps and collisions, including one that the l/h/front wheel slammed into the concrete safety wall on a bridge at speed. In the more severe cases the bolts fastening the swivel ball to the banjo housing sheared off with slight deformation to the ball flange. On a 110 County the bore for the top railko bush was quite deformed into an egg shape but the metal had not cracked. Also of interest should be that a few Maxidrive and Tibus Portal drop boxes, together with 35" tyres have been fitted to standard original swivel balls, albeit with a brace with few problems.The leverage effect of portals would be close to and probably exceeds the equivalent of running 46" tyres.

[Mr Noisy]

Hmmm that is interesting information.

The deformation rather than shattering implies that the material is very different between the various vintages of balls.

Quite chuffed to have a chrome set now.

Never had a sniff of stretched or damaged bolts, and I'm using my original 1992 set.

[Jamie_grieve]

On Land Rovers unfortunate enough to hit an AT mine with a front wheel It's the swivel housing that breaks at the studs for the king pins (in common with most driven front axle strikes) suggesting to me that the teflon coated balls are the 'new' weak point and therefore are inferior to the originals. I don't think I've ever seen a bent or broken series chrome ball but a few bent axles. The coiler swivels are smaller and weaker but you still didn't ever hear about them breaking until the advent of blue box replacements in recent times.

[bill van snorkle]

On Land Rovers unfortunate enough to hit an AT mine with a front wheel It's the swivel housing that breaks at the studs for the king pins (in common with most driven front axle strikes) suggesting to me that the teflon coated balls are the 'new' weak point and therefore are inferior to the originals. I don't think I've ever seen a bent or broken series chrome ball but a few bent axles. The coiler swivels are smaller and weaker but you still didn't ever hear about them breaking until the advent of blue box replacements in recent times.

The coiler swivel balls are smaller, and there is less metal surrounding the swivel bearings, but they are actually stronger in the 'throat/flange' area than series balls, which have a 3" diameter hole for the inner halfshaft bearing, and this reduces the wall thickness in that critical location. Series 2a and 2B forward control vehicles regularly split the swivel balls in that location. I deleted the halfshaft bearing on WildFings series swivel balls and welded 3"ID x 2 1/2"OD inserts in the bearing bore to cope with the leverage of portals.

[Daan]

I am a bit confused about the teflon/chrome difference influencing strength. Does the fact theat their finish is different mean the balls are different material?

I have fitted a cheapo teflon ball in the past, which I later replaced for genuine ones. Can I expect these to last and not break?

[bill van snorkle]

I am a bit confused about the teflon/chrome difference influencing strength. Does the fact theat their finish is different mean the balls are different material?

I have fitted a cheapo teflon ball in the past, which I later replaced for genuine ones. Can I expect these to last and not break?

I would very much doubt that genuine Teflon balls would be made from anything inferior to genuine chrome balls, those broken ones are rubbish grey iron and the agents should be banned from selling them in the UK and forced to recall all the ones they sold for a full refund. Someone is going to get killed someday due to rubbish like that !

[elbekko]

I am a bit confused about the teflon/chrome difference influencing strength. Does the fact theat their finish is different mean the balls are different material?

I have fitted a cheapo teflon ball in the past, which I later replaced for genuine ones. Can I expect these to last and not break?

I'd say it's mostly a materials issue, but maybe the teflon needs to be baked at a high temperature to stick on the ball, which causes a sort of heat treat on the steel?

[Mr Noisy]

I am not under the impression that the coating is the problem, just the material that the balls are made from.

On the basis that modern balls are Teflon and therefore possibly spurious, all chrome ones are genuine LR original.

I have a couple of balls of each material, I will weigh them to see it there is any difference.

To be honest I would think there is one sole manufacturer of these components. Would be nice to think LR are still making genuine ones at good quality but I have to say I doubt it.

Cheers, Sam

P.s. Also I should mention the man from Britpart tried to tell me that there were some casting marks inside the ball I sent him showing him that it was not one of their castings.

Whichever way round they supplied it, but maybe they have very recently started making their own.

Who knows.

[Mr Noisy]

I would very much doubt that genuine Teflon balls would be made from anything inferior to genuine chrome balls, those broken ones are rubbish grey iron and the agents should be banned from selling them in the UK and forced to recall all the ones they sold for a full refund. Someone is going to get killed someday due to rubbish like that !

Bearmach are so far taking the issue slightly more seriously, with some element of this kind of things perhaps being thought about, could just be lies though.

[Retroanaconda]

On the basis that modern balls are Teflon and therefore possibly spurious, all chrome ones are genuine LR original.

Not necessarily. I bought a set of aftermarket for my 88" back in 2010 and they were chromed not teflon.

Bought another set for the 90 in 2011 and they were teflon. Wear marks apparent at present time but not leaking yet!

[Pepé le Pew]

This all makes me wonder about the quality of the chromed serie balls that are sold these days. Are they any good?

I found that the original balls had "EN15R" cast on them which says something about the material used.

I have a new one here still in the box which i bought a couple of weeks ago with no markings at all.

And i have a old genuine one from a 1986 110 which has "C4" stamped on the edge. No idee what that means.

Cheers,

Eric.

[Mr Noisy]

Not necessarily. I bought a set of aftermarket for my 88" back in 2010 and they were chromed not teflon.

Bought another set for the 90 in 2011 and they were teflon. Wear marks apparent at present time but not leaking yet!

My apologies, I was referring to 7 bolt type for Disco/Defender/RRC

Perhaps your chrome were NOS etc or somehow leftovers intended for genuine LR parts department

Or maybe whoever is making series balls is still chroming them

I'm sure it's as good as unheard of for the modern units.

Regards your query Eric there are no markings on any of the balls I have seen, and it is something I pay attention to now.

I noticed my late RRC chrome balls I have just fitted were much thinner walled around the cv cup area than the aftermarket Teflon ones I have seen

Such a minefield

[Mr Noisy]

Not implying this is a bad thing by the way, but perhaps the aftermarket ones are intentionally beefed up to add strength through quantity not quality...?

[smallfry]

Does the teflon coating cover the recess where the bearings/swivel pins sit ? As teflon is relatively soft, could this be allowing the bearings to move slightly under load, replicating wear, thus causing them to hammer the casting into submission ?

Chrome being so hard that it has swallows tattooed on its neck wouldnt do this.

I sorta think its big wheels big offset and extreme use that mostly causes this. Wheel, tyre, and spacer combos are getting bigger and bigger nowadays, and this size stuff was never fitted to leafers.

having said that, like others have said, I have never seen a chrome ball broken like this either. Deformed yes, but not broken, and ASSUMING that they are meant to be steel ? If you look at the Mr Noisys picture, that ball has just cracked, like its brittle. Steel will not break like this. Normally it will show signs of stretch and tear also, and I can see none here.

I do not think Britpart make their own stuff at all. They are a factor of sorts, but they probably commission manufacturing companies to make stuff of their behalf and brand it as their own, but who comes up with the specification? and how ?

[Mr Noisy]

My first ball that broke snapped fairly clean off at the throat, this one split at the bearing which was a bit more of a gruesome failure.

Neither had any sign of distress or tearing surrounding the breakage.

[Mr Noisy]

My first ball that broke snapped fairly clean off at the throat, this one split at the bearing which was a bit more of a gruesome failure.

Neither had any sign of distress or tearing surrounding the breakage.

[bill van snorkle]

. Any engineering shop can tell in a minute if the balls are made from steel or iron. If they determine iron then a relatively simple test will determine if it is nodular iron or cheap coarse grain grey iron. The EN15 sig on the series ball is a material spec that I believe was a change made to address the issue of the ball splitting just outboard of the bolt flange on series 2B forward control and normal control 1 ton LandRovers with 9.00x16 tyres, but were sometimes fitted to regular models.It wasn't entirely successful on the FC's.

[Blanco]

From the photo it looks like classic brittle fracture. My bet would be that where ever it was made the QA/QC regime had broken down and the metal when examined proves to be the wrong grain structure even if it has the right composition..... suggesting departure from or shortcuts in the manufacturing procedures. It is the responsibility of the box shifting buyers to keep up on the inspections and make sure it doesn't happen.

[Mr Noisy]

I sadly no longer posess the broken ball but to me, a novice, it looked very grey and "dry" metal, more like sand you would find on the beach rather than a nice piece of smooth, fluid structured metal

Horrible looking stuff in fact, I'm amazed they manage to machine it smooth.

[robertspark]

Someone mentioned cast and steel sounding different ?? + long & short sparks .... bit reluctant to take a grinder to my swivels, but I have a set of chrome (OE - 89 LR90), and a replacement teflon set (can't remember the manufacturers box... as I was about to put them on my front axle).

And taping them with a ball pein hammer (size - too small for LR tool #2!), they both sound exactly the same and have a long ring to them (although I thought a dull thud was a sign of a crack).... so any ideas of what / if there would be a difference.... as I'm a little reluctant to put the teflon ones on now and my chrome swivels are ... well better than boarderline and not really leaking... (saw a deal on flea-bay for a new teflon set bought in error and grabbed a bargin [maybe!].

I'll take pictures / a utube clip if it would be beneficial ....

My concern I guess would be if there is any possibility that the temper may have changed if the ball had been overheated when the teflon coatings were applied (maybe even in error for Mr Noisy'2 two failed ones.

[JeffR]

I wonder where these swivel balls are manufactured, I'll hazard a guess and say China. A couple of folks I know in various manufacturing industries have had trouble with Chinese stuff. The first batch is perfect and to full spec, lulling you into a false sense of security, as more orders are filled the quality and spec falls.

As I said earlier, sooner or later it will cost some poor sod their life.

Resellers (Britpart, Bearmach etc) ALL need to get their acts together, at the end of the day, they are the ones who will be prosecuted when the inevitable happens...

[robertspark]

Jeff --- I fear the first port of call for a prosecution will be the enthusiast / home mechanic who installed the part....

cynical view will be: vehicle has accident -> fatality caused -> accident investigation required -> .... accident investigation finds various modifications to the vehicle (maybe a lift, maybe spacers / adapters for a wheel change... maybe aftermarket wheels).... and a swivel in bits -----> accident investigation concludes various modifications were the cause of the accident ... carried out by untrained professional (usual media hype [sells papers + fills media time slot] .... trial by media / public with no sight of any evidence .... home mechanic nailed to wall due maybe in part poor solicitor / representation ....technically the home mechanic was sold a poor part so they should in turn sue the supplier..... that will never happen due to legal costs + being locked up and a report stating cause of accident "modifications".

May be a different scenario if it really was a bog standard vehicle with zero mods all work done by garages with full service history.

---> I remain surprised still no assurance from the pattern part swivel suppliers for a critical component (or is it not seen as critical) / or brand protection comments.

[JeffR]

I suspect you are correct, sadly.