Simon
Somewhere around the mid 1970s the trend in UJs in the UK was towards
sealed for life and no greasing was considered necessary. This caused no
real problems except for UJs that did not 'bend'. The example I was
aware of was the Morris Marina where here was a central support bearing
with three UJs. The one that failed was the front one. This could almost
have been a solid joint because it was only the slight gearbox movement
on it mountings that it had to allow for. The solution was to fit a
grease nipple type to this front position.
On face value this all sounds strange but it seems that if the needle
rollers were allowed to 'work', sealed for life was OK. However if they
were not worked they siezed up and then failed.
I would have thought with all the movement that an Austin-Healey prop
shaft gets that UJs without grease nipples would not cause a problem. In
fact I have seen cars that appear to have done high mileage without a
failure.
All the best
>As I understand it there are 3 nipples per prop shaft.one on either UJ and
>one where the shaft moves in & out. I can find the front two, but not the
>rear one. Admittedly it's not so easy to see/get at without a hoist, but I
>thought I'd find it by touch at least.
>
>The car is a MkII BT7 so it's not beyond the wit of mankind to surmise that
>it might not have the original UJs. Did the after market ones ever not have
>nipples?
>
>I want you all to notice how PC and mature I've been..not a single nipple
>finding joke in the whole text.
>
>Simon.
>
>Your messages not reaching the list?
>Check out http://www.team.net/posting.html
>
--
John Harper
|