Packard Forum Index » Post-War (1946-54)

I need to have the front U-Joint replaced/rebuilt on my 53 Cavalier it has the Ultramatic trans. The drive shaft has about 1/8" of side to side movement in the front u-joint and chatters/shutters when coasting to a stop. I ran the car on jack stands to confirm. It doesn't have the typical u-joint. I need to locate a reputable driveline shop that can repair the shaft. Can anyone recommend someone in my area? I live 40 miles north of New Orleans, LA. I really would like to find someone local to do the repair so I can meet and talk with them direct(comfort factor). I would appreciate any suggestions.

Thanks,
Dennis

With Ultramatic your front universal joint is a "ball and trunnion" type, a type also used by Chrysler for decades and in a few cases they are interchangeable. It serves both as a universal joint and a slip yoke to accomodate fore-and-aft movement. They are usually long-lived if they were dropped, cleaned and repacked regularly which all too often failed to happen as these cars entered the era of maintenance neglect. Rebuild kits for these were standard service items with new end caps, balls, needle bearings and pins; the kits for the junior series cars are still easy enough to find, but the kit for the seniors (and I think the 300 uses that joint - someone with a part list open please correct me if I'm wrong - can perhaps be found though they are certainly approaching extinction. Installing the kit parts is very simple and direct, doesn't require any special skill but will require a hydraulic press to remove/replace the pin. I'd think any driveshaft shop would find this pretty basic work. But if the housing itself has wear where the balls ride, the rebuild kit won't solve the problem and totally new joints have pretty much gone the way of the carrier pidgeon. So if the housing is worn beyond use and you can't find a new joint, a good driveshaft shop should be able to adapt a Mechanics-type joint with a splined slip yoke. I don't have a recommendation for a shop in your area but I'd start visiting ones that specialize in truck work and tell them you have a "ball & trunnion" joint - if they give you a blank stare on their face, move on to the next one.

I think I remember someone talking about sleeving those castings so they could be reused. I wonder if you could put a shim washer at the bottom of both sides of the pin thereby pushing the bearings out and taking up the slack.

I would think that there are enough "parts" cars out there that finding a good donor front joint should not be that hard of a task. Ross would be first on my list of people to ask about availability.

For the Seniors with Ultramatic, the trunnion body (436179) is the same for the 49-54 cars as the 55-56 so the rest of the joint may well be also; if so Mike Dulinski would also be a good bet for a used joint. I also believe the big Chryslers like the C40 used the same joint so perhaps some of the Chrysler vendors would also be a possibility.

I just checked the Kanter September 2011 Packard catalog and found under group 18, page 24: all the parts for either end of the drive line ie: U joint at the diff end of the drive line and the Detroit ball type at the trans end of the drive line...The required parts or kits are available for the repair of your drive line. Hope this helps.

You might give Kanter a call but the last time I discussed this with them there were kits but no new front (ball & trunnion) joints available for the Senior models.

I appreciate all the feedback I am receiving.

I spoke to a gentleman at following link and they offer a replacement drive shaft that does away with the ball and trunion and replaces it with a more modern u joint. If you get a chance check out the website. I thought it was pretty reasonable a new drive shaft for $385 plus shipping. I was going to roll the dice and order a new shaft from them as I have not found anybody locally that I am comfortable with.

What are your thoughts?

driveshaftspecialist.com/Left-Column/Antique-Classics.html

I guess if you've exhausted all the other options of kits or a NOS joint which mayt be considerably cheaper, it's a very nice neat solution which if well made should perform just fine. If you go ahead with it, let us know how it all works out as unless we have an NOS or good used joint hidden away, others of us may be facing the same situation sometime in the future.

That looks like a very substantial and well thought-out solution. Please report any progress with it.