Rock Auto and Precision 464 u-joints
10-27-2008 | 06:59 AM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rock Auto and Precision 464 u-joints
I thought I would share my experience with Rock Auto and the 464 joints I put in this weekend.
The steering wheel on my truck has been jumping for a few months now so last week I ordered 2 464s from Rock auto. I got the joints and the boxes showed the correct parts numbers so I thought all was good. WRONG.
When I opened them up to do the job I noticed that one joing had 464 cast into the cross and the other had 351. I thought "maybe they are they changed part numbers or something. Then I compared the size and the 351s are about 1/8" longer than the 464. I called rock auto and told them my problem. They were very helpful and we arranged a return. I asked them specifically to check the box before sending the new one and was assured they would. The new one arrived last friday and guess what? Another 351 in a 464 box. I called again and told them a few things I had on my mind as I was going to change them Saturday. They checked their stock and found they had only 1 correctly packaged 464. All the rest were 351. It is on its way.
I post this as I remember seeing people having problems with the 464's they were trying to install being to long and needing to grind off some of the yoke. This may be the real problem because the 464 fit perfectly.
One other note, I have never had the front end apart on my truck so I got to experience the stuck hub. What fun. Kudos to whoever came up with the powersteeing method of pressing the hub out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My old u-joint was rusted up insine and wouldn't pivot in one direction at all. truck drives amazingly better!!!!
The steering wheel on my truck has been jumping for a few months now so last week I ordered 2 464s from Rock auto. I got the joints and the boxes showed the correct parts numbers so I thought all was good. WRONG.
When I opened them up to do the job I noticed that one joing had 464 cast into the cross and the other had 351. I thought "maybe they are they changed part numbers or something. Then I compared the size and the 351s are about 1/8" longer than the 464. I called rock auto and told them my problem. They were very helpful and we arranged a return. I asked them specifically to check the box before sending the new one and was assured they would. The new one arrived last friday and guess what? Another 351 in a 464 box. I called again and told them a few things I had on my mind as I was going to change them Saturday. They checked their stock and found they had only 1 correctly packaged 464. All the rest were 351. It is on its way.
I post this as I remember seeing people having problems with the 464's they were trying to install being to long and needing to grind off some of the yoke. This may be the real problem because the 464 fit perfectly.
One other note, I have never had the front end apart on my truck so I got to experience the stuck hub. What fun. Kudos to whoever came up with the powersteeing method of pressing the hub out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My old u-joint was rusted up insine and wouldn't pivot in one direction at all. truck drives amazingly better!!!!
10-27-2008 | 01:05 PM
#3
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
FWIW, I picked up a Precision 464 a week or so ago. The store only had one in stock, so I swung by Carquest to see what they could do. I don't know who makes the CQ joint (it was store branded with a different P/N), but it's a heck of a lot better quality joint than the Precision was. Better seal design, higher quality casting on the trunnion, etc.
I returned the Precision brand and got another CQ joint.
I think the CQ joints list for $71/ea.
I returned the Precision brand and got another CQ joint.
I think the CQ joints list for $71/ea.
10-28-2008 | 12:52 AM
#6
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
I brought this up about a month back. I got my P-464 U joints from NAPA. They were stamped with 351 on the cross body and i couldn't get them to fit inside the joint. Is this what happen to you jdreckard ? If so there may be a mistake on the production line somewhere before shipping.
Trending Topics
12-25-2008 | 02:46 AM
#9
Registered User
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
From: Sweden
I'm in the same boat and living in Sweden, I removed the plastic caps and increase the space a little bit between the holes in the axle, it was a little bit tight but works....
12-29-2008 | 01:51 PM
#10
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
From: UK
Ok, i emailed Rock Auto re this and got the following response;
although the PRECISION Part # 464 universal joints you
received from us have the number 351 cast into the cross, these are still the
correct universal joints. Standard Motor Products recently changed the manner
in which they manfacturer part #464. Please read my explaination below which
explains this:
1. The old Standard Motor Products part# 464 had 464 cast into the cross where
as the "new 464" has 351 cast into the cross.
2. The "new 464" is around .070-.090" wider overall (measured across the part
itself and at the machined portion where the bearing cups contact the cross).
3. Standard Motor Products made up for the difference in the offset of this
part machining the retaining clip grooves further down the bearing cup.
In summary, Standard Motor Products is using the universal joint with the 351
cast to produce part# 464, which I imagine was done for the purpose of
reducing the manufacturing costs of producing part #464. Please note that we
have confirmed with other customer we have sold "new 464" that this part fits
correctly. We would also be very appreciate if you could make a post a reply
to the thread you found on the truck forum that discusses this.
although the PRECISION Part # 464 universal joints you
received from us have the number 351 cast into the cross, these are still the
correct universal joints. Standard Motor Products recently changed the manner
in which they manfacturer part #464. Please read my explaination below which
explains this:
1. The old Standard Motor Products part# 464 had 464 cast into the cross where
as the "new 464" has 351 cast into the cross.
2. The "new 464" is around .070-.090" wider overall (measured across the part
itself and at the machined portion where the bearing cups contact the cross).
3. Standard Motor Products made up for the difference in the offset of this
part machining the retaining clip grooves further down the bearing cup.
In summary, Standard Motor Products is using the universal joint with the 351
cast to produce part# 464, which I imagine was done for the purpose of
reducing the manufacturing costs of producing part #464. Please note that we
have confirmed with other customer we have sold "new 464" that this part fits
correctly. We would also be very appreciate if you could make a post a reply
to the thread you found on the truck forum that discusses this.
12-30-2008 | 07:49 AM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
I had a 351 ad 464 side by side and the 351 was larger by probably 1/8". There is no way based on how tight the 464 fit in the yoke that you would ever get the snap ring in.
If you need the truck back together quickly I would not tear it down with only the 351 in hand as I think you will be waiting for a new joint. On the other hand if you can tear it down and wait for another joint if the 351 doesn't fit then it may not be a bad choice.
If you need the truck back together quickly I would not tear it down with only the 351 in hand as I think you will be waiting for a new joint. On the other hand if you can tear it down and wait for another joint if the 351 doesn't fit then it may not be a bad choice.
12-30-2008 | 08:03 AM
#12
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
From: NW Missouri
ujoint
I'll add, regardless of what u-joint you are using, if you assemble and then rotate the joint and it feels like it's binding, it won't last long. The binding will be the end of the trunion pressing against the bottom of the cap. This will cause friction which will turn into heat and boil the grease out of the cap and then cause joint failure.
You might get by with this scenario on a front axle joint because 99% of the time it's running straight and the trunion is not spinning in the cap. But if you assemble a driveshaft joint that's running at an angle with this issue, it will fail. When you are finished assembling any joint it should freely swivel in all angles and directions. If it doesn't, it will fail.
As to this particular discussion, there's no way that two joints 464 versus 351 with two different trunion lengths can both function correctly. I use a lot of Precision joints but wouldn't accept this condition. If I couldn't find one stamped 464, I'd switch brands.
You might get by with this scenario on a front axle joint because 99% of the time it's running straight and the trunion is not spinning in the cap. But if you assemble a driveshaft joint that's running at an angle with this issue, it will fail. When you are finished assembling any joint it should freely swivel in all angles and directions. If it doesn't, it will fail.
As to this particular discussion, there's no way that two joints 464 versus 351 with two different trunion lengths can both function correctly. I use a lot of Precision joints but wouldn't accept this condition. If I couldn't find one stamped 464, I'd switch brands.
01-04-2009 | 02:40 PM
#14
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 793
Likes: 0
From: West Warwick, RI
I got the same answer from them. I realize it's longer, but the inside lock up diameter is .100" to large? I told them the inside diameter is this xxx, and the new joint is xxx + .100, I said how will I get the snap rings in? Such BS, gota find another brand to go with..... Anybody have all the specs on the stockers, maybe cross them to spicer?
01-05-2009 | 01:43 PM
#15
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
From: Austin, Tx
I just picked up a set of Precision 464's. They are in fact stamped 351 but are the same size as the stock u-joint I just took off the truck. In fact after measuring them with a mic, they are within .010" in length both directions and .003" in diameter (cups)...