greaseable vs. non-greaseable U-joints

I'm looking for information about which is stronger, greaseable or non-greaseable U-joints. I have to cut back on my spending, so I am replacing my 260 joints instead of upgrading my shafts until after I do gears.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I always thought greasing a joint helped flush out contaminants and added fresh grease. I think grease-through-the-cap joints are stronger than through-the-trunnion joints. But why are new trucks coming with non-greaseable joints? Maybe there's something to it.

I personally think new vehicles come with the cheapest u joints (and all other parts) avaliable to manufacturers- just as long as they outlast the warranty period.

I like the idea of lubricating joints but my jeep isin't hardcore-built or nothin so I'm less concerned about their strength.

Good Non-greaseable are stronger because they'er solid.

I think if you've had an XJ long enough, or any other car for that matter, you'd see that the factories constantly put cheap parts on a car to save production costs. If its not a greasable u-joint, they went with a halfway decent piece that would last what they felt was a suitable amount of time before replacement would be needed. Lots of dollars go into the engineering of vehicles, trust me, they know what they are putting on these vehicles.
I have used greasable u-joints by Spicer, with the nipple on the body of the u-joint, not the cap, in high horsepower situations on some of my Mopar musclecars. Not one has broken, and Im talking about 11 sec. cars, not sunshine only weekend warriors. Just install them correctly, in regards to the nipple position. And of course, keep them greased, especially on an off-road vehicle.

There are "sound" engineering reasons to go with either type - but they're on OEM mainly because accountants think they're engineers (they're not...)

A solid joint would be good for ultra-high-horsepower or ultra-high-torque applications, where they would be checked and changed frequently (we're talking about a 12 month service life here, or dedicated high-power racers that get torn down after every run.)

A greasable joint is better for road service, heavy-duty service, or "dirty" service, because the joint can be greased (which makes economic sense to the owner) or because it can be flushed out with new grease (gently! Don't blow the seals, the grease should "ooze" out rather than "surge" out...) at intervals to help prevent dirt/dust contamination.

Given modern materials and manufacturing methods, there's no reason why a greasable joint should be considered 'weak' in anything but specialty applications - you'll see greasable joints in semi trucks. They're just much larger...

I refuse to use non-greasable joints in any of my vehicles, but I also see that they get "flushed" with new grease at least once a quarter, and immediately after I expect them to do any really serious work (like cross-country towing...)

5-90

In many cases the seals between a greaseable and non-greaseable joint are different as well. The u-joint companies are also out to save a buck so they tend to put really crappy seals on the greaseable units. I did a comparison a few years back of two joints from one manufacturer where the greaseable only used an o-ring to seal while the non-greaseable used a tightly fit double lipped seal. These weren't spicer joints so I can't comment on them. All I know is that the greaseable wouldn't last on my front axle shafts since water and grit would get in so easily even if I re-greased them after every wheeling trip. So from now on I've run non-greaseable front axle shaft joints and shortest I've had one last was two years which isn't bad.

The best would be a greaseable joint with the non-greaseable joint seals!!!

That being said I run greaseable on all my driveshafts without much trouble. The seal problem I speak of may have been specific to that style of u-joint...260's I believe it was.

It may be - all the Spicers I've bought had nice double-lip seals on them as well. I don't think I've gotten a Spicer greasable with an O-Ring sealing it - if I had, I'd be buying something else right about now...

How much did you buy these O-ringed joints for, anyhow? Sounds like two-dollar parts to me...

5-90

The joints I was comparing were from an auto parts chain...their "regular" brand so pretty cheap.

That's some good info right there.....whatever you decide stick with a good brand like spicer.

I'll keep buying a brand until I start to get shonky parts - then I'll find something else.

U-Joints? Spicer
Chassis Bearings? Timken
Engine Bearings? Clevite77
Filters? Wix
Brakes? Bendix or Raybestos
Chassis? Moog

I could go on, but I shan't. I've been sticking to these brands for a number of years, and they haven't failed me yet. I'll stick with them until they do, or until I'm not doing this sort of thing anymore (about the time I die and stay dead, I think.)

5-90

i've got all greaseable joints in my driveshafts right now and haven't had any problems. every once in a while i get under there and check them out and shoot some grease in them. only time i've seen a greaseable break was from the guys around here with jacked up half ton trucks that go "huh" when you ask if they have a SYE.

Spicer's 5-297x joints are an upgrade to the 260s, and they specifically call for the installer to not grease them, and to make sure the caps are kept in relation to the cross they came off. This is supposedly because they have had problems with the type and amounts of grease installed by others.

Read into that what you will...