I have a '97 SS/T that I am rebuilding the front suspension on. I know things changed from '97 to '98, especially on the dash but when looking up the ball joints it shows a change from '96 to '97. I ordered the parts for the '97 and after getting the first ball joint pressed in I put the spindle back on and it just does not look right. The spindle will not pull down to the boot and it is leaving about a half inch of the ball joint stud exposed below the knuckle before the boot starts. Trying to figure it out I went to the parts store and asked to compare both joints. Visually I can not tell any difference between the two the store had. When compared to the remaining one that I had originally ordered (different brand from the store ones) the only real difference I could see was in the boot design. On the one I had the boot was shaped more like a frisbee, not very tall and flat. On the store brand they were more like a tall dome. Now that boot, put on my ordered joint would have probably covered up the part of the stud showing but I still think it would not seat correct. Does anyone know what the difference between the two year models are? I have looked for specs and a buyers guide for the joints but I cannot find them anywhere. This is going to be my son's truck so you can see why I want to make it correct.
TIA

 

I don't think the suspension changed from 96 to 97. Better yet the suspension is the same to 98. 99 and up is where things changed at least on the 4wd

 

Every catalog and part store I've checked shows a number change between the '96 and '97 ball joint but when I look up the complete control arm it shows the same number up until '98. Maybe an update to the control arm itself??? Making the whole arm a direct retrofit but the original arms may have been different for the ball joint mount? But if that is the case then the replacement joint should have the same fit in the spindle. It fit fine in the arm but looks like it doesn't fit right in the spindle.

This thing is confusing.

I've emailed Moog to try to get some clarification on this. Let's see if they answer.

 

Look them up on rockauto or the manufactures web site. Don't trust what the parts guy is saying. Look up the correct part # then go to the parts store. Or look up direct from Mopar.

 

As I was reading your first post I started thinking “I wonder if he got Moog ball joints...” and sure enough, that was confirmed by your second post.

Moog changed their boot design a couple years ago - I can’t say for sure why. The first time I saw it, I was installing ball joints in a Chevy 3500 van. Same as you, I got the knuckle installed and then had a “Hold on, that doesn’t look right...” moment. At work we order parts direct from our supplier’s website, so I got to reading the product details and it said new boot design, so it was correct even though it didn’t look like it.

We don’t have an alignment rack, so when the shop we take our alignments to got it in there, they called and refused to align it because it didn’t look right to them either! I had to explain to my boss it was supposed to be that way according to Moog.

 

Moog offers two different boot designs(not sure if this is for all their stuff), It depends on witch you get but the ball joint itself is the same.

 

Well Moog finally responded but it was sort of like I expected. They just replied with catalog listings and didn't actually answer the question. What I did was I went and picked up the other joints form a local parts house. The only difference I can see besides the boot is that the later one is maybe a quarter inch taller and has about 5 more thread turns on it. The key hole is a little higher which allows the nut to be so far down on the stud that the cotter pin almost misses the nut. The only idea I can come up with is the change was supposed to be a superseded part number that the aftermarket picked it up as a new part number, maybe???? Since the '96 joints are the closest to the original I'm just going to use them.