Is this for real? I certainly hope not........
<snip> First, all service department
>literature pertaining to these components shall be
>updated from 1/4" allowable measured play in the joint
>to a radical new 3/4" allowable measured
play, effective immediately. This will allay all
>customer concerns, and most importantly, reduce cost!
Hmmm, increasing allowable play from 1/4 inch to 3/4 inch. That's a awfully
large increase. And it certainly won't allay this customers concerns. I
wonder if DC is taking into consideration, referring to cost reduction, the
increase in legal fees stemming from lawsuits against the company after
vehicles start having accidents due to, IMHO, excessive play in the ball
joints.
>The next step is the complete redesign of the ball
>joints for upcoming models, with the earliest target
>date projected to be around the fall of 2010.
2010???!!!! This seems to be way too much time to re-design a ball joint
when Moog has a ball joint set up that "fixes" this problem. Seems DC just
doesn't want to spend the cash to fix this problem right the first time,
even if they have to pass the cost along to the consumer.
>Although some ideas for this redesign are still pending, one of
>the more promising concepts involves the use of a
>lubed-for-life copper/glass composite bushing, with a
>high-strength flexible plastic dowel pin, to provide
>the torsional dynamic, and to a much lesser
degree, structural integrity and durability.
I'm from the old school and I still don't agree with the theory of "Lubed
for life" joints and bushings. And I don't know about anyone else, but the
idea of a plastic dowel pin being used in a critical suspension component
would cause me concern.
>One of the more daunting challenges with this particular design
>will be the actual retention of the wheel assembly on
>the vehicle, even in a standstill condition.
They are seriously considering a design that has problems with wheel
staying on the vehicle while not even moving? Lord help me I might have to
start looking at Fords!
Nevertheless, the main goal is to greatly reduce cost
>from our vendors, while at the same time, ensure that
>the quality and dependability of all of our suspension
>components meet some of the less stringent legal
>requirements.
Same old bullsh**. The company is looking to reduce costs any way possible,
even if it means compromising the safety of the owner and skirts the
legality of the vehicle design. To me this means build it cheap and hope
there aren't enough accidents to cause the NTSB to force us to issue a
recall and another re-design of the suspension.
Just my 3 cents worth. Inflation catches up with all of us.....except major
corporations, that is.
Ray Irons
Dover, DE
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 06 2004 - 11:47:26 EST