Re: Balljoints - CBS story

From: Tubamirbls@aol.com
Date: Tue Oct 28 2003 - 00:05:54 EST


I agree with SilverEightyNine.

I think the engineering that has designed both upper and lower ball jts such
that the entire support arms must be replaced to repair the joint is poor
engineering.

Moreover, I think the decision to go with all sealed ball jts has added to
their failure rate. Keeping the zerk fitting on each one (plus each tierod end
too) regardless of what the sales and marketing department thinks is necessary
to sell these trucks was also a bad decision and has increased the propensity
of these parts to premature wear and early failure.

In 48k mi, my 4 ball jts are not showing exceptional wear or fatigue but 3 of
the four rubber seals are failing and leaking what little grease the vendor
for Chrysler is putting in them. I'm currently going round and round (under my
Chrysler extended warranty) with my dealer to replace them all. He feels all
the grease should be allowed to leak out and make the replacement only after
the miles it takes to arrive at that stage! Read my lips--(he's hoping either
time or speedo reading, or both, will be beyond my extended warranty) by
then. I'm not accepting that position nor do I like having to make 4 separate
service appointments spread over several months to fix something that clearly is
defective right now.

I have a 2wh drive that I use for my business and never drive it "hard."
>From reading this list over the past 4yrs I know many of you, especially with 4wh
dr models, do drive hard and serious off roading too. Can you imagine such
an absurd position for a dealer to take?

Paul Sahlin



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 06 2004 - 11:47:04 EST